The BBC brush-off - help needed

I have finally received a response to my long-standing complaint of BBC bias re anti-Israel reporting which I had attempted to take to the BBC Trust. Even I was surprised at the response I have received, they just don't get it, do they?

My apologies for the odd formatting but the reply was sent as a pdf which does not respond happily to copying and pasteing into Blogger. I hope the document is still legible.

'notasheepmaybeagoat@googlemail.com
Our Ref: 928738
15 September 2011
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am responding to your appeal of 7 July 2011 to the Editorial Standards Committee
(ESC) regarding alleged anti-Israeli bias on the BBC News website, specifically the
coverage given to the comments of a particular “Israeli firebrand” compared with the
failure to report on the numerous extremist statements made by leading Palestinian
figures.
Firstly, I should explain that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is
brought to it, and part of the role of the Head of Editorial Standards is to check that
appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees)
under the Complaints Framework. You can find full details of the Complaints
Framework and Trust appeals procedure’s here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/protocols_policy/compliance_ov
ersight.shtml
I am therefore writing this response on behalf of Fran O’Brien, the BBC Trust’s Head of
Editorial Standards, who has read your correspondence and given me her decision.
The Head of Editorial Standards has read the relevant correspondence and does not
consider that your appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to
the ESC. I would like to explain why.
The Trust's Editorial Appeals procedure states that:
Your appeal must raise a matter of substance – in particular, that, in the opinion
of the Trust, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the appeal has a
reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to
answer. Consideration will also be given to whether it is appropriate,
proportionate and cost effective for the Trust to address an appeal.
Before giving the reasons for the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, I have
summarised your complaint and the BBC Executive’s response.
Stage 1
You contacted the BBC on 30 August 2010 complaining about news bulletins which
reported on an Israeli rabbi’s provocative comments, asking why these had been given
airtime while equally provocative and offensive statements from numerous Palestinian
figures had not been covered. You asked, in particular, whether the BBC had ever
broadcast specific inflammatory comments (which you cited) made by Hamas cleric
Ziyad Abu al-Haj and Dr Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah.
2
Having had no reply, you contacted the BBC again on 15 September 2010 saying you
thought two weeks should have been sufficient time for the BBC to have responded.
You reiterated your complaint of “blatant anti-Israel bias” in the decision to broadcast a
rabbi’s inflammatory comments but to have ignored equally, or more offensive remarks
by Palestinian leaders. You asked, for example, whether the BBC had broadcast the
words of a particular leading Palestinian cleric who had said “The Jews are the
Jews…they are all liars…they are all terrorists…it is necessary to slaughter them and
murder them.”
You wrote again to the BBC on 5 October 2010 saying you had still not received a reply
to either of your letters, pointing out that the BBC promised to respond to complaints
within 10 working days whereas you were still awaiting a response after 35 days.
The Middle East desk of the BBC News website replied on 26 October 2010 saying they
did not report every inflammatory comment by Israelis or Palestinians but that Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef’s comments were considered significant as he was an influential figure
speaking out on the eve of new peace talks – and that his comments had been widely
criticised by US and Israeli leaders.
You replied to the BBC on 28 October 2010 saying that it had not responded to your
specific complaint. You accepted that it was impossible to broadcast every “genocidal
statement” made by Hamas figures but questioned why none of the extreme
comments you had cited appeared to have been reported on. Had the BBC even
checked, you asked, to see if any of the comments you referred to had been given
airtime? If not, how could they be sure of their commitment to providing equality of
coverage? You also asked the BBC to check if they had covered the speech by Yasser
Arafat in 1993 when he had talked of working towards “delivering the final blow
against Israel”.
You wrote to the BBC on 13 November 2010 and again on 16 November chasing up a
reply.
The BBC News website’s Middle East editor Tarik Kafala replied on 16 November 2010.
He said that the BBC had, of course, reported statements by Hamas and other
Palestinian figures, and that its website profile of Hamas spelt out Hamas’ commitment
to the ultimate destruction of Israel. He confirmed that the specific statement by
Ahmed Yassin had not been covered by the BBC website, while the website itself had
been launched in 1997, three years after the Yasser Arafat comment.
You replied to the BBC on 30 November 2010 with three separate letters. You
reiterated your original complaint about the coverage given to one rabbi’s controversial
comments compared with the lack of coverage afforded the many equally or more
incendiary statements made by various Palestinian figures. You were still waiting for an
answer as to why the BBC made this decision. “Why are the words of one Israeli cleric,
however vile, newsworthy, whereas those of Palestinian clerics and politicians are
not?”
3
You also queried a recent item which began “Israeli orthodox rabbi stirs up racism
debate.” You said you did not recall similar coverage given to Mahmoud Abbas’s
statement that he would never allow a single Israeli to live on Palestinian land. Why is
one considered news but not the other, you asked?
BBC Audience Services replied to your email on 13 December 2010 saying that your
complaint was being dealt with by BBC News’ own dedicated team and that they were
responsible for replying. The letter also said that as you had variously referred to BBC
Online and Radio 5 Live when writing, it might be helpful if you clarified the specific
source of your complaint in each letter.
BBC News website’s Middle Editor Tarik Kafala responded on 21 December 2010,
apologising for the delay in replying. He said that he had previously explained why he
felt it was justified to report Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments, and that you appeared to
accept that this was reasonable, so he would concentrate on the issue of why the
Palestinian comments you referred to may not have been given coverage.
He said that the various Palestinian organisations including Hamas said different things
at different times to different audiences and reporting shrill and extremist statements
from Hamas firebrands could give a misleading view of the organisation’s true position.
In this context, the BBC had not reported the specific comments from Ziyad Abu al-Haj
and Dr Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, which you cited, but he did believe that the BBC’s
overall coverage was fair and accurate and reflected Hamas’s position on the key
issues.
You sent two replies on 24 December 2010, expressing your dissatisfaction with the
latest response from the BBC. You questioned why the BBC’s profile of Hamas offered
such a nuanced description of the organisation when, in reality, its hatred of all Jews
and commitment to the destruction of Israel was transparent and unquestioned. You
took issue with Tarik Kafala’s claim to know the true position of Hamas, and the
assumption that the truth must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle of two sets of
opinions. You asked why it was misleading, and therefore inappropriate, to report
extreme comments from Palestinian firebrands but seemingly acceptable to cover the
speech by one Israeli firebrand. You also asked again why the specific inflammatory
comments by two Palestinian clerics had been ignored by the BBC in its coverage, and
you did not accept that the words quoted in Yasser Arafat’s obituary reflected the true
extent of his frequent pronouncements on Israel or the Jewish people. In conclusion
you believed that the failure to report the “often genocidal comments made by
Palestinian leaders” was deliberately skewing opinion against Israel and was manifestly
evidence of BBC bias.
You responded further on 11 January 2011. You repeated your central allegations and
said that you believed the BBC had still not responded adequately to your detailed
points.
4
BBC News website’s Middle East editor Tarik Kafala replied on 11 February 2011 saying
that he had responded to your specific questions as well as he could and that if you
wished to pursue your complaint you should now write to the BBC’s Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU), and supplied the relevant details. You received a similar
response from BBC Audience Services to whom one of your earlier letters had been
sent.
You replied on 11 January 2011 saying that you wanted a response to one specific
point. You asked why was it acceptable for the BBC to report the views of one Israeli
firebrand but apparently “misleading” to do so in the case of various Palestinian
firebrands.
Stage 2
The BBC ECU wrote to you on 31 January 2011 saying that you had been wrongly
advised about how to pursue your complaint further as it was only responsible for
issues relating to possible breaches of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and not to
judgements relating to the content of news bulletins and online content. In this context
your complaint had been forwarded to BBC News management who would respond in
due course.
You wrote to the BBC on 16 February 2011 asking who the complaint had been passed
on to as you had yet to receive a reply. You wrote again on 30 March 2011 saying you
had yet to receive any communication about escalating your complaint.
The BBC ECU wrote to you on 27 June 2011and said that the Head of Accountability
for BBC News would be responding within 20 working days.
You wrote back to the BBC on 30 June 2011 seeking assurance that the person
responsible would address two key questions. You asked why the BBC covered the
inflammatory views of one rabbi when it consistently ignored the many inflammatory
and extremist statements by Palestinian figures, and why, according to the BBC’s Tarik
Kafal, it was ‘misleading’ to reports the words of ‘Hamas firebrands’ but not those of an
Israeli firebrand.
BBC News’ Head of Editorial Compliance and Accountability Stephanie Harris wrote to
you on 15 July 2011. She that she had received your letter of 30 June 2011 in which
you had summarised the crux of your complaint and had reviewed the correspondence
including all the replies you had received to date. She said she believed the responses
from Tarik Kafal had been comprehensive and that she endorsed them.
She said that BBC journalists had to make judgements about what was newsworthy,
and that there were many examples where violent denunciations of Israel had been
widely covered on the BBC and she provided the links to six examples. She also
supplied the details on how to take your complaint to the BBC Trust, the final stage in
the complaints process.
5
Your appeal
You wrote to the BBC Trust on 7 August 2011 saying you had been seeking, for almost
a year, to get an apology from the BBC for its bias in reporting on one aspect of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Namely, that the BBC had given coverage to one rabbi’s
extremist views but had ignored numerous extremist statements by Palestinian figures
who expressed genocidal views about Israel and its people. You were also extremely
unhappy with the BBC’s response in which it was suggested that it would have been
misleading to give coverage to various extremist statements from Hamas leaders, while
at the same time having no such qualms about airing the views of one Israeli
firebrand.
The Head of Editorial Standards’ decision
The Head of Editorial Standards has reviewed all the correspondence in your case. She
considers that the BBC did answer your specific question about why it chose to give
coverage to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s comments but did not automatically air every
incendiary statement, of which they were many, made by Palestinian or Israeli figures,
and therefore did not cover the ones you cited. Its explanation was that its journalists
were required to make a judgement about what was most newsworthy and significant.
In response to your broader point about anti-Israeli bias, the BBC said it was
committed to fair and accurate coverage of the Middle East conflict and provided six
examples of where it had reported violent anti-Israeli sentiment. The Head of Editorial
Standards therefore does not believe you have made a case to answer in terms of
breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines here.
I should also explain that the responsibility for editorial judgement rests with the BBC
and not the BBC Trust as the paragraph below sets out.
The Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State
and the BBC draw a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the BBC
Executive Board, led by the Director-General. “The direction of the BBC’s editorial and
creative output” is specifically defined in the Charter (paragraph 38, (1) (b)) as a duty
that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not
get involved unless, for example, it relates to a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards.
Overall the Head of Editorial Standards does not consider that there is a reasonable
prospect of success for your appeal and does not propose to put your appeal to the
ESC.
If you wish the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, and wish
them to do so at their October meeting, please reply with your reasons by 5pm on
Tuesday 27 September 2011 to Lucy Tristram, Complaints Advisor, at the above
address or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk.If you wish to reply by Thursday 29
September, they will consider your request at their November meeting. If
exceptionally you need more time please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.
6
If you do ask the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision I will
then place your letter, this letter, the Stage 2 decision and your previous
correspondence to the Trust before the ESC. Their decision following their October
meeting is likely to be ratified at their November meeting and you will be given their
decision shortly afterwards.
If the Trustees consider that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then
your case will close. If the Trustees disagree with the Head of Editorial Standards’ view
then your case will be given to an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we
will contact you with an updated time line.
Yours sincerely
Natalie Rose
Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, Trust Unit'

