It must be true because scientists say so:
People with left wing views may have their political opinions controlled by a "liberal gene"BBC US correspondent Katie Connolly is concerned:
Question Time tonight comes from Glasgow; twinned with Havana and a Conservative-free zone since 1982. In 2006, 29.4% of the population were on the dole and it has the lowest life expectancy of any UK city.
On the panel tonight we have Ed Davey, Nicola Sturgeon Murrell, Chris "Y-Fronts" Bryant, Hugh Hendry and Simon Schama. It's also David Dimbleby's 72nd birthday.
For those playing the Buzzword Bingo, we'll be using the Congratulations Rules so any links to people with special days today score bonus points. Double points for Iranian Threat (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...happy 54th!), Tax The Rich (Bill Gates is 53), Gap Between Rich And Poor (Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein turns 43), Political Donations (Bernie Ecclestone is 80) and that annoying socialist whine Selling The Family Silver (Canaletto would be 313 today).
The LiveBlog will also cover the awful This Week, with Andrew Neil. According to the BBC published schedule only Michael Portillo is confirmed, so speculation as to the identity of the balancing socialist windbag is welcome.
David Vance, TheEye and David Mosque will be manning the barricades here from 10:30pm.
Very few people, apart from Richard North, admirably summing up the position here, understand the extent to which we are actually now ruled by Brussels, and how powerless we are to stop anything emanating from it. The reality is that David Cameron and the rest of his useless party, by saying that they want to be "in Europe but not run by it", are guilty of disseminating a great big porky pie: truth is you are either in or out. And if you are in, then you do as you are told. No if or buts. Resistance is fruitless, you cannot opt out of budget increases, much as you might huff and puff and gesitculate, or make useless phone calls.
I have been a minor part of a campaign for years for the BBC to report this whole sorry saga properly, but everything that Global Britain has pointed out in reports like these has fallen on deaf ears. The sorry truth is that the BBC is an integral part of the EU project and it has repeatedly failed in its intrinsic duty to tell the British people about the awful, octopus, fascist nature of what is going on. And so the tradition continues today. In the report, they convey the semblance of brinkmanship and robustness on the part of the Cleggerons when in reality the government is powerless to resist. They spinelessly pass on vapid hot air from Labour suggesting that something can be done to avoid the £900m increase when it was Tony Blair's budget cave-in in 2006 that made what is happening today inevitable. How short are the BBC's memories and how limited is its ambition to carry out proper journalistic research and checks? And finally, Nick Robinson, the supposed political expert at the BBC, says that the meeting involved is a "summit". He should damn-well know it's not and to say it is both inaccurate and deliberately disingenuous. His innaccuracy sums up the poorness of the BBC's journalism. The charade our leader is involved in is a rubber-stamp exercise and Mr Robinson should be saying so. He - and his colleagues - should also be talking to the Richard Norths of this world so that they can convey accurately what is actually going on. But they never do...
Online reports so far from the BBC:
Obama tells Daily Show more time needed for reforms
Obama appeals to voters on satirical TV show The Daily Show
Obama's mid-term election pitch on US television network
Cagey Barack Obama spars with Daily Show's Jon Stewart
'Yes we can... but' says Obama
(If you spot any more add them in the comments)
UPDATE 5pm. If you were thinking that what the BBC's midterm election coverage really needs is Billy Bragg taking cheap shots at Christine O'Donnell then worry no longer - BBC World News America has made it happen. No agenda though. Impartiality is in their genes.
If you're getting your information about the US midterms only from the BBC you are no doubt aware that Republicans are outspending the Democrats by millions of dollars. Yesterday's report by Katty Kay on campaign funding focused almost entirely on Republican spending (there's a very brief mention about union support for Democrats, but the thrust of the piece is clear - Republicans and their supporters are trying to buy the election. See short version here, longer version here). When Matt Frei blogged about the subject he name-checked only Republican candidates.
