The BBC are very careful how they report the speeches by Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth re anti-Semitic abuse - UPDATED

The BBC report www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43795854 very carefully the speeches made today by Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth regarding the antisemitic abuse they have received.

The BBC quote Luciana Berger:

'She said she had received abuse from both the far-left and far-right of politics, and that the abuse had become more "commonplace and corrosive" in the past two years.' 

And report that:

'The Labour leader, who was present in the chamber for much of the debate, is due to hold talks next week with leading Jewish groups amid criticism of his handling of anti-Semitism cases.' 

However the BBC are less keen to report Ruth Smeeth's speech which included some of the abuse that she'd received that was deeply antisemitic and also pro Jeremy Corbyn. 

Interestingly Jeremy Corbyn left the chamber before Ruth Smeeth spoke, I wonder if he knew what she was going to say.

Jeremy Corbyn leaving the chamber has not gone unnoticed elsewhere, Political Betting has these Tweets:

I simply don't understand why Jeremy Corbyn has left the chamber for this debate on antisemitism. I had him down as all sorts of things. I never had him down as a coward.

— Tom Peck (@tompeck) April 17, 2018

Well, I don't hold Corbyn responsible for the abysmal contents of antisemitic Facebook groups he is a member of, or of disgraceful tweets done in his name. But to walk out of this, to show no solidarity with his own MPs? I'm really quite stunned.

— Tom Peck (@tompeck) April 17, 2018

Ever seen him call out a racist on his own side?
Of course you haven’t, he’s always been a coward with a thin skin.

— GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius) April 17, 2018

From the beginning of all this I think he’s been more guilty of cowardice than anything else. He won’t confront; instead he retreats to his adoring base, again and again.

— Benji Lanyado (@benjilanyado) April 17, 2018

(He has returned. After a lengthy, curious spell standing with his hands in his pockets behind the Speakers chair, he is back on the front bench.)

— Tom Peck (@tompeck) April 17, 2018

An impartial BBC would question Jeremy Corbyn about the content of Ruth Smeeth's speech and its implications for the perniciousness of antisemitism in parts of the Labour Party. An impartial BBC would question Jeremy Corbyn as to why he left the front bench for such a long part of the debate, what did he have to do that was more important? However the BBC are not impartial, they are pro-Labour and via their clear bias against Israel they have helped create an environment favourable to the growth of antisemitism. 

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and anti-semitism

That Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Israel has been clear for years, that he had no problem calling virulent anti-Semites 'friends' likewise, but that he was himself freely associated with anti-Smites was less clear - until now.

The recent revelations that he was a member of five Facebook groups where anti-Semites posted nasty anti-Jew comments should be headline news but the BBC are still minimising their reporting of this story, for two reasons: first because they want a Labour government as soon as possible (partly to end Brexit) and secondly because the BBC itself indulges anti-Semites by regularly vilifying Israel and by indulging the Muslims and anti-Semites who hate Jews.

There's a line in Ian Fleming's Goldfinger where Auric Goldfinger says of James Bond's habit of appearing in his vicinity "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action." Jeremy Corbyn has now been found to be a member of five Facebook groups where anti-Semitic sentiments have been freely expressed. It seems that Jeremy Corbyn joined these groups of his own free will and was a member of some for years. Guido Fawkes here and here has the detail. So is it time to conclude that Jeremy Corbyn is an enemy of Jews?

We keep being told that Jeremy Corbyn is a man of principle and a kindly old chap too. It seems that the truth is at variance with those claims.

Jeremy Bowen's written a book on The Six Day War

It seems that Jeremy Bowen wrote a book on the Six Day War. Reviews are as you'd expect, here's a few:

'1.0 out of 5 starsJeremy's prejudices, masquerading as history, surrounded by a false halo of "respected BBC ME correspondent".