I am considering my response but somehow I doubt that whatever I say will be successful. Any suggestions as to how to take this forward?

A piece of pertinent information that the BBC see fit to ignore

The BBC report that:

'Martin McGuinness would meet Queen as president

Martin McGuinness has said he will be prepared to meet all heads of state "without exception", if he is elected President of Ireland. 

Sinn Fein announced on Friday that it would be supporting Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister for the role

Returning from a trip to the US on Saturday, Mr McGuinness said he hoped his candidacy would not be divisive.

When the Queen made her first visit to Ireland in May, Sinn Fein did not take part in any of the main ceremonies.

Speaking to the BBC on Saturday morning, Mr McGuinness said he had given careful consideration to his decision to stand.

He was asked how he would handle another Royal visit to Ireland, given his party's position on the Queen's historic trip.

He said: "If the people of Ireland decide that I should be their president, my responsibilities and duties would be to meet heads of state from all over the world and to do that without exception and that would be my position."'

 How magnanimous of Martin McGuinness to deign to meet the Queen in the future.

The BBC do admit that 'Martin McGuinness, ... has admitted being second in command of the IRA in Derry in the 1970s' but don't link that to the fact that the IRA murdered the Queen's cousin Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, in 1979. Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness's SinnFein/IRA colleague, said of Lord Mountbatten's murder:

'The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution. I think it is unfortunate that anyone has to be killed, but the furore created by Mountbatten's death showed up the hypocritical attitude of the media establishment. As a member of the House of Lords, Mountbatten was an emotional figure in both British and Irish politics. What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people; and with his war record I don't think he could have objected to dying in what was clearly a war situation. He knew the danger involved in coming to this country. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective: people started paying attention to what was happening in Ireland.'

