Over in the States, the Obama regime is doing what it can to undermine the reputation of Wall Street and in particular in the form of Goldman Sachs. The BBC never misses a chance to kick those evil bankers and so Today joined in the fun this morning @ 7.50am. Isn't capitalism just sooooo evil? If only we lived in a nice socialist collective where income was assured through enforced taxation, oh hang on a sec..... Beautiful Monday morning, not a cloud or a plane in sight, so what better time for the BBC to run one of it's very special polls which shows the world is warming to the USA since Obama came to power. The inherent bias in this World Service poll is TRULY wondrous with the US under the evil Bush seen as more malign than Russia or China! But hey, maybe the BBC needs another poll to explain why it is that even as the US under Obama gets better World Service poll ratings, Obama's own poll-ratings in the US have slumped? Something about the enemy within...? I noticed the BBC was running a story just before 7am suggesting that there is little connection between levels of crime and high levels of immigration but that there is a connection between those with low academic achievement and support for the BNP! Wonder could the BBC not run a similar story suggesting that rank stupidity is an essential requisite for voting Lib-Dems or that being a moron is the ideal requirement for supporting Labour? Look, I have no time whatsoever for the BNP but the BBC desire to smear those who are alarmed at immigration is risible and fatuous little non-stories run off-peak by Al Beeb shall not pass unchallenged. I have long suggested that the BBC prefers the Lib-Dem political philosophy to that of Labour because it is further to the left and so acts as a ratchet to ensure UK politics keeps shifting ever leftwards. So, is it just me or is dear old Auntie loving Cleggmania as it sees this as the one clear chance of keeping Brown the loser in some sort of power? As the aftershocks of the TV debate are still felt, I detect a grim satisfaction at Broadcasting House, do you? I may have been a bit slow to realise this, but as soon as one becomes associated with a particular cause, one alienates people. For an example of BBC bias at its sneery, snidey best, have a listen to The World This Weekend here - the relevant item is at about 35 minutes into the programme and is by a reporter called John Manel. His target was alleged flaws in UKIP's immigration policy. He claims basically that the party is so stupid that it doesn't know what it is doing. In order to set up his premise, he talks to a chap called Will Sommerville, who he describes as follows: 
EVIL BANKERS - A CONTINUING SERIES...
>> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010
OBAMALOVE...
YOU'D HAVE TO BE STUPID TO VOTE BNP...
CAN NICK SAVE GORDON...?
Undecided and Uninvited
>> SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 2010
It is a mistake to assume that reasoned argument will win anyone over. People make their minds up for all sorts of reasons - then say “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”
The more rational you are, the more people use distancing strategies to avoid being seduced by your reasonableness. They marginalise you, label you, and grossly exaggerate your position to avoid accidentally considering any of your points.
This principle works both ways. I confess I’ve caught myself doing it, remonstrated with myself, and carried on regardless.
Questioning the wisdom of pandering to Muslims puts one into the dreaded position of Islamophobe.
On the Sunday programme R4 (31:06) I had to listen to Ed Stourton asking a group of Muslims about their voting habits. One was from the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation I thought had been deemed unrepresentative of the ‘Muslim voice,’ but no matter. The MCB fella said their aim was fighting Islamophobia and mobilising the Muslim vote, though he was also anxious to point out that there is no such thing as a Muslim vote, apart from successfully ousting Oona King that time.
The conversation turned to ‘cavassing’ Muslims and encouraging them to get out and vote. There is a tickbox system to aid selection of your candidate. A helpful suggestion came from Ed Stourton.. ‘What,’ Muslims must ask, ‘are your views on foreign policy, and do you support Israel?’
‘Posh Ed’ presided benignly over a mutually assured consensus that no Muslim should entertain the idea of squandering their vote on anyone who supports the Zionist entity.
Fighting Islamophobia evidently entails embracing a little antisemitism. This reminds me of another incident that erupted on the internet that also revealed Muslim cognitive dissonance.
It involved the last minute withdrawal of an invitation to Douglas Murray to speak on a panel at the NUS conference at Gateshead.
Douglas Murray is an outspoken opponent of radical Islam, and an advocate of Jewish issues. Therefore, he has alienated quite a few.
The Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS) refused to participate in the conference unless Douglas Murray was disinvited.
Although Douglas Murray’s friendship is invaluable to supporters of Israel, especially when such eloquent champions are few and far between, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) felt, on balance, that the chance to expose the hypocrisy of FOSIS before an NUS audience was worth the regrettable loss of his participation.
So they withdrew the invitation, whereupon he publicly criticised the UJS for being cowed by the Islamic Students’ demands.