ByMr. Roger Edenon 30 July 2015

Format: Kindle Edition

If you want the facts read history Professor Oren's book. Jeremy wasn't there, yet is able to quote Israeli Generals verbatim in the heat of battle. Of course if you believe, as does Jeremy, that Nasser consistent threatening to wipe out Israel since 1948, (apparently, according to Nasser himself, humiliating forced retreat from a position of great strength in 1948), his blockade of Eilat,(Suez was always closed to Israeli ships), his amassing multiple armies on Israel's Border, his joint military agreements with Syria and Jordan, a very nasty 6 months of radio propaganda towards Israel and provocation of sniping and artillery into Israel by all three countries, was nothing more than empty rhetoric. (Probably the Israelis didn't see it that way, you wonder why?). Therefore, in Jeremy's view, this was not a preemptive strike by Israel but a War of Aggression, then this book is for you, for those who want real facts, read Oren.

 

 

If you hate Israel you will love this book

Byukreaderon 15 July 2015

Format: Paperback

If you hate Israel you will love this book. It makes no pretence of being history, right from the first page. Why Simon and Shuster agreed to publish this re-writing of history is a mystery. Did they even read it, or did they assume it was clean because the author is a BBC correspondent? It tells a fantastic story of a mighty Israel attacking its pathetic Arab neighbours to conquer their territory, and weaves little bits of fact with very imaginative fiction. If you had no knowledge of the truth, it would be easy to believe this propagandist book is factual and, as I said, if you are looking for a justification to support your anti-Zionism this is it. I assume most of those who have reviewed the book favourably here are simply people who hate Israel and therefore love the book because it justifies their hatred, or part of the Muslim supremacist campaign against Israel who have not even read it.

 

 

Typical BBC pro-Palestinian propaganda

Byschlockhorroron 13 January 2009

Format: Paperback

Jeremy Bowen isn't known as al-Bowen around the 'net for nothing. This disgraceful book is simply an extended piece of apologia for the Arab cause. To give just two examples, Bowen dismisses Nasser's bloodthirsty threats against Israel as just Arab rhetoric. This you know how, Jeremy? By the fact that they weren't executed?

He also fulminates against Israel's bombing of an anti-aircraft position in a civilian area and hints darkly that this was a war crime. Here he has his case exactly wrong - the war crime, if any, consists in siting the gun battery there in the first place. If someone does so then the other side is quite entitled to attack it. Bowen hates Israel however and so this side of things never gets an airing.

Finally, you will struggle to find any mention of Islamofascist terrorism in this book. Bowen thinks Hamas and their ilk are freedom-fighting, peace loving victims of Israeli oppression.

A book so malignant it verges on being evil.

 

 

 

Profoundly tendentious

ByCharles Soperon 5 June 2007

Format: Paperback

Bowen is convinced the Arabs weren't out to destroy Israel, that the Israelis knew they would wipe the floor with their Arab antagonists. This hardly explains the Israeli chief of staff's (Rabin) nervous breakdown, or the then PM's (Ben Gurion) white hot fury with him for what he perceived as an existential danger.

Oren's book is far more extensively sourced from Arab, Hebrew, Russian documents as well as English one - and unlike Bowen evidently strives for precision and balance. The comparison between the two is highly illuminating.

 

 

Rife with anti-israel bias

ByJonathan Turneron 10 January 2007

Format: Paperback

The book is superficial, derivative and rife with standard anti-Israel prejudice, namely, the portrayal of Israel as the source of the Middle-East conflict and the whitewashing of Arab-Palestinian rejection of Israel's legitimacy and decades of relentless violence against the Jewish state.

 

 

Problems With Credibility

ByA customeron 22 May 2004

Format: Hardcover

After Michael Oren's excellent history of the same war ("Six Days of War"), this book turned out to be a disappointment. Like so much of the reporting from the region (Bowen was a BBC journalist), it is unscholarly and superficial. One can't help suspecting that Bowen's main motivation might be something other than just an interest in history. Oren's book was highly praised so Bowen, by choosing an almost identical title, may have seen a chance to make a quick buck. But mostly he probably wanted to give his own version of events -- he is famous for his strong anti-Israel bias and his tendentious "reporting" for the BBC. Don't bother with this book; it's not a serious history. For now, Oren's book remains the definitive work on this war.'