What has Martin McGuinness ever said about this cold-blooded murder? Did he have any part in it, the ordering or approving of it? Have the BBC ever asked these questions? Do the BBC even care?

Regardless of the answers to those questions, would the Queen want to meet one of the men who at the very least was high up in the organisation that killed her cousin, the man who was her eldest son's favourite uncle?


UPDATE:
I see that Biased-BBC have a related piece about the BBC's lack of interest in Martin McGuinness's IRA background:

'why not ask when did McGuinness leave the IRA, exactly? When he was occupying the position as Capo di tutti capo, just how many innocent lives did he arrange to have terminated.Perhaps even more pointedly, how many peope did he murder HIMSELF? What exactly did he "command"?'

A Europhile sees the light

Per The Standard it seems that Danny Alexander has faced up to reality:

'“I think there is no doubt at all that the flexibilities we have, not being part of the euro, have been very helpful to the UK in dealing with the economic crisis we’ve had…”'

 Now what about Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke and the rest of the Europhiles who wanted the UK in the Euro-Zone and pooh-poohed those of us who foresaw the obvious problems?

Incontrovertible?

'Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: xxxx@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever'

The above is the text of an email sent to the American Pjysical Society by Physics Nobel Laureate Dr Ivar Giaever. It's good to see that another serious scientist has taken a stand against the 'warmist' religion. Dr Ivar Giaever has pointed out the factual problems that undermine the 'warmist' case. Per his Wikipedia entry:

According to The Wall Street Journal, Giaever has described man-made global warming as a "new religion,"^[8] with references to a report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (minority), led by Jim Inhofe, in March 2009.^[9] The report states that Giaever has said "I am a skeptic… Global warming has become a new religion."^[9][10]
In a featured story in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."^[11]
On 13 September 2011 Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position that "the evidence is incontrovertible."^[12]

I wonder if the BBC will interview Dr Ivar Giaever about his views or do they too consider such views to be heretical?


Thanks to Devils Kitchen for the spot.

Rugby World Cup mistake

Oh I see that the England match versus Georgia is on Sunday morning not Saturday at 7am, shame that I had not checked last night!

My apologies - fifth day running

For the fifth day running blogging will be light or non-existent here; my sincere apologies but circumstances have been conspiring against me.

Hopefully I will be able to resume proper blogging over the weekend and next week looks much clearer of work...

Oh wow! Thank you if you voted for this blog

I have just been referred to the Total Politics Top 50 right wing blogs awards for 2011 and I see that this blog has risen from number 50 last year to number 35 this year. I am in a slight state of shock as when I started this blog I never really thought that it would amount to anything and really only started it as a form of therapy.

I suppose that it is natural for me to look at those blogs rated in the top 10 or 20 and wonder how I could ever catch them up - and of course I doubt that I ever could. Maybe more interesting is to look at those somewhat nearer to my blog. Am I really only rated two places below Melanie Phillips, can I therefore expect a call soon from Radio 4's The Moral Maze? Actually I have had offers to appear on the BBC and that is a story that I must tell soon. Am I really rated 10 places above Toby Young, could I fill in for him occasionally on Radio 4's Today programme? Good grief I have just noticed that I am rated just eight places below Peter Hitchens.

I also find it interesting that this blog rates higher than two blogs that I follow closely: A Tangled Web and Theo Spark, albeit they are new entrants this year whilst I am now an old-stager.

Anyway  that's enough self-referential nonsense...

Two BBC articles that struck me as interesting in juxtaposition

Two BBC articles struck me as interesting in juxtaposition: the first is this piece that reports that:

'US computer firm Apple has withdrawn a mobile phone application called Jewish or Not Jewish from its online store in France.'

The second is this piece that reports that:

'The UK has pulled out of a United Nations event marking the 10th anniversary of the World Conference on Racism in South Africa.'

Anti-Semitism, is it everywhere or are some people too sensitive? Re the Apple App I tend to side with the over-sensitive as I can see the 'app' having applicability in many Jewish families. Re the World Conference on Racism, I think it is obvious where I stand!

Why the surprise and shock?

In various places in the blogosphere and beyond I have seen shock expressed that Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador to the USA said recently that a future Palestinian state would have to be free of Jews. Many have asked which the last Judenfrei state was, hoping that one would answer Nazi Germany and this be shocked.

Those of us who have long listened to what Fatah and Hamas leaders have said about the future of the Middle East are not in the slightest bit surprised. Hamas's Charter and its plans for Israel have been well known for many years, I have blogged numerous times about their desire to cleanse Israel of Jews. Fatah/PLO's plans are less well publicised as Western governments have tried to portray these cojoined entities as the reasonable face of Palestinian aspirations. However Fatah/PLO have similar plans for Israel albeit over a longer term. Hamas's Mahmoud Al-Zahar recently declared that Hamas would view any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, or a compromise agreement with the Palestinian Authority, as only a 'first stage' towards the destruction of Israel in its entirety. He asserted that this was the key difference between Hamas and their secular rivals, Fatah.

Every time an idiot chants "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" they are calling for the destruction of Israel, the ending of the Jewish state. The river is the Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean; from the river to the sea is not calling for a two state solution, it is calling for the destruction of Israel. Note that I said 'the Jewish state' not 'a Jewish state', for whilst there are dozens of Muslim states in the world, including those where Jews are distinctly unwanted, if not actually verbotten, there is just one Jewish state existing on land that was Jewish long before the birth of Islam. Does anyone take Saudi Arabia to task for its policy on Jews, not Israelis like other Arab countries, but Jews?

So yes Maen Areikat's words are shocking but surely not surprising. But what is really shocking is that anyone is in the slightest bit surprised.

My apologies - fourth day running

For the fourth day running blogging will be light or non-existent here; my sincere apologies but circumstances have been conspiring against me.

Hopefully I will be able to resume proper blogging on Friday.

My apologies - 3rd day running

For the third day running blogging will be light or non-existent here; my sincere apologies but circumstances have been conspiring against me.

Hopefully I will be able to resume proper blogging on Friday.

My apologies - 2nd day running

For the second day running blogging will be light or non-existent here; my sincere apologies.

The illegitimacy of Ed Milliband

'... research from academics at the University of Bristol, seen by PoliticsHome, claims the 2010 Labour leadership election did not meet the definition of a "free and fair democratic election". It also shows how the trade unions created a 'block vote' in favour of their preferred candidate – Mr Miliband - in Labour's leadership election last September.'

More fascinating details at Politics Home but definitely not on the  BBC.

Blogging hiatus

Blogging hiatus - there are likely to be no proper blog posts today, sorry.

The perils of granting political asylum

Just read this Telegraph article  and wonder at the stupidity of those who grant political asylum to all and sundry, regardless of the obvious risks.

