Posts Tagged 'Self Loathing Liberal Elite'

The disproportionate influence of the Guardian at the BBC

Last week saw the release of the Audit Bureau of Circulations figures for national newspapers for January, reported in the Press Gazette. For those who don’t tend to keep an eye on newspaper circulation the audit throws up an interesting picture (including some poor proofing of the figures).

It also poses a question for the BBC’s management about its relationship with the Guardian.

(The Up/Down figure is the year-on-year percentage rise or fall in circulation)

When you look at these figures it is easy to see why the BBC should account for the disproportionate number of television and radio appearances by journalists from the Guardian. When given a choice of a national newspaper we can see that out of an average 10,197,331 copies sold each day during January 2011 (including bulk buys) less than 280,000 copies in the UK were the Guardian. That represents just under 2.74% of national circulation.

That puts the Guardian’s popularity, or lack thereof, in its proper context.  So why is it hardly a day goes by where a Guardian journalist is not rolled out onto the BBC airwaves to promote their opinion and analysis to the viewing and listening audience?  One only has to watch BBC TV or listen to BBC radio to see that no other newspaper’s journalists feature so frequently.

The figures show the Guardian’s news and comment is overwhelmingly rejected by those who choose to part with their money to take national newspapers.  Yet the BBC is determined to push the Guardian’s views on the public via the airwaves, something we are forced to pay for under pain of fine or imprisonment.  There is also crossover with BBC personalities publishing their comments in Guardian columns.  How is this balanced or impartial?  We wait in vain for an answer.

What this also puts into context is the BBC’s indefensible bias in only trawling a very narrow and self professed left wing pool when only using the Guardian to advertise vacancies.  It is a measure of the naked political bias inherent in our national public service broadcaster, which proves it is nothing more than a self serving broadcaster.

Bile, hatred, moronic comments and the apologists of the Guardian

This could be a long one. Sometimes events occur that stir feelings and reactions in oneself that lead to a tipping point where frustration or annoyance spills over into genuine rage and the loss of self control. That has happened this afternoon.

I’m not given to writing profanity, but on this occasion perhaps it is understandable. Forgive me. Or don’t. At this moment in time I really don’t care. I’ll try to write in a lucid way but if the words make no sense try to understand I’m in a temper and writing this is an attempt to regain control.

The events in question put the puerile bollockspeak of a showboating moronic wanker like David Cameron into its proper context. Readers may recall Cameron’s grandstanding to the audience and his wooden theatrics when he declared that:

it makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners.

Really?  We are to supposed to believe that Cameron felt the physical sensation of nausea in reaction to the prospect of prisoners getting the vote? Oh fuck right off. If you believe that bullshit there’s no hope for you. If something like that made Cameron feel ‘physically ill’ then no one should provide him with the details of what happened in Cairo to CBS television reporter Lara Logan. He will probably puke up all over this bloody Downing Street cat that seems to be the political story of the week. God knows, the details have made me feel physically ill. And unlike that useless sack of shit I’m not saying that for bloody effect.

For a couple of days the news has been circulating that Logan is recovering in hospital in the US after she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the Egyptian protests.  The words beaten and sexually assaulted covers a wide range of injuries and completely sanitises the extent of what happened.  Read on if you’ve got the stomach for it:

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, “Jew! Jew!” as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo’s main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.

The TV crew with Logan, who is also the network’s chief foreign correspondent, had its cameras rolling moments before she was dragged off — and caught her on tape looking tense and trying to head away from a crowd of men behind her in Tahrir Square.

“Logan was covering the jubilation . . . when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration,” CBS said in a statement. “It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

“In the crush of the mob, [Logan] was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.

“She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning,” the network added. “She is currently in the hospital recovering.”

A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, “Jew! Jew!” during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of “being Israeli spies.” Logan is not Jewish.

In Friday’s attack, she was separated from her colleagues and attacked for between 20 to 30 minutes, The Wall Street Journal said.

Her injuries were described to The Post as “serious.”

If these details are accurate, she was dragged away, terrified, by a hate filled mob in full view of the public, she was mercilessly beaten as they screamed ‘Jew’ at her and she was brutally raped time and again during that 20-30 minutes.  This is the the sort of story that makes someone feel physically ill.  We cannot begin to imagine what that poor woman went through, the fear, the pain, the violation, the loss of her dignity, the not knowing whether she would even survive.

