Poodle Marr's interview with Gordon Brown

I have already blogged about Adam Boulton's disparaging reaction to the BBC poodle in chief's interview with Gordon Brown and included a transcript of Adam Boulton's comments. Now I have found a partial transcript of the interview:

"MARR: Right Prime Minister, let's start with what I suppose is the bleeding obvious: Are you going to call a General Election?

BROWN: I'll not be calling an Election and let me explain why: I have a vision for change in Britain and I want to show people how in Government we are implementing it.

And over the summer months we have had to deal with crisis, we have had to deal with foot-andmouth, we have had terrorism, we have had floods, we have had financial crisis - and, yes, we could have had an Election on competence and I hope people will have understood that we have acted confidently.

But what I want to do is show people the vision we have for the future of this country, in housing, in health, in education.

And I want the chance in the next phase of my premiership to develop and show people the policies that will . . . are going to make a huge difference and show the change in the country itself.

MARR: Two weeks ago when the polls looked very good for Labour you were clearly thinking about the General Election and you were moving events forward and so on and now when the polls are not good for Labour you have changed your mind.

BROWN: Well I think we would win an Election now, sooner or later and I've no doubt about that, but . . .

MARR: The polls in the marginal constituencies tomorrow and in today's papers are going to show . . .

BROWN: Yeah but . . .

MARR: . . . six points ahead for the Tories in the key marginals, three points ahead across the country . . .

BROWN: The polls go up and down, I've got no doubt we'd win an Election. I would relish the chance, obviously, to scrutinise and examine and forensically show how the Conservatives' policies would bring economic disarray to this country.

But, you know, as Prime Minister you have got a power and you have got a responsibility. Your power is that you alone make a decision about Election.

The responsibility, however, is to listen to people and to exercise that power with responsibility. So yes, I think I had a responsibility to consider it, to listen to what people were saying, to listen to what the opposition parties were saying, to listen to what people in my own party wanting an Election were saying, to listen to the public, I believe the public, the priority was not an Election but . . .

BROWN: But having made the decision I made it for the reasons I am saying. I want the chance to show the country that we have a vision for the future of this country and yes I could have a mandate or want a mandate for competence; but I want a mandate to show the vision of the country that I have is being implemented and practised.

MARR: Two weeks ago, apart from being ahead in the polls, what was the case for a General Election?

MARR: But . . .

BROWN: You've got to consider what the people put to you, as I say you have got a power as Prime Minister and all Prime Ministers have that power but you cannot exercise that power without listening to people, without considering what they have to say.

MARR: But your advisers were suggesting you went.

BROWN: Erm, there were people saying that you should go, there were people saying you shouldn't go. But you know, I made the decision for a different reason.

The decision I have made is because I want to get on with the job of change in this country and I believe I have got to show people that we are implementing the changes in practice and I believe that what we are really talking about now in Britain is the rising aspirations of British people.

They have got to be met in housing and home ownership, they have got to be met in education, they have got to be met in the health service and I want the chance to develop and show that the policies that we are developing for this will make a real difference, will make a real change in this country."


Thanks to the Mail on Sunday for the transcript.

This is not a complete transcript buut if you want to here the whole interview then you watch it in two parts at the end of this posting.


Andrew Marr lets Gordon Brown repeat his claims about a £5billion black hole in the Conservative plans without challenging him at all. The claim last week was £3.5billion black hole but I suppose we all know that the real rate of inflation in Brown's Britain is rather high. Just remember that £5billion sounds a lot but is less than 1% of Government spending. I have worked around accountants for all of my working life and if an Financial Director of a large company couldn't make a 1% saving in costs without damaging the company he would be a very poor Financial Director; I suppose the only conclusion we can draw from this is that Gordon Brown is a very bad Financial Director of Great Britain PLC.

You can read earlier criticism of Andrew Marr's poodle interviewing here, this time Andrew Marr's interview with Gordon Brown after the aborted Brownite putsch against Tony Blair.

Another in the series entitled 'Just listen to what they say'

For some years now I have been pointing out that whilst Fatah and Hamas may say when speaking to the West and the United Nations that they want peace with Israel, they say something altogether more honest when they speak to their own people.


Here at MEMRI is Fatah Central Committee Member Abbas Zaki quite brazenly explaining to his Al Jazeera audience what the plan for Israel is...

'The settlememnt should be based upon the borders of June 4, 1967. When we say that the settlememt should be based ipon these borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everyone knows that that the Greater Goal Cannot Be Accomplished in One Go. If Jerusalem withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers and dismantles the wall, what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.... If we say that we want to wipe Israel out... It's not (acceptable) policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself. I want the resolutions that everyone agrees upon. '

As I keep saying, just listen to what they say; not to the BBC. For the BBC would never report such words from a Fatah official, they have too much invested in portraying Israel as the agressor & obstacle to peace  and the Palestinians  as just wanting peace and their own state alongside Israel.

Thanks to Israelly Cool for the video spot.

Another story of out of control immigration

The BBC report fairly quietly a story about out of control immigration that deserves wider coverage but I suspect will fairly quickly will disappear. The story is simply entitled "Bogus student checks 'don't work'", although I am not sure why 'don't work' is in between quotation marks.

The story for 5Live's Donal MacIntyre show reveals that:

"Immigration officers have warned bosses that new rules designed to stop bogus students entering the UK are not working, the BBC has learned.

Non-EU students are supposed to apply to registered institutions, and must prove they can support themselves.

But claims are now verified in the students' home countries, and UK staff say they have limited ability to challenge those they suspect."

Anyone who has worked in Central London near some of these 'educational institutions' has known for years that many are scams. The hours of 'learning' are short and many require daily registration but not attendance at 'lessons'.

The piece continues:

"One Heathrow Airport immigration officer - speaking on condition of anonymity - told BBC Radio 5 live's Donal MacIntyre programme that UK staff were overwhelmed by the volume of student arrivals:

"Student season has extended now to virtually the whole year," he said.

"We are looking at upwards of 500 to 1,000 stuck in the hall, queues stretching for hundreds of yards down the terminal.

"On occasions we've had to shut the hall as we couldn't cope.

"That has led to planes being backed up... to not allow them to proceed into Heathrow until we could clear what we've got." "

Do the BBC and Border Control not realise that the 'student season' runs the whole year because many of the people coming on student visas are not students they are using the student visa scheme to enter the country to work illegally. "upwards of 500 to 1,000" a day, that's 180,000+ a year on just student visas. Would classifying this influx as 'an invasion' be going too far? Do other European airports have similar problems? If so how are they dealing with it? If not, why not? What is so special about the UK that people will do anything to gain entry? Is the UK really 'the land of milk and honey' for those that can gain entry? The desperation of those in 'the Jungle' near Calais to get to the UK does seem to lend credence to the view that once entry has been gained to the UK, regardless of what the Labour government say, money is available for all.