Hang on though, what's this? Politico, 26 October:
To hear top Democrats tell it, the party is being wildly outgunned this year in the fight for campaign cash as Republicans rely on outside groups to funnel money to GOP contenders.And this? New York Times, 26 October:
But the numbers tell a different story.
It’s true that conservative third-party groups are outspending their Democratic rivals. But the Democrats still have a sizable cash advantage in their party committees – making this year’s elections a lot more of a fair fight than Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi let on.
Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.The Times article also points out that Democrat-supporting third party groups have now begun splashing the cash around big-time:
Last week, for example, [America’s Families First Action Fund] spent $362,000 on a television ad attacking Steve Southerland, the Republican challenger to Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida.None of this fits the BBC's narrative, therefore it is ignored. They're not going to let the facts get in the way of their relentless anti-Republican propaganda.
North Sea oil and gas transformed the economic fortunes of the UK from the grim days of the 1970s and underpinned our re-emergence as a world power. The boom ensured that we had abundant energy and could keep warm cheaply. This is a fundamental reason why our living standards are so relatively high today. Now the Cleggeron government is severely limiting further exploration (and has needlessly restricted the number of exploration licences)because - no doubt partly as a result largely of a deluge of greenie PR by the BBC - Greenpeace and others now dictate energy policy. This means that more emphasis is now placed on marine wildlife than human welfare, and that the days of cheap energy are well and truly over. The BBC, of course, report the whole disgraceful charade with the emphasis on the Greenpeace perspective; the picture of their pathetic publicity stunt has been carefully chosen so that the greenie concerns are foremost. And note how they give credence to the idea that the economy can be "de-carbonised". Which planet do they live on?
The BBC is overjoyed today because there is a disturbance in an Israeli-Arab village. What's more, it's a deliberately provocative incitement by a hardline right wing group, reminiscent of the Orange marches in NI.
Last year on a similar occasion a clip on the BBC website featured Katya Adler in a fetching baseball cap, ducking the occasional missile, saying that all the Palestinian residents want to do is live in peace alongside their neighbours.
This time, no Katya, but more of the same.
Meanwhile back on BBC News 24, we’re given the background.
An extremist Rabbi was murdered in Manhattan. His party (racist) was outlawed by the Israeli government. There’s a resurgence of such (racist) sentiments in Israel, and right wing (racist) Israelis are trying to carry out their annual supremacist march, provoking clashes in Umm al-Fahm, an Arab village in the West Bank.
There’s a handy reminder of the proposal (racist) by right wing hardliner Avigdor Leiberman, requiring all Israeli citizens to swear an oath of allegiance (racist) to the Jewish state.
Unfortunately though, the violence seems to have subsided, but the BBC is anxious to squeeze every drop out of the story.
But wait. Rupert Wingfield-Hayes is on the scene too. He’s saying there is an Islamist resident in peace-loving Umm al-Fahm. The BBC anchor is telling Rupert that the right-wing Leiberman and his ilk are after booting all the Arabs out of Israel. Rupert is attempting to elucidate. It’s not quite like that, he tries to explain. They think there should be a transfer of Israeli Arabs from Israel / West Bank to Palestinian /West Bank in a future Palestinian state.
But the BBC is very keen on tolerance. Obviously everyone everywhere should be free to vent their spleen, even if it means tolerating those who would happily stop you venting yours. Literally. So Israelis should be like us, tolerant and accepting of hostile groups in their midst. (Which they actually are) They should even be tolerant and accepting, as the BBC is, of the quaint and quirky (if a tad racist - it’s their culture innit) diktat that no Jew will ever be allowed to live in a Palestinian land.
Richard Black is cranking up the pressure on biodiversity, today repeating from Japan the killer line that a fifth of the world's species are under the threat. And on Today, James Naughtie simperingly accepted the Cleggeron line from Caroline Spelman that another £100m needs tipping down the aid chute to assist with the biodiversity nonsense. His only concern was whether it was enough.