But the revulsion I feel has been compounded by an American journalist darling of the left called Nir Rosen.  This self important bastard took to his Twitter account to indulge his desire to spew his bile and demonstrate what a free thinker he is, without knowing the facts.  This is a sample of what he is reported to have said:

The initial tweet by Rosen stated, “Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson [CNN journalist Anderson Cooper, who had recently been roughed up and threatened with beheading by a similar Egyptian mob]. Where was her buddy McCrystal.” From this tweet he went further, writing that he would have been amused if Anderson Cooper had also been sexually assaulted.

“Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don’t support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too,” wrote Rosen.

The two comments gave way to more. Rosen called Logan a “war monger” and expressed doubt that she was actually assaulted.

“Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger” wrote Rosen

He carried on, probably after being cautioned by other Tweeters:

“Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I’m sorry.”

Rosen clarified his initial reference to former American commander in Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal, writing that the assault should serve as a reminder of Logan’s “role glorifying war and condemning Rolling Stone’s Hastings while defending McChrystal.”

Then came a quasi-apology by Rosen: “ah fuck it, I apologize for being insensitive, it’s always wrong, that’s obvious, but I’m rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get.”

Oh yes, he’s sorry now, after that grudging and mealy mouthed excuse for an apology.  He wouldn’t have said it if he had realised how serious it was apparently.  Maybe he shouldn’t have said it in the first place.  Attention seeking wanker.  What a sick bastard he is, only thinking about his jealousy at the likely attention Logan would receive.  He clearly has some kind of mental issue. Needless to say this vicious and arrogant smear of shit has subsequently lost his job as fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security.  Quite right too.  His comments are utterly indefensible.

At least I would have thought they were.  But no.  In my ignorance of the depth of camaraderie among left wing journalists I hadn’t reckoned on some other self important left wing blowhard acting as an apologist for Rosen and spewing forth in an attempt to deflect attention from Rosen on to someone else by way of an attack on a vicious and spiteful right wing blogger, Debbie Schlussel, for her own equally sick diatribe at Logan.

Step forward apologist in chief Michael Tomasky of the Guardian.  Quelle fucking surprise.  What is it about the people that work at that bloody paper?  It is a cesspool of disaffected, self satisfied hubris furthering its insipid agenda with a level of spite that exceeds human comprehension.

I expected you’ve heard the hideous news that Lara Logan of CBS News, above, was sexually assaulted in Cairo. And I expect you’ve heard that Nir Rosen, the left-leaning journalist who is like Logan a war correspondent, distastefully joked about it on Twitter. You’re probably less likely to have heard about Debbie Schlussel’s comments, more on which later.

Yeah that’s right. What Tomasky is saying is Rosen is evil, but look, I’ve found a right winger who is even worse. So you can’t be too hard on my fellow traveller.  He dribbles on:

Rosen, who has written for Rolling Stone, the New Yorker and various other publications, lost a prestigious fellowship at the New York University Center for Law and Security because of his tweets. He has been issuing apologies left and right, most notably in this interview with Media Bistro, where he went far beyond the usual bromides:

Oh stop, he was clearly so wonderful and all this is so unfair and you’re breaking my fucking heart. No one forced him to open his gobshite mouth.

There’s a great deal more in that vein. A great deal.

Rosen has some controversial views, but he is a reporter who goes into war zones.

You are fucking kidding me, right?  He goes into war zones?  So this gives him some kind of free pass to make the vicious, spiteful and contemptuous comments he did about Lara Logan?  Onto the Guardianista moral equivalence then:

Schlussel is a right-wing blogger whose specialty is fulmination, I believe from Michigan, about the subhuman qualities of Arabs.

And this lessens the sheer depth of bile Rosen doled out on Twitter does it?  Only a Guardian based conceited apologist wanker could have the brass neck to offer this up:

Rosen (whom I know very slightly, and ran into in the BBC Washington office not long ago) said some deeply unconscionable things and deserves a healthy stretch in the penalty box. But at least he’s remorseful about what he said. Schlussel is plainly an egomaniac and in an update to her original post just laid it on even more thickly.

So that’s alright then.  You ran into him at the BBC – where else would left wing tossers like you be? – so you’re qualified to act as his PR.  Both deserve equal condemnation, but the moral equivalence here is digusting.  And to defend him you have to draw parallels with a hate filled woman?  Doesn’t that tell you something?  No, you’re probably so far up your own arse you can’t rationalise that.  That’s why you have to resort to bullshit like this to defend your pal while attacking a competitor of the Guardian, a competitor of the BBC and a competitor of the New York Times, you opportunist bastard:

We live in an age in which every instant thought can be sent out into the world. Some people try to learn from it. Others take advantage of it for the purpose of spreading their name. What odds should I lay down that Murdoch properties Fox News or the New York Post, where Schlussel appears, will make her submit to any penalty?