The quoted immigration officer continues:

"If someone presents a case like that to a chief immigration officer, they take a look at the size and the number of people in the hall, and they turn around and say, 'Look, because of the pressure of work, they've got a visa, get them into the country'.

"It would take two officers off the desk hours just to present a case to send them to a detention centre."

And he believes this means people who have been denied entry to the UK on other grounds are able to enter the UK on bogus student visas:

"We have an awful lot of students who have been refused five, six, even up to nine visas to come here to this country, whether it be for working holidays or student applications," he said. "And they're now coming here."

So the sheer volume of numbers means that 'students' are being allowed into the UK because there is not the manpower or time to stop them. Is this what the Labour government calls having control of immigration?

The article moves on to discuss courses and candidates and the BBC seem to think that this is news:

"Under the new system, colleges which offer courses to students from outside the European Economic Area must be accredited by the Home Office.

But the Heathrow immigration officer alleges that the list of approved institutions contains colleges which he and his colleagues know to have a history of awarding fake qualifications:

"It beggars belief that these places can be graded the way they are, when we know for a fact that we've proved and got signatures from the passengers that they paid for their certificates," he said.

The immigration officer told BBC Radio 5 live about a recent case of an Indian woman in her 50s who presented herself as a student enrolling on an advanced course, despite the fact that she could barely speak English.

"She was going to do an ACCA accounting course, of which when asked in Hindi what ACCA meant, she didn't have a clue," he said.

"She wasn't even able to say in her own language what the course was going to entail." "

So the accreditation scheme is faulty and 'students' are presenting themselves for courses that they clearly are not going to take. This is an example that immigration officers were able to catch, how many did they miss because of the pressure of queues in the immigration hall?

The BBC piece continues:

"These concerns are echoed on an internal UK Border Agency online message board, seen by the BBC.

One officer wrote: "I can no longer feel proud of my role, given that I am forced on a daily basis to allow entry to passengers who clearly hold no ability or intention to follow any course of study in the United Kingdom".

Another commented: "The introduction of the appallingly thought-out points based system for students has, in one fell swoop, failed the UK taxpayer who expects us to do a good job in tackling illegal immigration".

The website quotes an acknowledgement from chief executive Lin Homer that the Border Agency had "not got it right" on student visas."

One has to wonder bearing in mind the David Teather revelations whether the Labour government have deliberately designed a new immigration system that is not fit for purpose. In other words are the Labour government incompetent as most believe or actually evil?

The article ends with the case for the defence that is as poor as I can remember:

" Jeremy Oppenheim, head of the points-based system at the UK Border Agency, insisted that the rules were working:

"The points based system means that only those colleges and schools who provide quality education and take responsibility for their students will be licensed to bring in foreign students," he told Radio 5 live.

"Schools and colleges are inspected by accreditation bodies and the UK Border Agency to ensure they are genuine. Before we tightened controls, around 4,000 UK institutions were bringing in international students,. This currently stands at around 2,000.

"Anyone coming in to the UK must satisfy the Border Force officer that they meet the immigration rules and will comply with any conditions attached to their visa. If they cannot the officer can and will refuse entry." "

Some questions spring to mind:
How is the quality of education measured?
How are the 'accreditation bodies' themselves accredited and by whom?
The fact that the number of educational institutions has halved does not mean that the number of students have halved, what has happened to the total number of students across all institutions?
Officers 'can and will refuse entry', what about the pressure of numbers, does that stop them refusing entry?

"This story will be broadcast on the Donal MacIntyre programme on BBC Radio 5 live on Sunday 1 November 2009 at 1930 GMT. Or download the free podcast. You can contact the programme by emailing donal@bbc.co.uk. "

I will not be around at 19:30 today but I will try and listen to the podcast later in the week. I would be interested to hear how the programme pans out if anyone does listen to it today.

Anjem Choudary speaks

On Sunday The Sun reported thus:

'SCROUNGING hate preacher Anjem Choudary has told fanatics to copy him by going on benefits — urging: “Claim your Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.” 

He cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives and said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier.

The Sun secretly filmed him over three meetings also saying leaders such as David Cameron and Barack Obama should be KILLED, grinning as he branded the Queen “ugly” and predicting a “tsunami” of Islamic immigrants would sweep Europe.

...

People will say, ‘Ah, but you are not working’.

“But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar.

“So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance. You need to get support.”

Figures obtained by The Sun in 2010 showed the extremist cleric received £15,600 a year in housing benefit to keep him in a £320,000 house in Leytonstone, East London.

He also got £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 income support and £3,120 child benefits — equivalent to a taxed salary of £32,500.

In another bile-filled rant, the scrounger said Mr Cameron, Mr Obama and the leaders of Pakistan and Egypt were the shaitan (devil).

He added: “What ultimately do we want to happen to them? Maybe I’m the only one who wants the shaitan to be killed. The shaitan should be finished. There should be no shaitan.

 “All should be obedience to Allah, or you have no right to call yourself Muslim.” At a three-hour meeting in a community centre in Bethnal Green, East London, he insisted it was wrong to deny any aspect of Islam — including jihad or ultra-strict sharia law.

He told a 30-strong crowd: “We are going to take England — the Muslims are coming.”

He gloated that the 9/11 terror attacks “shook the enemy” and claimed white supremacists wished they had the “fortitude” to fly planes into buildings. He went on to proclaim: “You must hate in your heart — Cameron, Obama, all that they worship.

...

At the third meeting we infiltrated, again in Slough, he insisted Islam was taking over Europe.

He said: “Now we are taking over Birmingham and populating it.

“Brussels is 30 per cent, 40 per cent Muslim and Amsterdam. Bradford is 17 per cent Muslim.

“These people are like a tsunami going across Europe. And over here we’re just relaxing, taking over Bradford brother. The reality is changing.”'

 Here's Anjem Choudary on Iain Dale's LBC Radio Show


Do listen to him, denying that he said that what he was acused of.

I've blogged about Anjem Choudary before, here's some examples I've posted overthe last few years of him saying similar or worse.

From 2008

'"It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," he said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

To loud cheers of "Allah Akbar" [God is great], he railed: "There are three types of Muslims, those in prison, those of us that are on our way [to prison] and non-practising Muslims. Brothers and sisters, if you do not fear your home being raided by the Kufar [non-believer] police, you are not enforcing the Sharia."