Meanwhile his business BBC colleague Richard Anderson has filed a trio of reports here, here and here which are plainly part of the same concerted indoctrination effort. They are key statement of the BBC's creed on this topic, So I have been looking into them.
The first point to note is that they are a parrot-like regurgitation of a report compiled by the accountants Price Waterhouse Cooper for the World Economic Forum. This purports to be "independent", but is anything but; a moment's reading shows that it is a one-sided homily in favour of the UN's alarmist stance on both biodiversity and climate change that includes claims that (for example)because of climate change, no coral will be left in the world by 2050. When accountants take up a topic so seriously, hang on to your wallets! And as PWC say themselves in this report, they see this whole areas an an "opportunity", that is, a new chance to extract as much money as possible. The fact that Mr Anderson accepts this report's findings so sweepingly is an indication of the bankuptcy of so much of the BBC's journalism.
For the sake of brevity, I have focused in the next section on the detailed claims by Mr Anderson in the second report of his trilogy. First, he suggests that Scottish fisheries have declined and fishermen are being forced to retire because of biodiversity loss. Oh yes? Actually, the crisis in North Sea fishing to which he refers has another, simpler cause. It's called the Common Fisheries Policy, enforced with jackboot ruthlessness by our masters in Brussels. Richard North chronicles its horrendous effects here. Mr Anderson moves on with his scattergun to say that the Malaysian island of Sabah is also similarly being mindlessly despoiled. Well actually, Sabah is one of the poorer areas of Asia, and its inhabitants need better ways of making money. Strong conservationist policies are in place, but the idea that it can remain as an unspoiled, pristine back-to-nature idyll would I suspect be somewhat challenged by its natives.
Moving on, Mr Anderson then asserts:
Another sector that has been hit by damage to the natural world - often referred to as biodiversity loss - is tourism. For example, lions across Africa have disappeared from 80% of their former habitat, hitting game reserves and associated businesses.
Rising temperatures caused in part by greenhouse gases have also seen glaciers and snow coverage shrinking, hitting winter sports resorts that are seeing ski seasons cut short.Rising sea temperatures and water levels are also affecting coastal regions and small islands such as the Maldives, and particularly those businesses dependent on coral reefs, 20% of which have disappeared in the past few decades alone.
The deluge of BBC greenie propaganda continues. Today we have sea urchins resisting ocean acidification caused by climate change. As any ful no (apologies to the wonderful Ronald Searle), (for CHRISSAKE!), oceans are not acid, despite what greenies say. They have framed the debate in this way to deliberately cause alarmism. At the current rate of alleged change (even on the most alarmist figures, and accepting that they knew how to measure pH values accurately 250 years ago)) it would take 3,500 years for the seas to be no longer alkaline. And even if they do so change, they have been of a lower pH value in the past and sea life SURVIVED AND MULTIPLIED. Who are the BBC idiots who write and sub such nonsense?
Then there is Richard Black, faithfully reporting their highnesses' voices from the Japan ecofascist biodiversity talks, that we need a minister of greenness to frame and enforce green laws, extract green taxes and prevent us turning a single new clod of soil if it is deemed to be "natural". It's accompanied by the usual warnings that there are too many people and that we are all going to die unless we roll over and supinely accept such authoritarian claptrap. What's so sickening about this is that normally, Mr Black and his liberal cronies would project as repressive any steps that increased government control. But because it's being done in the name of protecting the environment, anything goes. The BBC hated John Gummer when he was a Tory minister (note how Mark Easton refers to him "shoving a burger" down his daughter's throat during the BSE scare), but now he's an ecosaint, his words are reported with unqualified reverence.
"Instead of balanced coverage you’ve got somebody, a commentator, finding a way to reaffirm the beliefs of their viewers."That's Foster Kamer of the Village Voice in his dire paint-by-numbers attack on Fox News and the American Right for the BBC's Culture Show (h/t Oliver via David Preiser).