Rosen is incapable of controlling himself but you try to defend him.  This is the kind of stuff that makes one feel physically ill.  Not one word of concern for Lara Logan from Tomasky, just a biased agenda to pursue.  I’m still feeling the nausea now. If there is a hell I hope the scum like Rosen, Schlussel and Tomasky end up there. Cameron can go there too for his pathetic exaggerations that cheapen the impact of stories of real suffering.

My thoughts and best wishes are with Lara after the appalling trauma she has suffered.  I hope that when her body has healed the psychological pain will be the least it possibly can be.

Did Brigstocke offset his carbon emissions?

There is a superb, laugh out loud post on Biased BBC about the insufferable antidote to comedy, Marcus Brigstocke.  The lack of self awareness of such pontificating buffoons like Brigstocke is staggering.  I had to lift it in its entirety for full effect, but do visit the original posts and enjoy the comments…

My Life in Travel: Marcus Brigstocke, comedian

Best holiday?
I went to the Maldives the year before last… I’ve also had some of my happiest holidays in Mallorca with family and friends. It’s a very beautiful island. We stay in great place called Camp de Mar near Andratx. So it’s a toss-up between the opulent, unforgettable paradise of the Maldives and calamari by the beach, waterskiing and nightclubbing in Mallorca

What have you learnt from your travels?
I have learnt that I am incapable of packing the right amount of clothing, probably because I start 10 minutes before I’m supposed to leave; and that I truly hate airports. I rarely fly, for environmental reasons more than anything else.

Where has seduced you?
I went to China for a brief working visit and I thought that Shanghai was interesting, but Beijing totally grabbed me

Worst travel experience?
My son, sister, niece and I were sea kayaking in Mexico and got caught in a rip tide

Worst hotel?
A resort hotel in Varadero, Cuba.

Dream trip?
I have never been to India.

Favourite city?
New York. It has great restaurants and is a part of the US that you can enjoy as a liberal Brit.

Marcus Brigstocke will be performing at Altitude at Volvo Snowbombing from 4-9 April in Mayrhofen, Austria

Perhaps he is merely in search of an audience that finds him funny?

BBC: The broadcast arm of The Guardian

It isn’t like we didn’t know this already, but confirmation from someone who has experienced it at first hand, time and again, is always worth a great deal more than outside observation.

In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

Peter Sissons

It is worth restating that with The Guardian’s well known and self professed liberal left bias, the BBC cannot possibly be considered in any way impartial because it relies so heavily on that paper to inform its chosen editoral narrative.

That is why we constantly see Guardian journalists on BBC programmes providing biased analysis and see the two organs collaborating closely to achieve a particular outcomes, the most recent example of which was the witch hunt resulting in the bringing down of Andy Coulson. There have been other instances in the not too distant past of BBC and Guardian collusion to bring someone down in order to further a political agenda.  Something else Sissons says is worth repeating:

What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations.

The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries ­principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.

Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.

The BBC’s ability to position itself, to decide for itself on which side its bread is buttered, is what it calls its independence. It’s flexible, and acutely sensitive to which way the wind is blowing politically.

Complaints from viewers may invariably be met with the BBC’s stock response, ‘We don’t accept that, so get lost’. But complaints from ministers, though they may be rejected publicly, usually cause consternation — particularly if there is a licence fee settlement in the offing. And not just ministers, if a change of Government is thought likely.

Just watch that last sentence come true as the coalition comes under pressure and an election draws near.  This is what informs BBC editorial lines on politics, climate change, the economy, industrial unrest, foreign affairs and international institutions such as the EU and the UN.  All of which helps to put this post into its proper context – with the words ‘independent’ or ‘independence’ used no less than seven times in the BBC’s response.

And this is how our money is used.  Now Peter Sissons has followed Robin Aitken in confirming the true nature of the BBC, the question is not ‘will the BBC now change?’ but ‘who will be next?’.

BBC’s biased reporting of Global Warming

This excellent short video reminds us of the counter consensus on global warming/climate change, views from the scientists on side of the debate that the BBC refuses to air.

It reminds us of the political origins the global warming industry and the dishonesty of the main media player in the UK which has seized upon climate change as a convenient method of furthering their preferred political agenda. All blogs with an interest in this subject should add this to their content.