...

He added: "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister - Bush or Brown - or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah."'

From 2009

'... many Islamic scholars believe that (as Anjum Chaudri said):

"When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God... As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God... I must have hatred to anything that is not Islam"

Do you hear that? Do you understand what that means?


From 2010:

'"I warn Belgium. When the burqa ban is maintained, that will be a path that will lead straight to violence." Anjem Choudary, leader of the in England banned Islam4UK, sounded very threatening in Antwerp. "We will only rest when the flag of Islam flies everywhere."

The words of Anjem Choudary who was in Belgium on Saturday, May 22, at the invitation of the organization Sharia4Belgium. You can read more here, but here's another extract:

'The message at the press conference was clear: the Western society must disappear and give way to the supremacy of Islam. “Your freedom and democracy belong in the garbage can,” Sayef ul Islam said, who calls himself “an English teacher”. […]

Not just Abu Imran spoke, but also Choudary and a further unknown Sayef ul Islam, who calls himself “an English teacher”. Sitting in the room were a dozen young Muslims from different countries, who occasionally let it be known that they fully supported the messages.

“I have a warning for Belgium,” Choudary said. “If you take away our sisters’ burqas, you walk a path that will lead to a physical confrontation. I like to be clear. Then afterwards nobody may say he was not warned. We are not like the Christians. If someone hits us, then we do not offer our other cheek.”

But to him it was not only about the burqa in Belgium, or about the ban on minarets in Switzerland. His ambitions reach much further. “We will continue until the flag of Islam flies over Europe.”''

Also from 2010

'How about Anjem Choudary explaining how Islam will take over the UK.
"Who else has the ideology and belief to overthrow any government?"

"Nobody has this agenda on them, to implement the Sharia to remove regimes, only Muslims"

"There are three types of Muslims: those who are in prison, those on their way to prison and those that are not practising. Really if you abide by the Sharia and live your life, you're in one of those categories - one of the first two - otherwise you are doing something wrong"'

 From 2011

'Anjem Choudary speaks and his speech is analysed by Sean Hannity & Brigitte Gabriel. The key point made is on the subject of who is 'innocent'. I have covered this subject before, here is one recent post and here is another Anjem Choudary quotation on this subject:

"When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God... As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God... I must have hatred to anything that is not Islam"

I just don't understand why people rather than listening to what they want to hear when these Islamist radicals speak, don't rather listen to what they actually say and mean.

Thanks to EmunaDate for the video spot.'

From 2012

'I have blogged about Anjem Choudary previously but yesterday I was alerted to his Twitter account. What a lovely chap Anjem Choudary is...

Here is one of his Tweets to give you a flavour of the man , in his own words, and to show off his sunny disposition and live & let live attitude:

I am sure you know the tale of Salman Rushdie and the fatwa issued against him. Just in case you do not know who Theo van Gogh was, I will tell you. Theo van Gogh was the Dutch filmmaker who was violently murdered by an Islamist because he made a film that Islamists found offensive. Here's how he died and who killed him:

'At approximately 8:45 a.m. on November 2, 2004, an unknown assailant dressed in a traditional Moroccan “djelleba,” brutally attacked Theo outside of a city council building as he bicycled to work in central Amsterdam. The attacker shot Theo Van Gogh and stabbed him repeatedly in the chest, callously disregarding his victim’s pleas for mercy. Despite his life-threatening injuries, Theo was able to gain enough momentum to stumble to the other side of the street but by the time he made his way across, his attacker shot and stabbed him again. He then slit Theo’s throat with a butcher knife as onlookers gasped in sheer horror.

In a final assault against his victim the attacker lodged his knife, which had a letter attached to it, into Theo’s chest. The assassin then ran off through the neighborhood and into the nearby Oosterpark, where he and police exchanged gunfire. During the shootout, a motorcycle police officer and an eyewitness were seriously wounded.

Just as Theo’s murderer exited the other side of the park, the police caught up with him and shot him in the leg. He was immediately arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for treatment of his wounds. The attacker was eventually identified as 26-year-old Mohammed Bouyeri, an Islamic extremist with dual Dutch and Moroccan nationalities who was believed to have links with other Islamic militant groups. Investigators revealed that Bouyeri’s motivation to kill was likely sparked by the movie Submission and further aggravated by his hate of the western world and those who refused to accept Islamic values. '

What does Anjem Choudary mean by the comment "Why don't they take a lesson from Theo Van Gogh & Salman Rushdie?" Is he suggesting that people who are not respectful enough of Islam deserve to die or live in fear of death forever?'

Also from 2012

'

Anjem Choudary launched a new campaign today - Shariah4hind and apart from a welcome use of the word 'verily' it was rather a sad affair. Apart from claiming that Islam was the 'oldest religion on the earth' a claim that is demonstrably wrong and a claim that I did tweet a couple of replies to but I think Anjem Choudary may have blocked me; Anjem Choudary seems a tad reluctant to listen to the truth. It is odd that he doesn't block those who tweet insults and Islamophobic venom but does block someone who tweets logic and the truth.

So Anjem Choudary care to take back your original tweet?

I also tweeted this...

and it something that I have mentioned before on this blog. India was partitioned and the part that was made into Pakistan is now almost 100% Islamic whilst India is a pluralistic democracy. The parallels between India and Israel just become more obvious by the day.'

Finally from 2012

'“About 500 people in Britain become Muslim every day. “The Home Office say there are 1.5million Muslims but there were 1.5million ten years ago. Since then our brothers in Bethnal Green, Whitechapel and other places have had eight or nine children each. Eight children here, ten children, 15 children. There must be at least six million people. ... It may be by pure conversion that Britain will become an Islamic state. We may never need to conquer it from the outside.”

What a delight Anjem Choudary is... Thanks to The Sun for providingthe video and the transcription.'

So what do you think of Anjem Choudary?

One of the problems of paying too much attention to the media and chattering classes

David Cameron's speedily administered slap on the wrist to Howard Flight was the result of his not being a conviction politician but a person too easily influenced by the media and the chattering classes. Howard Flight's words

"We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that's not very sensible."

may not have been very sensitively expressed and the use of the word "breeding" in relation to matters of class is a tricky area but he was right.

The BBC's reaction to Howard Flight's comments was as predictable as it was vicious. They managed to get the usual suspects to line up with their evil Tory type comments. There was:

Shadow work and pensions secretary Douglas Alexander: "These shameful but revealing comments cast serious doubt over David Cameron's judgement in personally appointing Howard Flight to the House of Lords only a few days ago.