Last summer, even I was subjected to a volley of abuse from a BBC executive. Janet Lee, the editor of the BBC’s flagship arts programme, The Culture Show (and who I have known for over 25 years), came up to me at a party on the Thames and, after calling me a ‘Tory ****’ proceeded to disparage the Tory leader, using ‘Etonian’ as though it were the very worst word in her lexicon of obscenities. You could tell she couldn’t work out what was worse: becoming a Tory, or admitting it.Impartiality is in their genes.
After a spell working in strategy for Granada Media, Eddie joined the BBC to work as an output editor on Newsnight.
In 2002 he took time out from TV to work as Assistant General Secretary of the Labour Party and then went to the communications firm Brunswick before returning to the BBC to help set up The Culture Show in 2004.
B-BBC contributor David Jones asked me to look into BBC connections in this story, that the UN has established a whole new machinery to ensure that its line on biodiversity alarmism is properly reported. In this instance, I can find no obvious smoking gun. But there are inevitably some BBC links. One of the key organisations that the UN is using to enforce its groupthink is the International Institute for Environment and Development (often quoted by Richard Black). In turn, the IIED is a a key supporter of the Climate Change Media Partnership (CCMP), which exists to indoctrinate journalists about both climate change and biodiversity. On the board of CCMP is - suprise, surprise, an ex BBC environment reporter (Mr Harrabin's predecessor) Alex Kirby. As his wiki biography shows, he now works on developing "media training skills" among NGOs, as well as continuing to work for the BBC on a freelance basis. He was a pioneer of alarmist reporting about climate and biodiversity, as this feature shows.
Also listed as a key member of CCMP is Mark Harvey, whom I know was an employee for many years of the Television Trust for the Environment(TVE), which I have mentioned before on this blog - they are a favoured supplier to the BBC of greenie propaganda, linked in turn closely with the BBC World Service Trust, the primary purpose of which is also to spread greenie propaganda, and train journalists how to do so.
Indirect links, maybe, but they illustrate that the BBC is entwined to some extent with the UN's own propaganda machine. And my bet is that behind the scenes, BBC staff are working flat out to assist the UN's goals. These people work together and feed off each other.
Robin Shepherd is one of the most articulate of Israel’s supporters. As he’s not Jewish, a single word from him counts, in the eyes of the world, as twice that of a Jew, so the BBC should sit up and take notice.
He understands only too well the way the BBC misrepresents the complexities of the I/P conflict, leaving out essential information while maintaining a semblence of the impartiality it is obliged to display.
Here is his analysis of Barbara Plett’s BBC article about anti Israel campaigner Richard Falk’s report to the UN General Assembly.
In one corner, in apocalypse terms, is the white horse, representing evil, in the form of Barbara Plett, famous for her emotional outburst at Yassir Arafat’s departure, in a helicopter, to die. On the red horse (war) is Richard Falk, well known for associating Israel’s "treatment of Palestinians with [the] criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity”, not to mention some odd views on 9/11.
Number three, black, representing famine, is the UN - always ready willing and able to condemn Israel for anything and everything while ignoring terrible misdemeanours of other countries. In the final corner astride the pale horse which stands for ‘death’, is the BBC, which is obsessed with denigrating Israel, whilst praising the Palestinians and showering Islam and the Muslim world with admiration.
What a formidable quartet.
Robin Shepherd understands how it works. Barbara Plett’s article ignores Falk’s biased political agenda. Basic good journalistic practice obliges the BBC to provide context and sufficient information to “ help the reader understand precisely why Israel and the rest of us should treat his words with something less than the reverence they are accorded by the BBC.” Barbara Plett sees no need for that. The travesty of ‘balance’ consists of:
“Israel said (Falk’s) report was utterly biased and served a political agenda, criticising its author for making no mention of what it called Palestinian terrorist attacks”.
So, now they do mention Falk’s political agenda, belatedly, in such a way as to dismiss it as Israel’s fabrication, and they also imply that Palestinian terrorist attacks are a fantasy, an exaggeration and a matter of opinion.
