Interesting report here from the BBC on the "One Nation" rally that has just taken place in Washington DC. They don't tell us how many turned up but they do emphasise on several occasions that the rally was organised by "left-wingers" and that it featured "left wing activists". Not only that but that this was all about rekindling support for Obama! And there was me thinking from so many previous BBC reports that Obama was a centrist, a moderate, not a hard left wing ideologue that needs rancid race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Communist lovers like Harry Belafonte to turn out and support him. The tone of the report is downbeat and the BBC seems to accept that Obama is going to get a bloody nose in just a few short weeks time. It will be interesting to see how they handle the GOP resurgence and in particular the Tea Party factor which is driving this. ..or English! The dreadful Sunday Morning Live programme with pouting Suzanne Reid posits "Should Immigrants be made to speak English?" You can guess where the BBC is coming from on this one! It picks up on the story of an English girl who has fallen in love with a Palestinian (natch) but the poor bloke might not get into the UK because he can't be bothered to try and speak English . The path of true love is thus stunted by those evil Conservatives who hate Immigrants. This programme is a Sunday morning outing for the liberal conscience of the BBC. Following last week's full-frontal assault on Coalition minister Vince Cable, this week's Question Time saw another Coalition minister, Grant Shapps, fall victim to a rampaging bullock, being questioned and interrupted by David Dimbleby far more than any of the other guests (even David Starkey). The figures for this will appear in the comments field below. Well, you might say, both Mr Shapps and Dr Cable are government spokesmen, so David Dimbleby is right to challenge them more than guests from the opposition parties - except that DD didn't challenge government ministers more than opposition party guests when Labour were in power. Quite the reverse. Here's a list of the guests who were interrupted most frequently by DD in relation to the length they were allowed to speak (yes, interruption coefficients!) in the months leading up to the general election. (There are a few joint first prizes): 29/4 Liam Fox (C) / Vince Cable (LD) 22/4 William Hague (C) 15/4 Nigel Farage (UKIP) 8/4 Theresa May (C) 1/4 Ken Clarke (C) 25/3 Liam Byrne (L)/ Baroness Warsi (C) 18/3 Caroline Lucas (Green)/ Andrew Lansley (C) 11/3 Jo Swinson (LD) 4/3 Boris Johnson (C) 25/2 Nigel Farage (UKIP) 18/2 Lynne Featherstone (LD) 11/2 Jim Allister (TUV) 4/2 Theresa May (C) 28/1 Jenny Tonge (LD)/ Nigel Lawson (C) 21/1 Caroline Spelman (C) Full details of the statistics behind this list can be found here. By political party, that results in these totals for the award for Most Interrupted Panelist: Conservatives - 10 Liberal Democrats - 4 UKIP - 2 TUV - 1 Greens - 1 ... and for the government of the day... Labour - 1 I wish David Dimbleby a long and happy retirement! “The problem is, of course, Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.” No. The problem is not, of course, Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Define “Palestinian land”, Wyre, please. What’s the history, BBC? Do tell. I have a sneaking suspicion you want us to think that there is a racial group called “Palestinians” who have had “their” land stolen and violated by Jews! It does seem that this “International Community” that you’re so fond of, you know, the ones who deem everything Israel does, or thinks of doing, “Illegal” - it does seem as though it has some funny ideas. For example: 
ONE NATION MARCH IN DC
>> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 03, 2010
WE NO SPEAK AMERICANO...
QUESTIONABLE TIME
Obstacle to Understanding
>> SATURDAY, OCTOBER 02, 2010
“In most parts of the world it is not considered a disaster if someone new comes to town and buys a farm or a dwelling. Only in Arab parts of the Middle East is it an unacceptable affront for a Jew to arrive with plans to stay. And "world opinion" only accepts this sort of behaviour when it is the Jew who is being rejected. If a black person is denied the right to buy a house in the community of his choice, it is considered racial discrimination. If a Catholic can't move into a Protestant neighborhood it is religious discrimination. And Americans, including Jews, are very careful to avoid any appearance of discrimination against Muslims. But if a Jew wants to buy a place to live in the West Bank, it is considered a brutal Israeli invasion.”
"By violently rejecting Jewish settlement, the Palestinian Arabs are exhibiting behaviour which is unacceptable, even despised in the civilized world. In this they echo most other Muslim countries that have a prohibition on Jews living there, where land transfers to a Jew can carry the death penalty. These practices should be universally condemned and rejected. Arabs insist it is unacceptable for a few hundred thousand Jews to live among millions of Arabs while Israel's Arab citizens are almost 20% of Israel's population.”
Isn’t it odd that the most vociferous complaints made against Jews by Arabs are those of which they themselves are particularly guilty? As the saying goes, “it takes one to know one” Or to suspect one. However, this is not my point. Why, when there is much information to the contrary, does the BBC and therefore much of the public, insist on ignoring anything that sets out the other side of the story? In any case, even if one were to just accept that the “International Community” was right all along, and there is a Zionist plot to take over the whole world, and everyone must stop this at all costs, has anyone on the BBC considered that not all of their precious Palestinians are sorry the freeze has friz.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Posts