 

I could carry on with the one star reviews. 

 

I could also post some favourable reviews to make this a fair and balanced article on Jeremy Bowen's book but if he's not unbiased about Israel why should I be unbiased about him? Also I'm not a BBC employee

I do wonder what the Balen Report said about Jeremy Bowen, don't you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought that Labour had denied using 'class war' language

Their latest Party Election Broadcast film suggests otherwise

'Ever wondered what really goes on around the Cabinet table? The sorry story of Nick Clegg - the un-credible shrinking man!'

Juvenile,  pathetic, desperate - three words that sum up this PEB and indeed the Labour Party

People who rely on the BBC for their news just wouldn't understand Boris's reference to 'Ed Balls' and a 'Nazi uniform'

This Telegraph article contained a quotation from Boris Johnson

(Ed) “went into his stock rant about which schools everyone used to attend, and which university clubs they belonged to (a bit much, when you consider that both he and I were at the same prestigious forcing-ground of talent that was Primrose Hill Primary School, Camden; or when you consider that Ed Balls himself was a member of an Oxford drinking club so egregious that he once appeared in Nazi uniform).”

People who rely on the BBC for their news just wouldn't understand Boris's reference to Ed Balls' Nazi uniform as the BBC have carefully protected one of their allies in the Labour Party from embarrassment. I am less protective of the nasty bully that is Ed Balls, so here he is in his Nazi uniform...

Am I being hard on the BBC?

I don't believe so, in 2011 the BBC published this article under the headline 'How common is Nazi fancy dress?' which began

'A Conservative MP has apologised after reports he attended a stag party with Nazi overtones. But just how common is Nazi fancy dress?' 

No mention of Ed Balls in that article let alone a photo.


Then there was this article from 2008 which allowed Ed Balls the then Labour Education Secretary to indulge in mock outrage

'over Conservative claims that Labour had not lived up to a promise of free educational visits to Auschwitz concentration camp.

The Conservatives included the Labour pledge in a list of 26 "gimmicks" it said the government failed to deliver.'

Schools Secretary Ed Balls said: "Anyone who has seen the horrors of Auschwitz at first-hand knows what a life-changing experience it is."


He's absolutely right, so what changed in Ed Balls' life from when he dressed as a Nazi when at University?

Had Ed Balls not heard of the holocaust when at university? If he had then why did he think dressing as a Nazi was fun or appropriate? Surely someone studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Keble College Oxford, indeed going on to get a First, would have had some knowledge of the true nature of Nazism and what that uniform represents.

Gordon Brown 'an ex-politician' - apart from taking an MP's salary of course

My distaste for Gordon 'broken moral compass' Brown is on record, so this recent admission of his does not surprise me in the slightest.

John O'Farrell tries to wriggle

Re. BrightonBomb: I wrote an honest memoir and volunteered this fleeting bad thought from 1984 to illustrate how hatred can poison politics -- John O'Farrell (@mrjohnofarrell)

The BBC obsfucating to protect a Labour candidate

The BBC's page on today's PMQs contains this:

'1202:
Mr Cameron is on his feet and attacking Labour's candidate in Eastleigh, John O'Farrell, over comments he made about the IRA bomb attack at the Conservative Party conference in 1984 in Brighton.'

What did John O'Farrell actually say?
John O'Farrell wrote that he felt  a 'surge of excitement' when he heard of the attempted assassination in 1984 and was 'disappointed' the terrorists failed.

He asked himself repeatedly: 'Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?' The bathroom of Lady Thatcher's suite was wrecked in the explosion. She had been in it shortly before the bomb went off.'