The sanctity of International Law

The BBC get furious at infractions of International Law by Israel, even when it is confirmed that their actions are not illegal (see naval blockade of Gaza being declared legal). Contrastingly they seem less than concerned at the contravention of part of the Vienna Convention this week in Egypt. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention states:

'The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.'

I have not heard the BBC mention this; I wonder why? Do the BBC deem Israel to be so beyond the pale that they should not enjoy the protection of international law?

William Hague shows his lack of understanding or maybe just the influence of the Arabists at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office

William Hague, a man who my respect for diminishes almost daily, has issued a statement to commemorate the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Here is is in full, followed by my comments:

'Tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks

11 September 2011

Foreign Secretary William Hague has commemorated the victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, and of other global acts of terrorism since.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

"Today we commemorate the citizens of the United States and over 90 countries who perished in the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, including 67 British nationals. We remember the courage and dignity of the American people in the face of such appalling loss. And we also recall the victims of other global acts of terrorism since – including the attacks in London in 2005. Such attacks have only served to bring the international community closer together, and to bolster those who seek change through peaceful means, not through barbaric violence.

"In the decade since the 2001 attacks on the United States, terrorists have succeeded only in the murder of innocents, often from among those they claim to represent. Al Qaeda is now weaker than at any time in the decade since 9/11 – and political progress through peaceful protest in the Middle East and North Africa has shown it to be increasingly irrelevant to the future. The true expression of what people in the Muslim world aspire to was seen not at Ground Zero in 2001, but in squares and streets across the Middle East and North Africa this year. So while we remember the victims of 9/11, stand firm with our allies and remain tirelessly vigilant against future threats, we also face the future with confidence in our values and faith in human nature."'

In the first paragraph William Hague manages not to mention that the terrorists were Islamic terrorists carrying out their diabolical plan in the name of Islam. He might not like that fact, he may find that fact an 'inconvenient truth' but a fact it remains.

In the second paragraph William Hague ascribes motives and aspirations to the 'peaceful protest(s)' in the Middle East and North Africa that he should know are not true. The protests and revolts in much of North Africa and the Middle East have been shown time and time again to have an Islamist tinge. The cries of "Allahu Akhbar" have resounded across the squares, souks and mosques of the area and the number of placards and chants calling for the destruction of Israel and death to Jews have been noticed by many who do not rely on the BBC for the approved version of the news. Has William Hague not noticed what has happened in Egypt over the past few month, let alone the last couple of days?

I used to admire William Hague as a politician, however since the last general election he has shown himself to have little more understanding or interest in the truths of the world situation than did the leaders of the last Labour government.

How desperate must you be...

Imagine how desperate you must be to jump from the window of your 80th, 90th, 100th story office. Imagine the fear of what would be worse than jumping to your certain death. On 9/11 around 200 people jumped from the Twin Towers rather than burn to death. 200 innocent people pushed to kill themselves because some twisted terrorists decided that killing innocent people was the thing to do. Of course to the Islamic terrorist these people were not innocent, I am not innocent, Mrs NotaSheep is not innocent and chances are they don't consider you innocent either. Because as Anjem Choudary (and other Islamists) have declared:

'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"'

Remember that comment the next time some Islamist apologist says that Islam forbids the killing of 'innocents'. They do not consider anyone non-Muslim to be innocent; to them we are now, as we were on 9/11, all legitimate targets.

Also remember that comment the next time a BBC 'journalist' or a dhimmified Western politician tells you that Islam is a religion of peace.

In fact remember that comment every day of the rest of your life; because ou there are Islamist terrorists desperately devising the means to kill you and all other committers of crimes against their God.

A Rule 5 Saturday Night Post - especially for Grant

Last week's Rule 5 post left one of my regular readers less than happy:

'Too skinny for me , I'm afraid. Give me a big , black girl any day !!!'

So here's something hopefully more to Grant's tastes:

Grace Jones

Angel Davies
 

Kimiko from Outaroad where there are plenty of Jamaican Myspace models to peruse, some showing rather more of their attributes than I choose to show on this blog

Finally Tyra Banks

Talking of Tyra Banks, she seems to be the subject of a lot of faked porn photos, two of which you can find
at CelebrityFakesList which claims to be 'the biggest fake celebrity archive on the net'. Apparently Tyra Banks has never posed naked, so this nipple slip link may be of interest...

And because I like to include some video in Rule 5 posts, here's Grace Jones - 'My Jamaican Guy'


and Tyra Banks telling people to "Kiss her fat ass'




I hope that this post was more to Grant's liking; after all with this blog, I aim to please!

Doctor Who - "Night Terrors" reviewed

After the frantic excitement of "Let's Kill Hitler", this episode was more thoughtful and scary. A good old-fashioned let's scare the children episode that I enjoyed but thought a touch predictable; as soon as Amy Pond said it was a wooden saucepan, I thought model and thus dolls house in the cupboard. Nevertheless it was an enjoyable tale spoilt only by the saccharine ending that even Mrs NotaSheep thought was just plain mawkish.

This episode refernced very little in the story-arc which was a nice relief although I did notice that the Doctor's place of death was named as Lake Silence!!! Coincidence? I think not...

Doctor Who - 'The Girl Who Waited' - The previews

So much for the previews, now for the programme with lots of Amy Pond and some proper scifi....

9/11 - some figures

'Nine eleven: By the numbers

Number of years since the attacks: 10

Number of Muslim hijackers: 19

Number of airplanes hijacked: 4

Number of intended targets: 4

Number of targets struck: 3 

Number of murder victims: 2,977

Estimated financial cost of the attacks: $3.3 trillion (source)

Number of apologies from Muslims, Muslim countries, or Muslim organizations for the attacks: Zero'

Thanks to Jihad Watch for the spot.

The usual BBC response to a complaint

Back in June I complained about the BBC deliberately omitting relevant information from a report regarding Israel's relative size. My original piece  about the same matter may also be of interest. I note that I have received a response from the BBC and here it is:

'Dear Audience Member

Reference CAS-809912-D85Z5V


Thanks for contacting us regarding the ‘Today’ programme broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 10 June.

Firstly, we’d like to apologise for the severe delay in providing a response to your complaints. We appreciate our correspondents expect a swift reply and we’re sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.


We passed your concerns to our programme editors, who explain that it is not always possible to encompass the complex history of relations between Israel and the Palestinians in each individual report. Our purpose in using the statistic about the amount of land Israel acquired during the 1967 war was to simply to explain the scale of change which the conflict created. We described the dilemma of land for peace with the Palestinians in order to illustrate the legacy of the war which remains with us to this day. We do not agree that listeners were misled and believe it is clear the piece is about the current situation rather than the past.


Please be assured we’ve registered your feedback on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.