"Last week one of the prime minister's senior advisers told us we'd never had it so good and now his latest hand-picked peer comes out with these comments."


TUC general secretary Brendan Barber branding the ex-MP "an insensitive throwback to the worst of 1980s politics".


Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams branded the comments "disgraceful" and said they "showed the Tories' true colours".'

The Mirror of course lashed out and I presume the other left-wing papers did too.

I had a bit of driving to do this morning and so listened to more BBC Radio phone-ins than I would usually do and I was fascinated that the majority of the callers seemed to be supporting Howard Flight's comments and his right to make such comments. I was surprised by the number of callers ringing to say that they worked in Benefit Offices or similar and that they knew of many many young women who were having children for the benefits that would accrue to them as a result. Yes there were those who deprecated Howard Flight's sentiments but I get the feeling that they were the type who automatically hate anything a Conservative says and love to be offended on behalf of themselves and others. The weight of calls was such that I believe even Nicky Campbell was moving towards a position of agreement with Howard Flight; listen to the last half an hour of his Radio 5Live show and see if you agree. I don't know what the views were on the Victoria Derbyshire show as I have all but given up listening to her, her show being bad for my mental equilibrium. I do know that the callers to Vanessa Feltz's Radio London show that I heard seemed to be overwhelmingly supportive of Howard Flight.

I did learn an interesting fact from this listening; apparently once a child reaches the age of 10 he or she is no longer allowed to share a bedroom with a sibling so many council housed families are routinely moved to a larger house when they run out of bedrooms. I wonder how many children there are in private accommodation that share bedrooms after the age of 10?


What do I conclude from this? First, I may be wrong but it seems that the majority of the UK population seems to have realised that the excesses of the Labour years have to stop. They seem to have realised that whilst they were prepared to tolerate inefficiencies, waste and supporting scroungers when (they thought) they were getting richer, they are not prepared to do so now the economic pigeons have come home to roost.

Second, I wonder if David Cameron will realise that the country is willing to be lead to 'the right', or more accurately toward sense and prudence or if he will carry on trying to pointlessly carry favour with those elements like the BBC who hate him and all he stands for.

Third, I hope that the BBC take note of the seeming change in the country's sentiments but somehow I doubt that they will. Rather than listen to the people, the BBC will continue to listen to the likes of Polly Toynbee and carry on attacking the 'nasty Party'. Rather than listen to the people they will try and lead the people back to the sunlight lands of Labour righteousness.


Looking around the blogosphere it seems that I am not alone  in my thoughts but what I also found interesting was the analysis of two sites. The first is Channel 4's Fact Checker and here is their analysis and (somewhat reluctant) conclusion:

'Howard Flight’s turn of phrase was not only clumsy but offensive. But at its heart was a valid question: do tax and benefits influence how many children people have?

Earlier research suggests it might. In 1999, the independent financial think-tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, looked at the impact of the introduction of child-related welfare which went up the more kids you have – benefits like Gordon Brown’s cherished tax credits.

It found that between 1999 and 2003  government spending per-child on these benefits rose by 50 per cent in real terms, and that there was an increase in births (by around 15 per cent) among low-income families.

David Cameron has promised to stop child benefit for higher rate taxpayers from 2013. So will that discourage the better off from having more children?

Child benefit accounts for a smaller proportion of income for better off families than poorer households.

But that’s not the only middle class welfare cut the coalition government is making.

Higher rate taxpayers (the richest 15 per cent of families),  will also have their tax credits taken away.

The poorest families, by contrast will keep their £21-a-week child benefit and will also see their tax credits increase from £44 to £47 per week.

The coalition’s decision to put up rail fares will also hit better-off commuters.

So it’s no wonder the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, is making attempts to reach out to what he calls “the squeezed middle”.

Cathy Newman’s verdict
To suggest, as Howard Flight did, that it was somehow more “sensible” for the middle classes to have bigger families was downright offensive. But if he’d expressed himself a different way he might have had a point. If he’d pointed out that the combination of spending cuts – everything from stopping child benefit to increasing rail fares – and the soaring cost of living was “squeezing” the middle classes, few would have quibbled with him.'

 The second is from the always readable Chris Dillow aka Stumbling and Mumbling, who is definitely no Tory, as his last line will demonstrate:

'But the truth - of course - is that people do, at the margin, respond to incentives. If you raise the cost of having children, people will have fewer of them.
For example, this study of the introduction of working tax credits - which increased work incentives for single parents - found that the move "led to a significant reduction in single mothers’ subsequent fertility."
This paper finds that:

Financial incentives play a notable role in determining fertility decisions in France...Adding to the existing tax-benefit system a child subsidy of 150 euros per month...would raise total fertility by about 0.3 points.

And there's also evidence here (pdf) from Israel.
It is, therefore, clearly true that withdrawing child benefit from top earners - forget that "middle class" crap - will discourage them from "breeding."
In this sense, Mr Flight is quite right. Where we might disagree with him, naturally, is in the class hatred indicated by that last sentence. But then,who would expect anything else from a Tory?'

I don't see any 'class hatred' in what Howard Flight said just some home truths that many on the left would prefer to ignore and many on the right are often too scared to vocalise for fear of the sort of vitriolic attacks that Howard Flight has experienced.

Of course there  is another angle to this subject and that is the effect of immigration on the British indigenous poor but that is something that I will tackle another day.

Judge them by what they say

This is copied from the latest Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin as I think it worthy of spreading.

"The widespread condemnation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's speech attacking Israel and Zionists at the UN's "Durban II" conference in Geneva made headlines around the world. But Western leaders and media seem reluctant to take the next step: Recognizing that the Iranian leader's views are not an isolated phenomenon, but are widespread in the Muslim world.

PMW director Itamar Marcus and associate director Barbara Crook examined this issue in an article published in The Ottawa Citizen.
When Hatemongering is Common Currency
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Ottawa Citizen, April 24, 2009 (online edition), April 27, 2009 (print edition)

The world reacted with outrage at the speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad at the Durban Review Conference on Racism in Geneva. European countries stormed out of his talk and released an array of statements condemning his words.

But the real problem is not that an Ahmadinejad exists, or that he proudly and vociferously spews hatred against Jews and blames Zionism for the world's evils. The problem is that his views are anything but unique in the Muslim world.

Tragically, it seems that Western leaders are using Ahmadinejad as their radical Islamic whipping boy in order to content themselves that they are doing all they can to fight growing radical Islamic racism, its calls for a world without Israel and genocide of Jews, and its espousal of Holocaust denial.