BBC contempt for Freedom Association complaints

It takes a special kind of arrogance to treat an organisation with the undisguised contempt the BBC has shown to The Freedom Association.

Last Saturday I listened to the radio in stunned silence as ‘comedian’ David Baddiel, talking about the late Norris McWhirter’s visit to his school, smeared The Freedom Association by describing it as:

… a very, very right wing kind of sub-BNP, slightly posher version of the BNP.

Anyone who knows anything about TFA will know it abhors discrimination of any kind and unconditionally opposes racism and the kind of identity politics engaged in by the BNP. If it didn’t then I would not support it.

A number of people submitted complaints to the BBC, including myself. Somehow I just knew that despite the strength of the complaint, the BBC would dismiss it out of hand because one of its favourite overpaid sons had taken a swipe at something he considered to be ‘very, very right wing’. Such behaviour is grist to the BBC mill.

And so it has turned out. I have received an email reply to my complaint that reads:

Dear Mr xxxxxx

Thank you for contacting us regarding remarks made by David Baddiel about Norris McWhirter and the Freedom Association on The Alan Davies Show on BBC Radio 5 Live broadcast on Saturday 18 December.

On the show David Baddiel was discussing a television film he has recently made entitled ‘The Norris McWhirter Chronicles’. The film centres around a speech that Mr McWhirter made at David Baddiel’s school in the 1970s. The young Baddiel had expected a talk about the then popular TV programme ‘Record Breakers’ and was disappointed that Mr McWhirter’s speech was of a political nature. The comments made by David Baddiel were quite clearly his personal description of Mr McWhirter’s political allegiances.

The Alan Davies Show is a live, light hearted, entertainment programme and in this context we are satisfied that no broadcasting guidelines were broken.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

BBC Audience Services

So, personal descriptions of Norris McWhirter’s political allegiance that are factually incorrect and derogatory, and speculation by Alan Davies and Baddiel about whether McWhirter was a ‘Brown shirt’ (the morons meant an Oswald Mosely ‘Black shirt’, but hey, BBC ignorance has no bounds) are no problem. That is always the way isn’t it?


I notice on Cranmer a post on this very subject, His Grace and several of his communicants having received an identical ‘piss off’ reply from the BBC. But what Cranmer notes is that:

What they are essentially saying is that any BBC employee or interviewee can give a ‘personal description’ of ‘political allegiances’ irrespective of the facts, and they may do so with impunity.

This being the case, why did the BBC apologise to the Muslim Council of Britain and pay them £30,000 of taxpayers’ money in compensation for remarks made by Charles Moore on Question Time? Why was Mr Moore not permitted to articulate a ‘personal description’ of the behaviour of the MCB? Why does the BBC readily acknowledge ‘injury to feelings’ when it comes to some minority groups or organisations of ‘the Left’, but is evidently of the view that the family and friends of Norris McWhirter and members of The Freedom Association do not live with bread like them; do not feel want, taste grief, or need friends.

Quelle surprise. Bias from the BBC. It seems in this world the only way to ensure you are afforded respect is if you rub shoulders with homicidal maniacs who tend to resort to violence at any perceived insult.

In the face of anger from the Muslim Council of Britain the BBC doles out our money and issues fulsome and humble apologies for any offence caused. In the face of anger from decent, law abiding and polite members of The Freedom Association the BBC sticks up two fingers and tells them to go hang.

And we pay handsomely, under pain of fine or imprisonment, for these sycophantic self loathing quislings. It’s enough to make one sick.

What the Stockholm bombings tell us

The double bomb attack in Stockholm yesterday provides us with yet more evidence that appeasement of those determined to harm us doesn’t work. Across Scandinavia there are radicalised Muslims who feel nothing but hatred and contempt for their hosts and the west in general.

This has been exhibited by reports of Islamist youths wearing t-shirts declaring that in ‘2030 Sweden is ours’, which demonstrates that integration is not the aim of those granted residence in that country.

In addition, Sweden’s intelligence service (SÄPO) has also reported that Islamist immigrants have been engaging in terrorism and attending terrorist training camps back in Somalia. SÄPO was warning as recently as the summer that young Swedes in Somalia could take part in terrorist attacks ‘in the near future.’ We shall know soon enough if that prediction came true this weekend.