The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.


Thanks once again for contacting us.


Kind Regards Stephanie McGuckin BBC Complaints www.bbc.co.uk/complaints


NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.'

 The usual bland we were right, you were wrong response, followed by an assurance that is worth nothing and finally the information that if you want to respond you'll have to go through the complaints procedure all over again.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to pursue this complaint but will be chasing up the BBC Trust re this outstanding complaint later this weekend.

World Cup Rugby - best advert so far

O2's 'Pie' advertisement - Mrs NotaSheep's favourite!


That was a tough match versus Argentina, I think people forget how good a rugby side Argentina are. Now Georgia and Romania over the next two weekends, before the final critical match versus Scotland on Saturday 1 October. England need to improve, a lot, if they are to progress beyond the Quarter Finals.

It's nearly here

After all the waiting, the Rugby World Cup kicks off in under three hours time. Unlike the recent World Athletics Championships which I missed almost all of, I have a fighting chance of watching all of England's games and maybe even some other pool games. All of England's matches are on at the weekend and none start before 7am so that should not be too difficult although some negotiating with Mrs NotaSheep may be in order as she is not a great rugby fan although she does try (pun intended).

Here are the Rugby World Cup Pools:
Pool A
New Zealand, France, Tonga, Canada, Japan

Pool B
Argentina, England, Scotland, Georgia, Romania

Pool C
Australia, Ireland, Italy, Russia, United States

Pool D
South Africa, Wales, Fiji, Manu Samoa, Namibia


Here are the Rugby World Cup fixtures:
9 September:
New Zealand v Tonga, Eden Park, Auckland (0930 BST)

10 September:
Scotland v Romania, Rugby Park Stadium, Invercargill (0200 BST)
Fiji v Namibia, Rotorua International Stadium (0430 BST)
France v Japan, North Harbour Stadium, North Shore (0700 BST)
Argentina v England, Otago Stadium, Dunedin (0930 BST)

11 September:
Australia v Italy, North Harbour Stadium, Auckland (0430 BST)
Ireland v United States, Stadium Taranaki, New Plymouth (0700 BST)
South Africa v Wales, Wellington Regional Stadium (0930 BST)

14 September:
Manu Samoa v Namibia, Rotorua International Stadium (0330 BST)
Tonga v Canada, Northland Events Centre, Whangarei (0600 BST)
Scotland v Georgia, Rugby Park Stadium, Invercargill (0830 BST)

15 September:
Russia v United States, Stadium Taranaki, New Plymouth (0830 BST)

16 September:
New Zealand v Japan, Waikato Stadium, Hamilton (0900 BST)

17 September:
Argentina v Romania, Rugby Park Stadium, Invercargill (0430 BST)
South Africa v Fiji, Wellington Regional Stadium (0700 BST)
Australia v Ireland, Eden Park, Auckland (0930 BST)

18 September:
Wales v Manu Samoa, Waikato Stadium, Hamilton (0430 BST)
England v Georgia, Otago Stadium, Dunedin (0700 BST)
France v Canada, McLean Park, Napier (0930 BST)

20 September:
Italy v Russia, Trafalgar Park, Nelson (0830 BST)

21 September:
Tonga v Japan, Northland Events Centre, Whangarei (0830 BST)

22 September:
South Africa v Namibia, North Harbour Stadium, North Shore (0900 BST)

23 September:
Australia v United States, Wellington Regional Stadium (0930 BST)

24 September:
England v Romania, Carisbrook, Dunedin (0700 BST)
New Zealand v France, Eden Park, Auckland (0930 BST)

25 September:
Fiji v Manu Samoa, Eden Park, Auckland (0330 BST)
Ireland v Russia, Rotorua International Stadium (0600 BST)
Argentina v Scotland, Wellington Regional Stadium (0830 BST)

26 September:
Wales v Namibia, Stadium Taranaki, New Plymouth (0730 BST)

27 September:
Canada v Japan, McLean Park, Napier (0500 BST)
Italy v United States, Trafalgar Park, Nelson (0730 BST)

28 September:
Georgia v Romania, Arena Manawatu, Palmerston North (0730 BST)

30 September:
South Africa v Manu Samoa, North Harbour Stadium, North Shore (0830 BST)

1 October:
Australia v Russia, Nelson (0330 BST)
France v Tonga, Wellington Regional Stadium (0600 BST)
England v Scotland, Eden Park, Auckland (0830 BST)

2 October:
Argentina v Georgia, Arena Manawatu, Palmerston North (0100 BST)
New Zealand v Canada, Wellington Regional Stadium (0330 BST)
Wales v Fiji, Waikato Stadium, Hamilton (0600 BST)
Ireland v Italy, Carisbrook, Dunedin (0830 BST)

Quarter-final One: 8 October
Winner Pool C v Runner-up Pool D
(Wellington Regional Stadium, 0600 BST)

Quarter-final Two: 8 October
Winner Pool B v Runner-up Pool A
(Lancaster Park Stadium, 0830 BST)

Quarter-final Three: 9 October
Winner Pool D v Runner-up Pool C
(Wellington Regional Stadium, 0600 BST)

Quarter-final Four: 9 October
Winner Pool A v Runner-up Pool B
(Lancaster Park Stadium, 0830 BST)

Semi-final One: 15 October
Winner QF1 v Winner QF2
(Eden Park, Auckland, 0900 BST)

Semi-final Two: 16 October
Winner QF3 v Winner QF4
(Eden Park, Auckland, 0900 BST)

Bronze final: 21 October
Loser SF1 v Loser SF2
(Eden Park, Auckland, 0830 BST)

Final: 23 October
Winner SF1 v Winner SF2
(Eden Park, Auckland, 0900 BST)


If you watch rugby this is the most exciting six weeks of any four year cycle. I remember 2003 when England won the Rugby World Cup; I watched all of England's matches and a good many of the others but due to poor planning found myself on a long-haul flight for the final... I learnt of the result over the Atlantic and it was not for almost a week that I saw more than just the highlights, of course by then all the suspense had gone as I knew what Jonny Wilkinson was about to do. This year I plan to suffer no such issues - clients, friends and family please take note!

The biggest "No shit, Sherlock" article I have ever read...

I have made almost 150 "No shit, Sherlock" awards over the past few years but this BBC report  really does take the buscuit. Apparently:

'Younger and younger children are accessing porn online, the Sun's agony aunt Deidre Sanders has told MPs.'

Younger and younger  children are accessing porn online - "No shit, Sherlock!"



 PS:
For some reason this line struck me as amusing:

'The former home secretary Jacqui Smith told the panel it was easy for children to access porn.'

Kids and husbands? 

Who is Amelia Hill?

