The BBC has written a report about the ruling that led to the conviction and subsequent expulsion from St. Andrews University of a young history student who put his hand down his pants and rubbed it on a Jewish student’s Israeli flag.
His mate and co-culprit got off more lightly - he was merely suspended for a year. Was this just a silly prank by two drunken ‘hey Jimmies’, which received a disproportionately harsh punishment? Or was the harshness meant to deter others who might be planning to express rampantly racist sentiments, which are currently bubbling up throughout our university campuses?
But there’s more to this than meets the eye.
The Palestinian Solidarity bunch were performing their particular type of solidarity by providing a baying mob to boo and jeer at the verdict and at the Jewish complainant. But that’s not all. When the case first came to court in May, a cunning and exasperating delaying tactic was devised by the accused. What fun. Who knows whether this irritated the judge enough to influence his decision to take the case seriously, and to come down on the side of the young man from the rogue Zionist entity, an act that defies the prevailing atmosphere (see judge Bathurst-Norman) amongst a section of the judiciary.
However there’s more ramifications to this. The young pubic hair-wielding fellow was not a “hey Jimmy” out for a drunken Sat'day night punch-up.
He was a history student. A history student. Any fule kno that history can, and must be interpreted in more than one way, but I recall a lively debate on one of Melanie Phillips’s Spectator threads that was sparked off by a student at Aberystwyth University who felt he would fail his history degree if he dared to consider any other than the Palestinian narrative.
It seems that Scotland is a hotbed of Israel-bashing, what with the rash of BDS campaigns that have sprouted in places like Dunbartonshire, but asRichard Millett knows only too well, where anti Zionism is concerned London is the Daddy.
An aspect of this case that several people have remarked on is that pro Palestinian activists who parade their antisemitic slogans and incite antisemitic acts of violence and abuse see themselves as anti racist.
The stupidity is mind boggling.
Their minds have obviously been boggled, (and in my humble opinion even more sinister) not by the BNP, not by the EDL, but by our universities and academic institutions.
Oh yes, and our public broadcasting corporation.
First they whip it up, then they report the consequences, almost feigning innocent surprise as though it’s not their fault.
More digging...it turns out that the outfit that was hired by the BBC trustees to monitor BBC output in connection with the Steve Jones whitewash report on science coverage was the Imperial College Science Communications Group (SCG).
Surprise, surprise, they are active in promoting climate change communications.
And you can read SCG report co-writer Alice R.Bell's guide to indoctrinating children about climate change on her blog, here.
It seems that the SCG's conclusions about the BBC's news coverage of climate change reporting were based primarily on the analysis of just one (yes one) news story, the report of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review into the “climategate” affair over the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in July 2010 (p75 et sequi in the report).
The main concern of the group is that Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation was given too much space and misleadingly introduced as an expert in climate when he is an athropologist. In fact, other experts were given far more airtime, but no matter; and Benny Peiser is more qualified to comment on climate change than Richard Black and Roger Harrabin are to write about it. The SRG don't say in so many words that overall, coverage of the Climategate story was wrong, but their haughty disdain and disapproval for allowing such a man and such a group airtime is written between the lines in 72point. It is astonishing that the analysis of one news item about climate change should form the evidential basis of a major review of science coverage. Had the SRG done sustained monitoring of coverage of greenie issues on the website or the Today programme - for example - they would have found a picture of serial distortion and misinformation on an epic scale
(as the David Vance example from today shows).
Instead, they chose the one climate change story of 2010 where "sceptic" opinion could not be avoided, even by the BBC. Give yourself a laugh and listen to this classic piece of environmental lobbyism masquerading as a news story on the BBC this morning. Also, listen in to Thought for the Day for another dose of climate change drivel.
Breach of the Peace
>> WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2011
UNTRUSTWORTHY...AGAIN
OPEN THREAD...
Middle of the week, I'm writing this from my bunker in an undisclosed location awaiting your observations on BBC bias...THE END OF THE WORLD
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Posts