Do read Robin Shepherd’s article to get the full picture. He concludes:
“You can bet your house that Barbara Plett and the editorial team that helped produce this story have no inkling at all that they have violated what should be considered basic journalistic standards and practices. In their world, their behaviour is reasonable and normal. And so, they would argue, is Richard Falk.”
I can see that yesterday's Open Thread is filling up very quickly so I am opening a NEW one to see us through until Monday.
Now that we're approaching the mid-term elections in the US, the BBC has been ramping up the rhetoric against those who don't approve of the President's policies. In fact, to hear it from the BBC, it's not His policies at all, but rather evidence of bad attitudes, inadequacies, and racism among His opponents.
In the last few days, BBC North America editor Mark Mardell has told us that it's not the President's fault at all, because the unwashed simply can't relate to His intellectual behavior. When critics say He's aloof and people don't feel like He hears them, it's not that His policies and statements clearly go against what most of the public wants and believes, but that He just hasn't communicated the message in a dumbed-down enough fashion for the masses to understand.
Mardell has made other posts highlighting the "anger" of people dissatisfied with the current Government's policies, as has Katie Connolly, which is an easy trick to disqualify those voices from the start. When someone is presented as angry, that context automatically reduces their credibility. The thing is, it was okay for people in the US to be angry when Bush was in charge; the BBC never looked for nefarious forces underlying that anger. Yet they do spend an extraordinary amount of effort trying to make it seem to their audience as if racism and extremism are the only things which would compel someone to oppose the President. It's never because of His and the Democrat leadership's policies. It's just "the economy", which is of course not His fault as it was inherited from George Bush. Does that sound familiar?
This Narrative is spread across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting, from BBC World News America to Newsnight to HardTalk to The Culture Show (h/t Oliver on the Open Thread).
A fascinating contribution emailed in by All Seeing Eye reader Nick Heath which deserves crossposting here at Biased-BBC. The bias in the BBC is often by perception and not often possible to quantify - but here it is.
He has done a word cloud of coverage of the Comprehensive Spending Review from the BBC News website, Sky News website and CNN...and also one of the Hansard entry for Osborne’s speech. See if, without using the names of the graphics, you could have guessed which one came from the BBC?
I'm getting bored with keeping track of BBC greenie/environment/climate alarmism nonsense - there are so many stories, so much rubbish, so many inane, insane claims, that each report I file here is looking and sounding like more of the same. Black, Harrabin (though he has been keeping a low profile of late) Kinver & co seem to be under instructions to provide a torrent of one-sided propaganda, so much so that I have no doubt that this is being coordinated. They are like the Terminator androids, capable of self-repairing and continuing with their pre-programmed, lunatic mission no matter what happens. The latest is wearisomly here; it's going to get warmer by 4 degrees C over the next century (the models say so), so a bunch of loony scientists have constructed 20 big saucers (sorry, "replicated ecosystems" in the language of the green religion) and have studied what happens at different temperatures. Why they need to do this, I do not know (or care), because I think any child would tell you that plant and animal life is different in a lake in tropical Africa from one in Canada. But hey-ho, this is science grant money, so it can be sprayed around like champagne on the Grand Prix winners' podium.
As usual Mark Kinver reports the whole farce with reverential tones, ignoring obvious countervaling arguments such as this. Actually, in this case, those involved in this "research" acknowledge that they don't know what they've proved with their saucers, but the irony is totally lost on Mr Kinver.
My question to myself (and you) this morning is whether I continue to write about this drivel. Part of me says that logging the lies is important, another that it's like shooting ducks in a barrel, and that the nonsense has become so obvious and so absurd that it's pointless to chronicle it. Nothing will stop it. It's daily, it's there, it's relentless, it's a campaign to indoctrinate us. I have come to see the BBC as a gigantic Trabant, trundling on but oblivious to the parody it has become. Yet the stuff it spews out is dangerous. Our political class and our schoolkids are totally on board (as the normally mild-mannered Harmless Sky blog testifies today). It's a religion of divisiveness, of fascism and of hate (towards the human race); every bit as loathsome and cynical as Nazism.