In reality, the strong media and government reactions to Ahmadinejad's hate promotion serve only to highlight their hypocrisy in ignoring the same ideology when it's expressed by Arab leaders who have succeeded in making the Western world's list of "good guys."

Saudi King Abdullah - whom President George W. Bush kissed and to whom President Barack Obama bowed earlier this month -- has blamed Israel for terror attacks in Saudi Arabia: "We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything ... I don't say 100 percent, but 95 percent." [Saudi 1 Television, May 2, 2004]

Grade 9 children in Saudi Arabia are taught that "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!"

Earlier this year, the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at Saud University pronounced that "Jews are the enemies of Allah." Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi also prayed for the extermination of all Jews: "Kill them one by one and don't leave even one." [Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Jan. 12, 2009.

It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.

"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . . . They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub.

". . . You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth." [Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009]

Is this any different from Ahmadinejad's calls for a world without Israel?

And look at Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, depicted by the West as a moderate to whom Israel is supposed to offer statehood. But the TV channel directly controlled by Abbas's office regularly runs educational programs to teach Palestinian adults and children alike that there is no state called Israel, and that all Israel's land is actually "occupied Palestine."

Palestinian children are taught that Israeli cities throughout the entire country - from Haifa in the North, to Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv), to Eilat in the south, are all actually Palestinian cities. Videos feature songs about a "Palestine" that erases Israel and a future when the Israeli cities Jaffa and Haifa will be "liberated."

Hamas, which has convinced many Western leaders and journalists that it spends more time building schools than bombing civilians, broadcast a sermon earlier this month depicting the Jews as enemies of humanity, inherently evil, seeking to rule the world and a dangerous threat to Muslims.

"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." [Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]

Why is Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial so passionately denounced when Palestinian Holocaust denial is so utterly ignored? Hamas TV broadcast a special documentary last year, explaining that the Holocaust was a Zionist scheme to rid the world of elderly and handicapped, and to gain world sympathy. Fatah's PA TV broadcast a children's program that said explicitly that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens. (Click to view)

So why is Abbas presented as a peace partner, Egypt as a peace broker and Abdullah as a friend of the West? Why does the world not react with outrage to calls for "extermination" of Jews from anyone other than Ahmadinejad?

If the West is serious about peace, then all hatred must be condemned. And we must recognize that the real enemies of peace are not only the Ahmadinejads of the world, but the "friends" who have mastered the doublespeak of calling for peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic."

Why won't the world listen to what Muslim political and religious leaders say to their own people as well as what they say to the outside world?

Listen to the people

Well that hasn't lasted very long has it? A round a month ago Gordon Brown said he wanted a "different kind of politics" this was after his team managed to ensure that no candidate gathered enough votes to stand against him. In case we all thought that Gordon meant to rule unopposed, he also said he would "listen and learn" and "to build trust in our democracy, I'm sure we need a more open form of dialogue with citizens and politicians to genuinely talk about problems and solutions... It is about a different type of politics, a more open and honest dialogue" - All quotations from the BBC.

It appears that listening to the people will not extend to the matter of the constitution European Treaty. Time after time over the past months I have read or heard that Tony Blair is desperate to avoid holding a referendum because he knows he would lose one. Excuse me, but if he knows he would lose a referendum then surely that is a very good reason not to do what the loss of a referendum would not allow him to do. Here are some examples of the sort of articles being written about this matter from The Guardian - "Britain was committed to a referendum on the constitution and is desperate to avoid holding one on its replacement", The Telegraph - "The trouble is that, in order to dish the Tories three years ago, Mr Blair promised a referendum on the constitution. Labour's election manifesto was unequivocal: "We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote...Mr Brown can read the polls as well as anyone else: he knows that, if a plebiscite were held, the Noes would have it. So he will begin his premiership with an unenviable choice: hold the referendum and be branded a loser, or drop it and be branded a liar."

When the Constitution was first proposed Tony Blair promised a referendum in order to forestall any divisions within the Labour Party, he was relieved of the duty to Carry one out (with the almost certain prospect of being defeated) by the French and Dutch voting against the Constitution in referendums. You can read here and here my previous thoughts on the Constitution's reappearance. Now he and Gordon Brown are in a bind, it is clear from what Angela Merkel has said that the plan is "to use different terminology without changing the legal substance for example with regard to the title of the treaty". Tony and Gordon have decided that the best plan is set out "red lines" that they will not allow to be crossed and therefore take the attention away from any other matters that they do allow through. I doubt that these red lines will prove to be quite so permanent as Tony and Gordon would have us believe now; here they are:
"First, we will not accept a treaty that allows the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way." I am not sure how "fundamental rights" could not change UK law, but this is a nice legalese argument that Tony might pull the wool over our eyes to obscure what is happening.

"Second, we will not agree to something that replaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister." The plan is to have a European Foreign Minister, as well as one for each country, not to replace as such so the wording here assures victory.

"Thirdly, we will not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police system." This depends upon the definition of the word "control", currently we have to put into place EU legislation by passing it through our Parliament, it is accepted that over 70% of UK laws are passed as a result of EU legislation.

"And fourthly, we will not agree to anything that moves to qualified majority voting something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefit system. We must have the right in those circumstances to determine it by unanimity," Again the key phrase is "big say", we are being lined up to accept a small reduction in the planed EU powers so as to Allow Tony and Gordon to claim a victory.


Tony Blair has stated that "if we achieve those four objectives I defy people to say what it is that is supposed to be so fundamental that could require a referendum."


The EU Constitution was the brainchild of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and he said to Le Monde that the European public was being led “to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly”. As the Financial Times commented recently "Although any new treaty will be streamlined and stripped of its title and constitutional flummery, most of Mr Giscard d’Estaing’s key elements will remain, including an EU president, foreign minister, smaller Commission, more majority voting and legal personality."

A FT/Harris European wide opinion poll recently reported the following:

1) A total of 75 per cent of Spaniards, 71 per cent of Germans, 69 per cent of Britons, 68 per cent of Italians and 64 per cent of French believe the treaty important enough to warrant a referendum.

2) Only 14 per cent of Britons supported the idea of a full time President

3) only Britain (41 per cent) supported the idea of European Foreign Minister

Meanwhile the Daily Express reports that "An opinion poll by ICM Research found that 80 per cent of voters want a say about Britain’s future in Europe, and only 15 per cent disagree."

Will Tony and Gordon grant us, the electorate, a referendum? As I have said above it seems unlikely, they will twist and turn to hide what is happening and try to gloss over what powers are being taken by Europe because they know they would lose a referendum.