According to the UJS, in the event, the FOSIS rep was well and truly defeated and exposed as a fool and a hypocrite; not a terribly difficult a task given that they host extremist Islamist speakers such as Anwar al-Awlaki at universities, and justify it on the grounds of ‘free speech,’ an argument that self destructs as soon as FOSIS is seen refusing to appear near Douglas Murray.
The argument is about whether it was worth jeopardising the ongoing backing of Douglas Murray, and sacrificing the opportunity to have him speak at the conference, for the sole benefit of exposing FOSIS to a comparatively limited audience. Past performance indicates that FOSIS itself is unlikely to change, and the ephemeral UJS triumph at the NUS conference seems to have evaporated.
It’s unlikely that Douglas Murray would retaliate by withdrawing his backing, but those who appreciate Douglas Murray’s friendship and support, and see its value in the context of the bigger picture, are concerned that the UJS were rude, misguided and unappreciative.
Antisemitic radical Islam infiltrating Britain’s academia is of no interest to the BBC it seems. There was a programme on R4 about rehabilitating radicals, but they are invariably regarded as the exception, not representative of the real Islam, and as misfits and outsiders.
Events suggest otherwise. That they’re not an exception, that they arerepresentative, and they're gaining ground.
So if you haven’t already made up your mind, ask your prospective candidates whether they support Israel, and if not, don’t give them your vote.LET'S KICK UKIP...
Will Sommerville has worked as a civil servant in the Cabinet Office on immigration, for the left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, and for the Commission for Racial Equality. He is now a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, based in Washington DC.
Who better to give and independent view of UKIP policy? Mr Manel's next tack is to sneerily talk to party figures and he edits the whole sequence into something which - hey presto! - Mr Somerville then says won't work. And in a final twist of the tale of bias, Mr Manel frames his reporting to suggest that this particular UKIP member is so venal and naive that he won't apply the policy to his own family; in other words, that old chestnut - if all else fails throw in ad hominem attack, especially if it is on someone who the BBC perceives to be right-wing.
This was a particularly biased report aimed at showing that UKIP are stupid, nasty, xenophobic racists. That's the BBC's default approach to the party. In coverage of UKIP so far, the leopard hadn't shown his spots; but it was only a matter of time before reports like this surfaced.FACTS FOR THE MEMORY....
that President Nixon coined the phrase the "silent majority"
Monday, 19 April 2010
Here is an interesting exchange you should read....
On 7th April on the TODAY programme, champing at the bit to link David Cameron to Richard Nixon for his use of the phrase ‘the great ignored’, M/s Berg falsely claimed that Richard Nixon coined the phrase “The silent majority”.
The phrase 'the silent majority' was actually coined by De Gaulle's Prime Minister Pompidou after De Gaulle called parliamentary elections in 1968 and saw his party achieve the first absolute majority in the history of the French Republic (clearly not something the BBC would wish to link David Cameron with). The compiler of our B-BBC digest Graeme sent a complaint to the BBC 8th April and copied it to the Conservative Party. He received a reply 15th April from BBC Complaints Correspondent Liam Boyle which compounded falsehood upon falsehood.
See Graeme's response below:
Dear Mr Boyle,
Thank you for your email.
Firstly, I note that when I submitted my complaint via your website no reference number was generated or automated email acknowledgement sent. This is very bad practice for dealing with complaints and is an indication of the bad faith in which an endemically biased BBC acts.
What, in my view, starkly characterises the bad faith of today's BBC and its contempt for democratic values is your following direct falsehood:
Sanchia Berg's report for the 'Today' programme on April 7th did not claim
Sanchia Berg's exact words once more: "Over 40 years ago Richard Nixon coined a new phrase 'the silent majority' ... "
I transcribed these words carefully from the recording you carried on your website. Of course, you only carry these recordings for 7 days. I wonder if it is a coincidence that you only respond to my complaint with this direct falsehood after this recording has been removed?
Fortunately, the recording still comes up under a search (see below) and I was able to confirm the 100% accuracy of my transcription. As someone who adheres to the democratic standards the Gramscian BBC has such contempt for, I do not use the word "lie" to describe your direct falsehood as I do not have the incontrovertible proof necessary that it was intentional. However, on the basis of the systematic bias of theBBC over the years I have every reason to believe it was.
Mr Boyle, you're dealing with someone who as a Tribunite member of the Labour Party in 1979 thought the only real bias at the BBC was towards the left and was against it as it was bad for democracy. I am absolutely certain that Mr Cameron does not have the moral bottom to deal with the threat the Gramscian BBC poses. I'm sure you can continue to pursue your subversive ends with such patent falsehoods with impunity till the Gramscian left has finally brought down British democracy, which I'm sure it will. What you will never escape though is that there will always be people like me willing to remind you what your moral choice in life says about you as a human being.
God bless,
Graeme...
Posts