This particularly useless and offensive offering from BBC World Service was brought to my attention.
Rolling headline of
four topics covering
Blogger Hadar Sela has written an article that sends shivers down the spine. Alarm bells should be ringing in Westminster and at the BBC. It’s about the steady infiltration by organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood into British institutions and all manner of British life. It’s also a lament about the blind spot which is currently escorting us as we sleepwalk to hell.
She provides a meticulously researched “Who’s Who” of British based Islamist leaders, their affiliates, associates and useful idiots, who are working to effect a seismic shift in UK politics. It’s a bleak warning. We are being led by the hand, meekly, towards the wholesale Islamisation that is slowly but surely becoming established in Britain.
“a Muslim Brotherhood organization has influence at the highest levels of British politics and legislation.”
“There is barely an aspect of British life today in which Muslim Brotherhood and/or Hamas supporters lack influence. From the academic world, including student organizations, through politics and government, trades unions, the media, the legal system and even some Christian churches, they have succeeded in re-writing the prevailing narrative by means of the employment of the language of charity and human rights.”
"[they] manage to market themselves as the face of ‘moderate Islam’ so successfully that they are often invited to act in an advisory capacity to decision makers and are even able to secure government funding ."
I had the misfortune to listen to "The World at One" and there was an item on it concerning the looming US Mid-Terms. The BBC has accepted that their poster-boy Obama's Democrat Party is going to take a kicking so the new line being peddled is that this might be a good thing since it will give Obama something top kick against if Congress falls to the evil Republicans. Clinton had the same situation to deal with it and it didn't harm him, went the apologist for the Dem Party disguised as a BBC reporter. Furthermore, the Tea Party influence was dismissed as minimal, at the edges in smaller less relevant States, and may actually land Obama some seats! Total delusionalism but it's what the State Propagandist is now desperately pushing.
Here is another of those BBC individuals where "impartiality is in their genes"! Read her intro.."travelling around the world with Hillary Clinton"
Give a number of climate alarmist monkeys a typewriter, and inevitably, in due course, they will come up with new, ever more fantastical, predictions about how we are all going to suffer. Here, yet again, the BBC is giving full throttle to a doomster weather forecast, this time that there are going to be more mudslides on the railway network because it will be drier and wetter. It makes a change, I suppose, from leaves on the line, or that persistent wrong kind of snow. But who do these clowns think they are, especially as such projections are based on suspect models and slanted climate records, and thus can easily be debunked as a load of baloney.
Of course, the BBC takes not one jot of notice of the flaws, and it does not ask whose money is being wasted in these hot air exercises. If the Cleggerons halted all the expenditure on alarmism and put it instead into more jail places, Britain would be a lot better place!
I wanted you to meet Nigel C Smith. He's BBC 5 Live's "interactive manager" and he's a busy twitterer. As you can see he views Nads as a "BBC-Baiter", he seems unaware we have a Coalition Government, and he reognises propaganda when he sees it. He's another one of those BBC types with "impartiality in their genes" from the looks of it, right?
BBC-baiter?
BBC-baiter Nadine Dorries MP says that her blog is "70% fiction, 30% fact
Well, what a week it has been with the BBC in full on "Fight the Tory Cuts" mode. As we prepare to enter the weekend the floor is yours. Please share your thoughts on the National Propagandist.