So does Ed Miliband support John O'Farrell's sentiments now? Did he then?

Does this give you a clue?

Meanwhile 5 Live's Shelagh Fogarty is desperately trying to take attention away from Ed Miliband's woeful performance. It was refreshing to hear a non-Labour supporting voice as the journalist brought in to give an opinion on PMQs, somehow I doubt that the FT's Mr Parker will be invited back - very off BBC/Labour message especially with regard to the last Labour government's economic performance on debt.

My disappointment Mrs Thatcher didn't die in the Brighton bomb - by Labour's Eastleigh candidate | Mail Online

'The Labour candidate in the crucial Eastleigh by-election said he wished Margaret Thatcher had been murdered in the IRA attack on Brighton's Grand Hotel.

Left-winger John O'Farrell felt  a 'surge of excitement' when he heard of the attempted assassination in 1984 and was 'disappointed' the terrorists failed.

He asked himself repeatedly: 'Why did she have to leave the bathroom two minutes earlier?' The bathroom of Lady Thatcher's suite was wrecked in the explosion. She had been in it shortly before the bomb went off.'

More in The Mail

I have John O'Farrell's book. It's quite well written but reeks of student lefty thought. I expect Ed Miliband's autobiography will read similarly. Except Ed Miliband he was happy to pose smiling next to this pleasant chap in this offensive t-shirt.

 Any comments Ed Miliband?

TV Host Refuses to Back Down After Calling Israel a "Cancer" | HonestReportingHonestReporting

http://honestreporting.com/tv-host-refuses-to-back-down-after-calling-israel-a-cancer/

A bus driver tells a boy his mother should have aborted him and the manager of the company makes no effort to apologize. That's terrible public relations.

A bus driver tells a boy his mother should have aborted him and the manager of the company makes no effort to apologize. That's terrible public relations.

All you need to know about Ed Miliband

Posing with a youth wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogan - 'Thatcher - A generation of Trade Unionists will dance on Thatcher's grave'. I thought Gordon Brown's moral compass was broken, well it looks as though Ed Miliband hasn't even got one.

This photo is not a new one, in fact I may have posted it before. The furore over the “Ding Dong Thatcher’s Gone” party packs for sale at the TUC conference this week reminded me of Ed Miliband's previous attitude to such sentiments.

Another Barack Obama supporter with a rather sick line in Tweeting

Barack Obama supporters can't help but show their true colours. This time it's Samuel L. Jackson

This is the same Samuel L. Jackson who once said "I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people – because they look like them".
Voting on race lines - tick
Wishing harm on Republicans - tick

Nice chap that Samuel L. Jackson, but then that tweet attracted the like-minded

What's sweet is how Samuel L. Jackson then rowed back, slowly but surely...

Samuel L. Jackson - busted.

George Galloway supporting the murderous Syrian regime and attacking Israel

From George Galloway's radio show.

This 'man' organises demonstrations and protests when Israel kills a terrorist but he won't even criticise a dictator who is murdering hundreds of Muslim civilians so as to stay in power.

What was most noticeable is that George Galloway is still willing to push the line that Syria should be popular because it stands up to Israel, a line that even the Israel hating BBC have dropped since the Arab winder hit Syria.

I find it hard to express quite how much I loathe George Galloway but I am sure you can imagine.

"Nobody want to see that"

BID TV presenter Peter Simon sneezes 'poductively' on Live TV 18/03/2011

By your friends you shall judge them

Daily Caller reveals that:

'According to a column in the Feb. 24 edition of the Falls Church News-Press by Nicholas F. Benton, the editor-in-chief of the publication, the paper’s newest columnist Helen Thomas had a surprise waiting for her after an extraordinary interview she gave to HLN’s Joy Behar last week. That was flowers from Rosie O’Donnell, who had been on the record for defending Thomas in the past.