If you rely upon the BBC for your news then you probably havbe no idea. Searching the BBC news website I could find no mention of Amelia Hill on any of the News front pages but I did find this page that had a reference to Amelia Hill in a piece entitled 'Phone hacking: Police bail sports writer Raoul Simons'. Could the lack of coverage of Amelia Hill's questioning under caution by the police have anything to do with her being a Guardian journalist rather than a News International one?

If you run with the devil, you may end up tied to the devil

If a Conservative government had been shown to have been closely linked personally as wll as diplomatically with a tyrant, the BBC/Guardian would have been all over the story and would have been baying for blood. It seems that the same does not apply when it is Labour who have been shown to have close links with Libya. The Mail reports that:
'... documents found in the bombed-out ruins of Tripoli show the Labour governments of Blair and Brown kowtowed grotesquely to Colonel Gaddafi and his sons.

...

They accepted information extracted from Islamic terrorist suspects in Libyan torture chambers and gave the Gaddafi regime intelligence about opponents living in Britain.

...

In addition, pass-the-sickbag stories about Blair advising Saif Gaddafi on his PhD thesis and Brown writing to the barking Colonel at Ramadan ‘to wish you and your family well in this holy month’.

The BBC/Guardian ignoring of this part of the Libya story shows them in their true, putrid, colours.

Delhi explosions - cause?

There has been an explosion outside the high court in New Delhi, dozens of people are said to be injured. According to New Delhi-based news channel, NDTV, the blast took place just before the court opened for hearings. Meanwhile Reuters cite local TV networks and say that least 24 people had been injured. The New Delhi police have declined to comment on whether the blast was a bomb attack an if so who might be behind it. If it was a bomb I think we all know the background of the likely culprits.

Doctor Who spoiler

Doctor Who catchup review - Let's kill Hitler

A season opener, so I suppose I can forgive the frivolous tone of much of this episode. The 'where have you been all summer' line was fun as were the various film references - I particularly enjoyed the River Song/Mrs Robinson - "Hello Benjamin" line, one of my favourite films (The Graduate) referenced nicely. The episode also seemed to reference, rather too much, Indiana Jones, The Matrix and Terminator films. Too much whiz-bangery but it's Doctor Who, it's back; so I'm happy.

Tuesday morning catchup

The usual story, too many open Firefox tabs and not enough time

1) Lew Rockwell has analysed some of Barack Obama's scholastic work from his time at Harvard. He's not ery comlimentary:

'The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

...

Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times. In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: "Approximately half of this first batch is chosen ... the other half are selected ... "

Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space.'

2) Yahoo News reports that:

'Palestinians in Gaza have acquired anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets from Libya during its six-month civil war, enlarging but not significantly improving their arsenal, Israeli officials said on Monday.

While the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi has stirred concern abroad about the fate of Libya's aging chemical weapons stockpiles, Israel has no indication Hamas or other Palestinian factions have sought these, the officials said.

Instead, Israeli officials have detected an inflow of SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), said one official, describing an overland supply route that opened up between eastern Libya -- after it fell to the rebels -- and the Gaza Strip via Egypt.'

3) MSNBC reports that many Americans are stocking up on incandescent lightbulbs in the run-up to them being phased out. I have a large stash of 60W pearl lightbulbs that should last me 10 years or so...


4) WND
are still pushing the Barack Obama birth certificate story. It's another interesting story but I am not sure how many people are listening!


5) James Cridland wonders 'How big is Murdoch’s “stranglehold” on UK news media?' There's some interesting statistics, here's a few:

'Overall reach
How much of our news does Murdoch control, then? It’s difficult to put a figure on the above; but Sky News and online are small, and his newspapers have a roughly 20% share of all the population. Only Sky News’s deal with commercial radio boosts Murdoch’s news ‘reach’ to around 60%, and there is likely to be considerable overlap between commercial radio listeners and newspaper readers. (Commercial radio’s output is also not mainly news).

Who is bigger than Murdoch?
There’s only one contender as a bigger provider of news than Rupert Murdoch… the BBC.

Newspapers
The BBC do not operate printed newspapers.

Television news
The BBC News Channel is watched, weekly, by 15% of the population.
Additionally, BBC News content is carried on BBC ONE, BBC TWO, BBC THREE and BBC FOUR. Just BBC ONE itself attracts 83% of the population each week.
BARB Jun 27 – Jul 03 2011

Radio news
The BBC owns 50 radio stations, and BBC News content is on almost all of them (only BBC Radio 4 Extra carries no news).
BBC radio is listened-to by 68% of the population each week.
RAJAR Q1 2011

Online news
The BBC’s website attracts 19.5m adults each week – 38% of the population. BBC News makes up a high percentage of BBC website traffic.
BBC Annual Report 2010/2011

Overall reach
The BBC Annual Report says it best: “across all platforms 81% of [UK] adults consumed BBC News every week”
BBC Annual Report 2010/2011

So – Murdoch media reaches around 65% of the population, and BBC News reaches 81%.

However you examine these figures, it’s clear that the influence of the BBC is considerably larger than anything Murdoch is putting out, even after a BSkyB buyout.'

6) John Phelan at The Commentator also soes't think too much of the claims re Murdoch's 'monopoly':
'The idea that Rupert Murdoch has a monopoly of British media or is even close to getting one is nonsense. According to an Ofcom report into News International’s bid for BSkyB, television accounts for seventy-three percent of the news people receive and seventy-percent of that comes from the BBC.

In internet and radio the BBC is similarly dominant. News International, by contrast, accounts for less than thirty percent of newspapers read and Sky News accounts for just six percent of television news.

...

There’s a good reason why the left might choose to regulate Murdoch rather than compete with him; they aren’t much good at it. The BBC certainly provides stiff competition but then it is funded by a compulsory levy on all TV and radio consumers whether they listen to the BBC or not, a luxury Murdoch doesn’t have.


7) Human Events reveals that 'Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe'. It's a long article, here's an extract:

'Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.

But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth​—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.

Special agents from the Interior Department​’s inspector general's office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.

Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18. Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.

The disputed paper was published by the journal Polar Biology in 2006, and suggests that the “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”

It galvanized the environmental movement that led to the bear’s controversial listing in 2008 as threatened, and it is now protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Although the four dead bears cited in the paper were observed from 1,500 feet during flights over the Beaufort Sea, and the carcasses were never recovered or examined, Gleason told investigators it is likely the creatures drowned in a sudden windstorm that produced 30-knot winds, not for lack of an ice pack.

“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators, according to the transcript.

“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May. “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”

Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.

“I think these sorts of things tend to mushroom, and the interpretation gets popularized,” Gleason said. “Something very small turns into this big snowball coming down the mountain, and that's, I think, what happened with this paper.”

Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.

“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.

Monnett now manages $50 million in studies as part of his duties as a wildlife biologist with the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators are also examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada's University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department's inspector general’s office.'

Do read it all, and as always it's best to 'follow the money'.

Cynical, very cynical

Wildammo explains how to get from 'friend' status to 'in a relationship'- very cynical!

"Never hit a woman but do kick a dog"

Nice people these 'anti-fascists', punch a woman in the face, kick her in the bum and laugh about it...

Alistair Darling confirms that Ed Balls and others are telling the truth when they state that there was no plot to replace Tony Blair with Gordon Brown

"It would be wrong to claim that there was a plot to get rid of Tony Blair; there was no plot. A plot is secret. This was an open campaign, and as far as the Brownite cabal were concerned, you were with them or against them. It was a fairly brutal regime, and many of us fell foul of it."

I'm glad he's made that clear. I can't see that quotation being reported on the BBC though, I wonder why...

Revelations that Gordon Brown 'threatened a senior official unless he provided economic figures that suited him' - any coverage on the BBC?

The Telegraph recounts how Alistair Darling has written that Gordon Brown, when Prime Minister, 'threatened a senior official unless he provided economic figures that suited him.' A serious allegation to make and one that surely would be of interest to the national broadcaster. Well no, as it is embarrassing to their beloved Labour Party this BBC article on the Alistair Darling book makes no mention of that allegation.

Why did nobody stop Gordon Brown?

If you read only one article day read John Rentoul's piece in todays Independent, here's an extract:

'The third reaction on reading Alistair Darling's memoir, after enjoying the quality of the writing and the nicely understated humour, is to wonder again how Gordon Brown was ever allowed to be Prime Minister.

Of course, we knew the main points of the story at the time. It was no secret that Brown resented Tony Blair's seizure of the Labour leadership in 1994, or that Brown was impatient to succeed him from 2004, or that towards the end there were policy differences between them. It became known, especially during Brown's three years as Prime Minister, that he could be rude, difficult and bad-tempered.
Related articles

With each successive diary and memoir, though, our knowledge of Brown's unreasonableness advanced another notch. Each advance was surprising, but small, and produced diminishing returns of outrage, so it was easy to lose sight of how far we had come. Now we have to look back and conclude that his behaviour should have ruled him out of high office.

...

The third volume of Campbell's "complete" Diaries, published in July, recounted one appalling example of Brown's conduct after another – and still only took us to 2001, four years into Blair's 10-year stint at the top. Because there were so many,and because we had already got the basic idea – Brown was a monster – much of it went unreported. Some of the accounts of Brown being monosyllabic or childishly unhelpful when asked direct questions in meetings are pure John Cleese: so embarrassing they are not funny. Campbell tells of a discussion about Europe in 2000, when Peter Mandelson said that "we had to be more positive" and "Gordon literally turned away to look at the wall".

...

Then there are the questions for others in the Labour Party: How did Brown succeed unopposed to the leadership? And why did the party not change leader before the 2010 election? We do not need Darling's book to tell us that the hopes many in the party had that Brown would operate differently once he was in the top job were quickly dashed – although this weekend's revelations add brushstroke detail and depth to the picture.

John McTernan, who had been Blair's political adviser and who worked at the Scotland Office until last year, tells how Brown replicated his own broken relationship with Blair in his dealings with his own Chancellor. Brown wanted the 2010 election to be about "cuts versus investment". In one meeting of advisers from Nos 10 and 11, McTernan asked: "Surely the real choice is between our cuts and theirs?" He wrote in The Scotsman last week: "This was dismissed, but later No 10 issued an edict to Darling's staff. While they hadn't supported my line, they had rolled their eyes while No 10 staffers were talking."

Darling, too, managed to replicate one important feature of the dysfunctional relationship with No 10 of his predecessor, which was that he made it hard for the Prime Minister to sack him. Thus he was able to see off Brown's feeble attempt to appoint Ed Balls as chancellor, which has already been recounted by Peter Mandelson in his memoir – Brown asked Mandelson to find out how Darling would react to the possibility.

...

The portrait of Gordon Brown that emerges from the memoirs and diaries is so bad that it can't all be his fault. Blair, Campbell, Mandelson and Darling stopped short of doing something to stop Brown when they had the chance. David Miliband and Alan Johnson, who never said a bad word about Brown but who could have sought the top job, chose not to do so. In my view, either or both should have done.

No doubt Alistair Darling thinks he could have done better as Labour leader at the last election, and I would agree with that too. But none of them did what had to be done, so it is not much use arguing now over who was right and who was wrong.'

The Labour party was full of cowards who feared Gordon Brown and his attack dogs more than they feared what he could do to the Labour party and the Country. Well cowards; thanks a lot!

Saturday night Rule 5 post

Elle Macpherson at age 31 and 48; still The Body.
That image is from The Mail

Here are some photos from Elle's modelling days...

and here from her role in the excellent film 'Sirens', one of my favourites!

And finally here's some video to give you a feel for the film...



Sirens by Steve22Campbell

Peter Mandelson famously said that New Labour were ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’

With the purchase of an £8million London mansion Peter Mandelson must be very, very relaxed indeed. How he acquired so much money would be an interesting question to have answered; certainly his income as an MP, then an EU Commissioner and finally a Peer would not seem to be enough. We know that his inheritance was not that large so how has twice disgraced Peter Mandelson become so rich? Property dealings would be one possibility but that is a line of inquiry that leads back to how Peter Mandelson was forced out of office for the first time. There are also his links with several foreign multi-millionaires, that are sometimes mooted as an explanation for Peter Mandelson's acquisition of so much wealth, but I am sure that Peter Mandelson was as straight in his business dealings as he was in his political career.

There is something about Peter Mandelson that makes many people instantly distrust him, maybe in this case first impressions are 'on the money'.

A good take-off or just irritating?

The album cover for Kraftwerk's 'Man Machine' album -  a classic album made by a great original group.

The promotional picture for Ant and Dec's new TV series 'Red or Black' - another light entertainment show made by two irritating and derivative entertainers.

Lady Gaga with no makeup and not wearing a ridiculous outfit!

Lady Gaga has made a series of 'fashion films' to go along with the music video for her new song, You And I. In the first of the films, entitled HAUS OF Ü feat. NYMPH, Lady Gaga wears just a simple silk slip and poses raunchily (no change there) but shockingly she seems makeup free...

Odd name for an Al Jazeera reporter

'Al Jazeera's Charlie Angela reports.' - Al Jazeera have a reporter from Charlie's Angels!

Who am I to judge?

WAFB report 'Man accused of having sex with pool raft had also violated inflatable pumpkin' as though this was something odd!