Why will they do this? Tony has hopes of becoming the first elected (by the constituent European Governments) President of Europe. This is something that Nicolas Sarkozy has said would be a good thing. Would Tony Blair really sell out the Country so he can have more glory and so that Cherie can get back on the gravy train? What do you think? Gordon Brown is less of a Euro fanatic than Blair BUT he is desperate, so achingly desperate, to be Prime Minister that he would do practically anything to get (and keep) the title. He does not want to be Prime Minister until the next election, he wants to rule beyond, way beyond. It is being spun that Gordon Brown has promised a referendum on the Constitution Treaty, in fact he has only promised one if Tony Blair is unable to get a good deal for Britain in this week's summit of European leaders, Brown told GMTV on Tuesday that he was open to the idea of holding a referendum if Brussels win greater powers over key areas. This is all presentational bollocks and spin, there won't be a referendum because Tony and Gordon will claim, falsely, that their red lines have not been crossed, the UK will sign up for the Constitution Treaty.

What hopes do we have of preventing this from happening? As I see it, Rupert Murdoch's press could create a big fuss over Tony and Gordon sneaking the Constitution Treaty in by the back door, so maybe Gordon will promise some break-up of the BBC to satisfy and so forestall Rupert. The Conservative party could do more to oppose the Constitution Treaty but this would open up latent splits that would be brutally exposed by the Labour party and more importantly the BBC. UKIP could campaign harder but they are too prone to be dismissed by the BBC as "Little Englanders". It all looks very bleak, maybe we will have to be saved once again by one country holding and losing a referendum. Whatever happens it sure as heck isn't "listening to the people".

John Redwood versus Derek Draper

Take a listen here but thanks to University of Manchester Conservative Future here's a partial transcript from the Kevin Nolan show:

" Nolan: Derek Draper, the former New Labour spin-doctor, now a psychologist as well as a blogger with us tonight as well. Hello to you Derek.

Draper: Hello

Nolan: Lots of these leaders getting a good kicking today, thankfully not literally, by the critics who are saying “how on earth did they allow this to happen”, with up to 35,000 people on the street protesting against them today. Derek, what signal does that send out to those leaders?

Draper: Well, were the people really protesting against the G20? I don’t think so, I think they were protesting about the fact that the economy isn’t doing well and they want it to do better. The whole point is that that is what the G20 is designed to do. It’s designed to get the global economy moving. What does that matter? Because at the end of the day, that’s what’s going to protect jobs and allow people to keep their homes here in Britain.

Nolan: What a terrible job the G20 have done so far then.

Draper: Well, of course they haven’t done a terrible job so far, because they haven’t started yet. What you’re seeing so far is a series of meetings and negotiations and visits and Gordon flying round the world working like a dog to try and set up the situation where when all these world leaders arrive in Britain this week, they will actually be able to make some progress. There’s no magic wand, there’s no miracle cure. This is about really hard work, trying to get the world economy back on track.

Redwood: Why didn’t they take action earlier to tackle these things? I was calling for interest rate cuts over a year ago, when they might have had some kind of beneficial impact by now, why were they so slow, why were they asleep at the wheel?

Draper: There’s been a series of interest rate cuts…
Redwood: Yes, but far too late.
Draper: …I know, but listen. You’re talking as if we’re still in the old world. The fact is that because of the American banking collapse, especially Lehmann brothers, we have a knock-on effect around the world. And that’s something noone was prepared for…

Redwood: Northern Rock was a British bank lending money to British people under a British regulator and they got it comprehensively wrong. And they were warned by people like me not to get it wrong.

Draper: Yeah, well, the British banks, I’m not saying the British banks were perfect. What I’m saying is that the great shock to the system came from America. Now, what Gordon Brown’s been trying to do is to deal with that. And the British banks that are acting personally, I think that people were losing their deposits, losing their money, their life savings they have in Northern Rock and indeed Lloyds TSB, that didn’t happen…

Redwood: But why did the British government allow these mega mergers, creating these massive banks with these huge bonuses that then lost so much money and came with a begging bowl to the state?

Draper: Well, because at the time people felt that bigger…might be better. People thought that there was a strong financial system around the world that would keep these banks going, now we now know that there were actually hidden problems with these banks, especially Northern Rock, but it was in America where these banks had done these subprime mortgages, that was where the real flaw in the system was…

Redwood: But we did subprime mortgages over here as well, Derek. Get real, that’s why people are so angry. Labour have been so complacent about this.

Draper: Well let’s not get party political, because it’s not as if the Conservative Party had been standing up and saying let’s have smaller banks and more regulation…
Redwood: It’s exactly what I was saying in my report a couple of years ago Derek, if you bothered to read it.
Draper: …the Conservative party has called for less regulation.

Redwood: We were calling for tighter regulation for cash and capital which were the things that went wrong. You introduced all this petty mortgage regulation which didn’t stop anything…
Draper: The notion that the Conservative Party were in favour of little details here and there…
Redwood: Try reading the report, Derek, it was crystal clear. We said that your broken Bank of England wouldn’t manage to sort things out.

Nolan: Surely if you listened to yourself tonight, Derek, you would thing that Labour weren’t in power while all of this happened? You’ve been in power for a long time and you’re blaming America.

Draper: Look, the fact is, that however much people try to make party political points about it, voters at home can see on their television screens, that this is a problem that is affecting America, Japan, Iceland, Germany, France, all countries around the world. So voters come to the conclusion that actually this is not in any way something that can be laid at Gordon Brown’s door. The fact is that this is a global problem that started in America, and that Gordon Brown has actually been doing a very good job. People accept this all around the world, from President Obama down, it’s not about apportioning blame, it’s about doing something about it and moving forward.

Nolan: So help me understand this about the G20 summit, Derek. What criteria can we use, as members of the public, to determine whether this meeting has been a success or not?

Draper: Well, the criteria will be, have these countries come together, set forward a path to increase the global regulation of banks more effectively, maybe coordinate their economies a little bit better, maybe refocus things a bit more onto those bread and butter issues about homes and jobs that people care about…but that’s a hard thing to do. It’s a bit like herding cats. But I must say that I’m really glad, and this is not just a party political point, I’m really glad that Gordon, the man who has actually got experience of the financial system and who has the contacts and knowledge to make this happen, is in charge of this rather than a bunch of lightweights like David Cameron and George Osborne.

Redwood: But look, this is the man who has presided over the collapse of four major British banks, something that’s never happened in…
Draper: Collapse?
Redwood: …before under any other government.
Draper: This is the man who has presided over the prevention of the collapse of those banks, don’t be so ridiculous.