However, as Benton noted, at the time of the Thomas’s infamous remarks, there were very few willing to defend her other than O’Donnell and the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter'

Jimmy Carter a truly nasty man who cheerfully supports some of the nastiest people and most evil regimes in the world.

Those delightful 'lefties', how much nicer they are than the 'nasty Tories'

These posters have started appearing in North London and show the sheer loveliness that spews from many leftists. Could this sort of poster be seen as incitement, or would a court see it as free speech?

This sort of attitude is actively assisted by the reporting of such as The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC who keep reporting on the 'costs of the Royal Family. I did demolish this one-sided argument last November, here's how:

'The BBC and various anti-monarchist groups are misrepresenting the cost of the UK monarchy again and this has annoyed me. This piece repeats the familiar misrepresentation that:

'The total cost of keeping the monarchy was £38.2m during the 2009-10 financial year, a drop of 7.9% (£3.3m) on the previous year.'

This looks at just one side of the equation: the costs of the Civil List which is soon to be replaced by the awfully named "sovereign support grant". The other side that is as usual ignored is that in 1760 it was decided that the entire cost of the Civil List should be paid by Parliament in return for the monarch surrendering his hereditary revenues from the Crown Estate to Parliament for the duration of George III's reign. This agreement with some alterations is still in place today.

So how much is the The Crown Estate worth to the UK taxpayer? The last figures I saw was around £190 million a year.

So why does the BBC insist on repeating the cost of the Royal Family <£40 million a year but ignores the income forgone by them in return for the civil list of around £190 million?'

Thanks to Archbishop Cranmer for the poster spot.

So which is the 'nasty party'?

The Labour deputy leader of Sunderland City Council says on Twitter that she hopes Margaret Thatcher “burns in hell” and the Labour council insists yesterday that there would be no repercussions for the insult:

'A spokesman said: “There are still strong feelings in many parts of the country about events during Margaret Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister and Cllr Anderson has expressed her feelings.”

Council leader Paul Watson, leader of the Labour group, said: "It was an entirely personal comment that was attributed to her." '

Meanwhile Harriet Harman has called Danny Alexander a 'ginger rodent' in a speech to the Labour party's Scottish congress:

'In her speech, Ms Harman said many people who voted Lib Dem in May "believed that they were a progressive anti-Tory party".

She said they "woke up" after the coalition deal to see Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg with Tory prime minister David Cameron in the rose garden of Number 10 Downing Street.

The deputy Labour leader said there was "incredulity" at seeing Mr Alexander, a Scottish MP, becoming "the front-man for the Tory cuts".

"Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel," Ms Harman said.

"But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander."'

What lovely people and how appropriate that they reprsent such a poliical party that has been nasty to the country for so many years.

Gillian Duffy - the aftermath

That's Guido Fawkes' video take on the media story of the day. Incidentally the Elvis impersonator seems to be doing a very poor impression of Elvis Presley, which I suppose is fair as Gordon Brown has been doing a very poor impression of a Prime Minister since his election appointment.

The Appalling Strangeness I think sums up the real issue here with this:

'Ok, we've all been there. We've had a difficult conversation with someone, and then we've said something about them and been overheard when we thought we were out of earshot. And that's what basically happened to Brown today. He was caught out.

...

He's allowed to disagree with the woman, and he's allowed to think that she is bigoted. But offering a few platitudes before he runs back to his car and disappears is frankly pathetic. If he disagreed with her, he should have challenged her. He should have explained why he thought she was wrong, and debated with her. He is a leader in a democracy fighting an election, for fuck's sake. Now more than ever, he should be willing to engage with the people explain his own views, and discuss why he doesn't agree with others.

Don't forget that this is Gordon Brown - the self-styled conviction politician. Some fucking conviction politician, Gordo, if you are afraid to engage with an old woman who used to be a member of your party when she expresses her own opinions, and asks you questions.