One cat you would not want to mess with

One 21 pound cat that doesn't want any competition, even from a balloon cat.

A special glowing "No shit, Sherlock" award

I thought that this piece of "No shit, Sherlock" reporting deserved a special award, a glowing (but not in a good way) one. Yahoo News, and others, report that:

'The U.N. nuclear agency said Friday it is "increasingly concerned" about a stream of intelligence suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said "many member states" are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information it is receiving as credible, "extensive and comprehensive."'

'Iran is secretly developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.'

Really! "No shit, Sherlock"

Of course what is really scary is that the United Nations will do nothing about this, other than issue a follow-up report in a few months time. The United Nations will continue to do nothing about this right up until either Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities - in which case the United Nations will take action against Israel, or until Iran (or one of its terrorist associates) explodes one or more nuclear devices in Israel - in which case the United Nations will express disapproval but explain that Israel brought it upon itself by being on Islamic land.

Is there anything about the UK's willingness to give anyone benefits that will ever surprise me?

From The Telegraph:

'The key suspect in the murder of WPc Yvonne Fletcher was claiming taxpayer-funded benefits at the time the policewoman was shot dead, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Matouk Mohammed Matouk, who is at the centre of an extradition row between Britain and Libya, took advantage of this country’s generous social security rules during two years as a student here.

The payments are disclosed in a cache of documents found by this newspaper in the wreckage of Mr Matouk’s home outside Tripoli.

The papers show that he applied for child benefit for his two daughters, Buthina and Bushra, after enrolling in an architecture course at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University in 1982.

A letter from the then Department of Health and Social Security, written in June 1983, confirmed that Mr Matouk and his wife, Salma Salem, qualified for child benefit.

The couple were entitled to keep claiming the payments, which were backdated seven months from the date of the letter, until Mr Matouk was deported following WPc Fletcher’s murder in April 1984.

In total, the couple were entitled to more than £800 of child benefit — the equivalent of £2,000 today. The letter states that “child benefit is payable for Buthina and Bushra at the weekly rate of £5.85 each from and including 6/12/82”.

It has also emerged that Mr Matouk was allowed to graduate in absentia from Heriot-Watt in July 1986, more than two years after he had been thrown out of the country over his suspected involvement in WPc Fletcher’s death. '

So a foreign student comes to the UK from Libya, claims benefits for his children, works in the Libyan embassy, is accused of murdering a British Policewoman, leaves the UK using diplomatic immunity to avoid arrest and gets a degree in-absentia.

I asked, 'Is there anything about the UK's willingness to give anyone benefits that will ever surprise me?' The answer is probably not.

Polly Toynbee a solution to your problem

Yesterday Polly Toynbee was ambushed online by Guido Fawkes, Guido accused her of hypocrisy:

'If you are so concerned about wealth inequality and want to see more income redistribution, why are you so rich?'

Guido also pointed out that her writing about poverty had earned her a salary hefty enough to afford three homes, one of which is in Italy, as well as funding her children’s education, as Guido put it:

'Polly is crying about poverty all the way to the Bank of Tuscany.'

Fair comment I think you have to agree. Polly Toynbee's response apart from the usual cornered-lefty's weapon of the personal attack:

'You have devoted your life to poison and malevolence'

was interesting. Two of her defences in particular caught my eye:

First - 'You’re always hammering on about my earnings — as if they were in any way exceptional for someone in my profession'

So following that line of argument does Polly Toynbee accept that high six figure salaries are reasonable for bankers, after all they are not 'in any way exceptional for someone in that profesion'?

Second - 'I write often that I think the distribution of rewards are unjust — yes, including my own.'

If Polly thinks that she earns too much and if this causes her anguish then there are four courses open to her:
First she could ask her employer(s) to pay her less, maybe just twice the minimum wage not four times it, this would reduce the amount the Treasury received in tax and NIc though. Second she could accept her current wage(s) but donate the excess to charity, thus not depriving the State of money. Third she could accept the same wage(s) but voluntarily give extra money to the Treasury, this course of action is open to any tax-payer who feels left-wing guilt and actually wants to do something about it rather than whinge and complain. Fourthly Polly Toynbee could continue to take the money whilst lecturing us on the inequalities of the capitalist system.

Somehow I think I know which option Polly Toynbee will choose. Just another example of Labour hypocrisy from one of the left's biggest hypocrites, and there is a large field to choose from.

A Jewish majority established in Jerusalem in 1863?

But the usual narrative is that Jews invaded Palestinian land? I wonder if the BBC would be interested in reporting this fact; or does it not fit with their narrative?

A reminder of typical Labour hypocrisy

Harriet Harman showing the sort of hypocrisy that meant she was the perfect person to be deputy leader of the Labour party.

'But the report also concludes that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal'

The BBC for some time now have been happily spreading the narrative that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is 'illegal under international law', so I was interested to read in the BBC's report on the leaked UN report on the flotilla incident:

'But the report also concludes that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal'

If the BBC are happy to accept the report's findings that:

'Israeli forces did use excessive force when they intercepted the Turkish-led flotilla trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.'

, and the BBC will be. If the BBC are happy to repeat that particular finding then they should also be happy to repeat just as often that 'Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal'. BBC presenters should also correct callers to phone-ins who claim that the naval blockade is illegal with the words 'but the UN report says that the naval blockade is legal', however somehow I doubt that this will happen.

What is the bloody point?

No really, what is the bloody point?

Gold has peaked, it's on the way down... so trust paper money not gold

Gold has peaked, it's on the way down... so trust paper money not gold

That seems to be the message from the Central Bankers and their pet politicians. So let's see how gold has fared over the last year...

On 31 August 2011 the COMEX/NYMEX spot bullion prices closed at:
- Gold $1830.15
- Silver $41.76

One year ago today, they closed at:
- Gold $1249.35
- Silver $19.44

So do you wish you'd put your money into gold rather than shares or the bank?

Yes gold is down from its very recent peak but would you bet against it rising in value again when the next piece of bad economic data comes in or when the USA embarks upon another round of quantative easing?

Is this the BBC Radio 5Live mantra?

'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.'
Noam Chomsky 


The more I listen to 5Live the more I realise that fevered debate is allowed but only within certain prescribed limits, outside of those limits the amount of debate is strictly controlled and contrary views openly attacked. If you can bear it take a listen to Victoria Derbyshire or Nicky Campbell's phone-ins and see if I am right.




Thanks to Biased BBC for reminding me of that Noam Chomsky quotation.

Unsubstantiated allegations

To the anonymous commenter who posted a comment on who was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing that made accusations about Conservative ex-minister Peter Lilley; please provide me with some evidence for the claims that you made. I will not allow the posting of that sort of claim without a degree of proof.