BBC hatred of Rupert Murdoch is thinly disguised, if at all, and I commend this "debate" between Evan Davis, William Shawcross and Henry Porter for your interest. Shawcross makes some very positive comments about the contribution made by Murdoch to the British media whilst Porter venomously attacks Murdoch. That's fair enough in my view - two contrasting opinions. What irritates is the fact that it is clear that Davis inserts himself in the same camp as Porter so the debate is loaded 2 against 1 with Porter being afforded the final word, naturally. It always strikes me as ironic to hear the BBC waffle about monopoly media power given the £3billion it extracts from us each year. Moat in the eye and all that, I'm afraid. I suppose the fact that Murdoch spoke at the inaugural Margaret Thatcher lecture was too much for the leftist bleeding hearts that infest Today?
Have a read of this interesting document. Go to page 25 to find out the thoughts of Pete Murray, President of the National Union of Journalists and Senior Broadcast journalist with BBC Scotland . He's asked to identify his biggest "villain" and this is what he says;
"Margaret Thatcher and all her successors who have send millions of people to the dole queues, smashed working class communities and taken Britain to war to try and rescue their political fortunes"Whilst pondering that little gem, remember the words of Helen Boaden "Impartiality is in our genes".
Question Time tonight comes from Middlesbrough, which has the lowest life expectancy in England and Wales and, according to the BBC, a council that "will be the least resilient to such public sector cuts". It also boasts a 33ft tower which changes colour when you send it a text message.
On the Trafalgar Day panel tonight we have Philip Hammond MP, John Denham MP, Caroline Lucas MP, General Sir Richard Dannatt, George Pascoe-Watson and finally a woman who was described by Boris as "incarnates all the nannying, high-taxing, high-spending schoolmarminess of Blair's Britain. Polly [Toynbee] is the high priestess of our paranoid, mollycoddled, risk-averse, airbagged, booster-seated culture of political correctness and 'elf 'n' safety fascism".
For those playing the Buzzword Bingo, we'll be using the In It Together Rules meaning that references to Philip Hammond being a multi-millionaire score points but references to Toynbee's villa in Tuscany and tax arrangements mean that you miss a go. Playing your Dannatt card and getting carriers, jets or Falklands is worth a point, Gibraltar wins two but the phrase Carriers without Harriers beats every other hand at the table. The usual squares of Thatcher, dead unburied, doomed are expected to be in high demand and please note that fairness has been removed from cards tonight. Too easy.
The LiveBlog will also cover the entertainingly awful This Week, with Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo, Alistair Darling and the pickled remains of Charles Kennedy. This programme will be marked using Billy Blofeld's patent pending "Gellard Scale Of Rabid Left Wing Whinging".
David Vance, TheEye and David Mosque will be slashing the public sector here from 10:30pm.
Here's an item in which the BBC opines that two teenagers found guilty of killing a man are actually "victims." Through the BBC prism, the guilty are innocent. Orwell never knew that half of it all!
Sorry it's taken me until now to catch up with you all but I've been engaging with the BBC this morning. Sort of. Let me explain. The Nolan Show was covering the CSR this morning and had invited representatives of local political parties on to discuss it. Except mine. We were treated to student grant "Smash the Tories" gibberish - including a vox pop that contained those ready to follow the Marseilles Model of street protest. I eventually was allowed on after complaint. I was gifted about 2 minutes during which I spoke up for private business, criticies the establishment class, demonstrated a half £billion saving that Nolan instantly rejected, and was then promptly dispatched. When you're saying that which they do not want to hear you get the exit treatment from Labour's broadcasting arm. Nolan even raved about the Conservative Secretary of State Owen Paterson, stirring up the Smash the Tories Trot line even more. Appalling stuff.
BBC ecofascists are part of the drive to stop industrial production and the generation of energy from fossil fuels. Their goal is to force us back to "nature". Here Richard Black - still living it up in Japan at our expense at the UN biodiversity boondoggle (Convention of Biological Biodiversity, or CBD) - tells us about the drive to enmesh us into a terrifying new project: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb). He tells us:
The draft agreement from this CBD meeting would see countries agreeing to incorporate biodiversity values into their national accounting by 2020, and eliminating by the same date subsidies that are detrimental to biodiversity.
Back to TOP