Redwood: Well he was the chief regulator of them, he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer running a tripartite regulatory system…
Draper: Of course he wasn’t the regulator, the regulation was at arm’s length.
Redwood: ….Derek you have to let me speak occasionally. He was the tripartite head, he put in a new regulatory system, and for the first time in British history five major banks got into serious trouble, because the new regulation didn’t work.

Draper: And you really think that that’s because of the regulatory system, do you?

Redwood: Yes, of course it was. Because they didn’t control the cash and capital…
Draper: Really?
Redwood: …they allowed the banks to borrow and lend…
Draper: You don’t think that perhaps…
Nolan: Hang on, hang on, let him finish!
Redwood: …huge amounts of money in a way in which we didn’t allow them to do.

Draper: We…you didn’t the Conservatives?

Redwood: We kept much tighter control over them in the 80s and 90s and…
Draper: Did you?
Redwood: …and they didn’t go bust on our watch…
Draper: I thought you were in charge of the big bang in the city of London, I thought you were in charge of this massive booming financial system? Look, the rest….
Redwood: We stopped the banks borrowing and lending on the scale they did in the last 10 years…
Draper: You’re interrupting me now. The idea, that the Conservatives were in favour, during this time, of more regulation, of more caution, of less remuneration of the city, is frankly fantastical. It just doesn’t bear a moment’s scrutiny.

Redwood: Well Derek you should read Hansard, you should read the reports we raised…
Nolan: Ok
Draper: Your report said there should be less regulation of the mortgage industry.

Redwood: It said there should be tougher regulation of cash and capital and that the process regulation of mortgages…
Draper: What did it say about mortgages…
Redwood: DEREK LISTEN for a minute, it said that the process regulation of mortgages wouldn’t work, never has there been so much regulation of mortgages, and never has there been such a mess. What we said was that you need to regulate cash and capital which is what would have controlled the banks, which is what we did in the 80s and 90s, which is why they didn’t go bust on our watch.

Draper: Did it say that there should be less or more regulation of the mortgage market?

Redwood: It said there should be less regulation, but that you should regulate the thing that matters, the thing that stops banks going bust. This is a bank going bust problem, Derek, not a mortgage process problem.

Nolan: OK, thanks very much"

Listen to what they say, why don't people just listen to what they say?

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."

That is from a sermon delivered by Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris and broadcast on Palestinian Authority television shortly before Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

Do you believe that Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris will be satisfied by a return to the 1967 borders? Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris and his ilk want all Jews dead, they say so again and again (and quote the Koran to justify their views) whilst most of the world just ignores the words and blames the Israelis for the problems of the Middle East.

Is there any chance that the BBC will ever report the speeches of Palestinian leaders or would that contradict the BBC's agreed "narrative" on the Middle East?

Typical BBC

Friday evening I normally grit my teeth and listen to the News Quiz, old habits die hard. Last night for some reason I was bored by the Radio 4 news and so was listening to 5Live when they went to the United Nations for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. As I drove I was transfixed; he was making the points that needed to be made, he was criticising many of the people who needed to be criticised and he laid the blame for the many of the problems in the Middle East and beyond where it should be laid - at the feet of radical Islam. Of course the BBC couldn't stand for that and cut him off after about 15 minutes. I actually shouted "NO"  when they did this, fortunately I was alone in the car at the time. 5Live then started blathering about something else so I switched over for the end of the News Quiz. I was just in time to hear Jeremy Hardy produce one of his oh so regular attacks on Israel. The subject was something about fireworks which gave the vile Hardy the opportunity to 'jest' something along the lines of "It's a good job the Israeli Air Force didn't spot them because they would have bombed them to pieces" _ I may try and get the actual wording later but do I really want to hear that obnoxious prat again? So Jeremy, you slimy sh*t, why do you think Israel responds to rockets being fired at its land and people? What should Israel do? Lie back and submit to Islamic terror? would you prefer that?

Anyway that's the BBC ready to stop coverage of an important speech because uncomfortable (for the BBC) truths were being told but always happy to give sh*ts like Jeremy Hardy the airtime to disparage Israel.

In case you missed all or part of Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the United Nations, here is the full transcript thanks to Haaretz. Do read it all, it is powerful and deserves to be read by every anti-Israel journalist at that bastion of hatred for Israel and spreader of lies about Israel - the BBC:

'Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression.

But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace.

Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland -- it was then that this was braided -- branded, rather -- shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn't praised; it was denounced! And it's here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It's singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel -- the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the UN institution. It's the -- the theater of the absurd. It doesn't only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi's Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights; Saddam's Iraq headed the UN Committee on disarmament.

You might say: That's the past. Well, here's what's happening now -- right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world's security. You couldn't make this thing up.

So here in the UN, automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide -- they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me -- and ladies and gentlemen, I don't want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here's what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you'll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel's prime minister, I didn't come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. (Cheers, applause.) The truth is -- the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through UN resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn't let that happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.

That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have. (Applause.)

Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents -- in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday -- can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it's too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.

And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It's determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It's poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times -- if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don't worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.

These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there's only one problem with that theory. We've tried it and it hasn't worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.

Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn't even respond to it.

But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn't calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.

Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn't defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn't stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace.

We didn't freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.

And I don't think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of -- out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even -- we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.

Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.

But ladies and gentlemen, we didn't get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day -- in one day.

President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.

Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this, Israelis rightly ask: What's to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

So I want to ask you. Would any of you -- would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we're not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that's why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel's critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it's as if nothing happened -- just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel's security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.

So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel's legitimate security concerns.

I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.

I want to put it for you in perspective, because you're all in the city. That's about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It's the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don't forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel's neighbors.

So how do you -- how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can't defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that's exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn't require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.

I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they're not sovereign countries.

And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel's small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel's tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?

Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It's not merely the West Bank, it's the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel's population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?

I bring up these problems because they're not theoretical problems. They're very real. And for Israelis, they're life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel's security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won't be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.

The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. (Applause.)

And there's one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.

They haven't given even one Red Cross visit. He's held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the -- in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. (Applause.) If you want to -- if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that's the resolution you should pass. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don't you think it's about time that Palestinians did the same?

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day -- in fact, I think they made it right here in New York -- they said the Palestinian state won't allow any Jews in it. They'll be Jew-free -- Judenrein. That's ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That's racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don't want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up -- we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva. Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be -- it's an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

I think it's time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. (Applause.)

President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they're ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel's security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.

I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That's like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we're called "Jews"? Because we come from Judea.

In my office in Jerusalem, there's a -- there's an ancient seal. It's a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there's a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That's my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin -- Binyamin -- the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there's been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land.