As such, it is difficult to know how this could be much worse for Brown. Arguably, things would have been better had he insulted this woman to her face, or argued with her and lost. At least that way, he might have retained something approaching dignity from this sorry situation. But as it stands, Brown could not appear more pathetic - the bullying little man who runs away from old ladies, only to insult them behind their backs when he thinks they, and the rest of the nation, aren't listening.'

Gordon Brown nailed in a few paragraphs. Hopefully the general public will now realise what many of known for some time; Gordon Brown is a nasty piece of work, a bully and a fraud. Gordon Brown has been allowed to despoil the UK for too long, he must be kicked out of office and held to account for the damage he has wrought to the UK.


LibDem Mark Thompson makes a similar point:

'The most surprising thing about the encounter as far as I can tell is the change in tone from 10 seconds earlier when he was very smiley and jolly... and then as soon as he thinks he is out of mic range his demeanour completely changes. The encounter itself seemed pretty good natured and although the woman concerned, Gillian Duffy did press the PM on immigration and debt he had actually managed to turn the situation around and ended up asking about her grandchildren. Also, she is (was) a Labour voter and said so which appeared to please him.

...

The rapid switch in tone so starkly reveals the disparity between how he tries to portray himself in public and his actual persona. This underlines all those stories about thrown Nokias and him supposedly shouting and bullying people. It will make people more likely to believe them as we have seen a little window into his private world.

It also seems totally out of proportion. It's not like he had just come away from someone questioning him very harshly or belligerently. It was just an elderly lady who was perfectly polite. His response seems inexplicable frankly.'

Now do you see why Labour are keeping Gordon Brown away from normal members of the public?

"That was a disaster.

"You should never have put me with that woman.

"Whose idea was that?"

Mr Brown went on: "It's just ridiculous."

His aide then asked: "What did she say?"

Mr Brown replied: "Oh, everything, she's just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to vote Labour."



The Labour strategy for Gordon Brown's campaigning has been to keep him away from the public and only let him meet Labour supporters at carefully managed events. This could explain why.

So don't believe Gordon Brown's smiles and nice words to your face, behind your back he's attacking you.

Even the BBC have to report that:

'Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been caught on microphone describing a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman".

Sixty five-year-old Gillian Duffy had challenged Mr Brown on a number of issues including immigration and crime.

As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".

Mr Brown later apologised after the tape was played to him as he was interviewed on BBC Radio 2.

After listening to the recording, with his head in his hands, he said: "I do apologise if I've said anything that has been hurtful."

The comments were made after the conversation with Mrs Duffy, with Mr Brown not realising that he had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt.

He told an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."

How long before the Labour attack-dogs are unleashed to attack Gillian Duffy as they have attacked so many who have crossed them previously?


Meanwhile The Guardian are reporting Gillian Duffy's reaction to Gordon Brown's insult:

'1.02pm: Here, from the Press Association, is some more reaction from Gillian Duffy.

Duffy said she was "very disappointed" with Mr Brown's remarks.

After hearing what the prime minister had said about her, she said it was "very upsetting".
"He's an educated person, why has he come out with words like that?" she said.

"He's supposed to lead this country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's just come up and asked questions what most people would ask him – he's not doing anything about the national debt and it's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this mess – and he's calling me a bigot."

She said she would not now be voting in the general election.

Pressed on whether she still wanted Mr Brown in No 10, she said: "I'm not bothered whether he does or not now. I don't think he will."

She urged the PM to go out among the public and "find out what's going on in our lives".
She said she had not planned to speak to Mr Brown, but saw him "walking up the street" and thought she would ask him what he would do about the national debt.

"I thought he was understanding – but he wasn't, was he, the way he's come out with the comments ..."

Duffy, who has a daughter and two grandchildren, told reporters she used to work with handicapped children for Rochdale council before she retired.

Her husband, who was a painter and decorator, died of cancer four years ago.'