As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.

Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I've worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. (Scattered applause.) Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn't like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I'm sure the Palestinians didn't like.

But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.

President Abbas, why don't you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let's just get on with it. Let's negotiate peace.

I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you've dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That's what we should aim for, and that's what I believe we can achieve.

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I'll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let's listen to one another. Let's do as we say in the Middle East: Let's talk "doogri". That means straightforward. I'll tell you my needs and concerns. You'll tell me yours. And with God's help, we'll find the common ground of peace.

There's an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand -- the hand of Israel -- in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah -- (speaks in Hebrew) -- "The people who walk in darkness will see a great light." Let that light be the light of peace.'

Good speech, isn't it? The truth has been told. So how do the BBC report it? Here's the section of the BBC News front page about the UN debate.

No link to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, presumably the BBC don't want the truth about the Middle East to pollute the minds of the people they have spent so long brainwashing to hate Israel and venerate the Palestinians.

maybe the BBC had no space on the front page, sure they would link to it on the Middle East news page...

Don't be ridiculous, but you will note that they are still reporting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's obscene claims about who was to blame for 9/11.

I will be complaining to the BBC about this censorship but I will wait until I have calmed down a bit.

The bias is in the wording

The BBC report on the Pope's meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From the beginning you can sense the disdain in which he is held by the BBC (my emphasis):

"Israel's right-wing new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has held talks with Pope Benedict on the pontiff's visit to the Israeli town of Nazareth.

TV cameras were allowed to capture the two men sitting down together but the talks themselves were private.

Pope Benedict repeatedly has called for a separate Palestinian state during his tour of the Holy Land.

Mr Netanyahu has not committed himself to the principle of two states, which past Israeli leaders have accepted.

His election this year was ill-received in the Arab world because of his hard-line views, including his opposition to returning land captured in wars. "

Where to begin? "right wing" is BBC code for "wrong, wrong, wrong" if not "evil". Then Benjamin Netanyahu is described as having "hard-line views", is this a phrase that is ever used to describe President Ahmadinejad or the leaders of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or are they models of flexibility? Finally this "land captured in wars" begs the question "who started the wars" and the answer that in each case Israel was responding to an attack or an imminent acknowledged attack.


One report that I read this week that I don't believe the BBC have covered was that:

"Hamas will accept no less than a fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, the group's political leader in exile said Saturday.

Khaled Meshal, who lives in Syria, called a two-state solution unacceptable because Hamas cannot envision living with Israel in peace and security.

Meshal spoke Saturday at a news conference, following a gathering of several Palestinian factional leaders in exile, reported KUNA, the Kuwait news agency.

Hamas envisions a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 border with Israel, with Jerusalem as the capital, all Jewish settlements dismantled and full sovereignty over land, air and water, Meshal said."

I wonder if the BBC chose not to report that speech as it would have gone against their "narrative" that Israel is the block to peace and that the Palestinians want a two state solution. In fact Hamas have a very clear aim their Charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state. That same Charter quotes the Koran :

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

As I reported last month:

"Saudi King Abdullah - whom President George W. Bush kissed and to whom President Barack Obama bowed earlier this month -- has blamed Israel for terror attacks in Saudi Arabia: "We can be certain that Zionism is behind everything ... I don't say 100 percent, but 95 percent." [Saudi 1 Television, May 2, 2004]

Grade 9 children in Saudi Arabia are taught that "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, until the rocks or the trees say, 'O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!"

Earlier this year, the head of the Department of Islamic Studies at Saud University pronounced that "Jews are the enemies of Allah." Dr. Walid Al-Rashudi also prayed for the extermination of all Jews: "Kill them one by one and don't leave even one." [Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, Jan. 12, 2009.

It is the very existence of the Jews, not their actions or even their Zionism, that fuels the rhetoric of many Islamic political and religious leaders.

"If the Jews left Palestine to us, would we start loving them? Of course not. . . . They are enemies not because they occupied Palestine. They would have been enemies even if they did not occupy a thing," said Egyptian cleric Muhammad Hussein Ya'qoub.

". . . You must believe that we will fight, defeat, and annihilate them, until not a single Jew remains on the face of the Earth." [Al-Rahma TV (Egypt), Jan. 17, 2009]

Is this any different from Ahmadinejad's calls for a world without Israel?

And look at Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, depicted by the West as a moderate to whom Israel is supposed to offer statehood. But the TV channel directly controlled by Abbas's office regularly runs educational programs to teach Palestinian adults and children alike that there is no state called Israel, and that all Israel's land is actually "occupied Palestine."

Palestinian children are taught that Israeli cities throughout the entire country - from Haifa in the North, to Jaffa (part of Tel Aviv), to Eilat in the south, are all actually Palestinian cities. Videos feature songs about a "Palestine" that erases Israel and a future when the Israeli cities Jaffa and Haifa will be "liberated."

Hamas, which has convinced many Western leaders and journalists that it spends more time building schools than bombing civilians, broadcast a sermon earlier this month depicting the Jews as enemies of humanity, inherently evil, seeking to rule the world and a dangerous threat to Muslims.

"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." [Hamas (Al-Aqsa) TV, April 3, 2009]

Why is Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial so passionately denounced when Palestinian Holocaust denial is so utterly ignored? Hamas TV broadcast a special documentary last year, explaining that the Holocaust was a Zionist scheme to rid the world of elderly and handicapped, and to gain world sympathy. Fatah's PA TV broadcast a children's program that said explicitly that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens.

So why is Abbas presented as a peace partner, Egypt as a peace broker and Abdullah as a friend of the West? Why does the world not react with outrage to calls for "extermination" of Jews from anyone other than Ahmadinejad?

If the West is serious about peace, then all hatred must be condemned. And we must recognize that the real enemies of peace are not only the Ahmadinejads of the world, but the "friends" who have mastered the doublespeak of calling for peace in English while inciting hatred in Arabic."

In January I reported on another "sermon":

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world - except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."


That is from a sermon delivered by Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris and broadcast on Palestinian Authority television shortly before Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005.

Do you believe that Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris will be satisfied by a return to the 1967 borders? Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris and his ilk want all Jews dead, they say so again and again (and quote the Koran to justify their views) whilst most of the world just ignores the words and blames the Israelis for the problems of the Middle East.

Is there any chance that the BBC will ever report the speeches of Palestinian leaders or would that contradict the BBC's agreed "narrative" on the Middle East?

So why won't the world listen to what Muslim political and religious leaders say to their own people as well as what they say to the outside world? Why do the BBC and others prefer to spread the lie that Israel is against peace whereas the Palestinians want peace?