Western countries have been too free and too easy doling out passports and residency permits to people claiming to be in need of asylum.  Part of the thinking is that if we show how kind and generous we are we’re less likely to come under attack from Islamists. Supposedly we are setting an example. But all the evidence shows this approach is scoffed at by the Islamists and they say it shows we are weak and deserving of attack. The only thing that gives these religio-political lunatics any pause for thought is strength, resolve and a determination to defeat the threat they pose.

All too often the intelligence services discover that many people granted asylum then pitch up in their countries of origin, from where they have supposedly fled in fear of their lives, and are engaged in fighting, terrorism or radicalisation. Instead of immediately blacklisting these people to prevent their return, thanks to the self loathing liberal elite they are still permitted freedom of movement in the countries they intend to turn into theatre of terror. So is it any wonder we end up with a fifth column within our countries that are hell bent on killing as many innocent people as possible?

If we do not wise up and change our approach in order to deal with these people in uncompromising fashion then we can expect more of the same in weeks, months and years to come.

Update: Depressingly yet unsurprisingly reports now suggest the bomber previously lived in the UK, in Luton, and studied at the University of Bedfordshire. It will be interesting to see if taxpayers subsidised his study. Thanks to our utterly useless political class, their idiotic immigration policies and their sucking up to extremist preachers of hate, this country is the rallying point for every homocidal Islamist in western Europe. Whenever an Islamist carries out an act of terror anywhere in the west it must now be par for the course to look through his history to see where in the UK he lived, studied or attended a mosque run by hatemongers, in order to piece his story and connections together.

England’s lost World Cup bid is our gain

In November this humble blog commented about how David Cameron was to launch a last-ditch personal attempt to breathe fresh life into England’s faltering bid to host the 2018 World Cup, saying:

Oh well, that just about kills off the England bid.

This afternoon, despite Cameron’s shuttle trips between London and Zurich and the intense lobbying of the English bid team including Prince William, David Beckham and Lord Coe, that prediction became reality and FIFA rejected the England bid. Embarrassingly the bid was eliminated in the first round of voting by FIFA’s Executive Committee, placing England’s technically superior offering behind both the Netherlands-Belgium and Spain-Portugal bids.  In the end FIFA awarded the 2018 World Cup to Russia.

Despite Cameron rubbing shoulders with Goldenballs Beckham, he clearly lacks the golden touch when it comes to assignments in continental Europe. Each time he goes there he returns with either a) nothing, or b) a demand for huge sums of our money. But in fairness responsibility for this failure – if you think of it as one – rests somewhere other than Cameron’s door.

There were some powerful agendas at play in Zurich. FIFA’s quasi-monarchial President, Sepp Blatter, had made clear he preferred Russia as the venue because it would bring football’s money generating machine to a new untapped market and supposedly reach a new audience.

When Blatter wants something it generally results in a number of Exec Committee members voting to give it to him. This was probably the major factor in the voting outcome. But a contributing factor without any doubt was the BBC’s decision to screen their ‘investigation’ into corruption at the top levels of FIFA just days before the vote. Reports suggests Blatter reminded the committee of the negative BBC coverage and also that press clippings of other media criticisms and accusations concerning FIFA were helpfully circulated around the delegates earlier today.

It has been hilarious and cringeworthy in equal measure listening to the BBC media pack squirming over the last 48 hours as they tried to convince TV and radio audiences that despite the Panorama special, England’s bid had suddenly developed momentum.  The BBC narrative switched to self preservation mode, saying the bid was in the ascendency and that it was the only show in town with the Royal, the politician and the superstar pressing the flesh and winning the necessary support. But only the most deluded moron could believe that the intentionally provocative insult hurled at FIFA by the arrogant BBC (no matter how accurate the Panorama investigation might have been) would be glossed over by some of the most egotistical and allegedly corrupt delegates on the face of the planet.

The BBC has shown itself time and again to be contemptuous of its home country. It never passes up an opportunity to denigrate England, Britain or the UK as per the default position of such illiberal self loathing personae. In doing so again this week the BBC has scored a spectacular own goal. Millions of football fans who wanted the tournament hosted here will now link the Panorama programme with the failure of the bid, and the BBC will attract the deserved contempt of those people it has long sneered at. This outcome can only be benefical because more people will come to see the BBC for the insipid entity it is.

Another benefit for England is the removal of financial commitments that come with hosting the World Cup. The bid would have wasted money developing Home Park in Plymouth to seat over 40,000 people when the average attendance of Argyle’s games there is little over 5,000. Milton Keynes would also have had to be further developed to produce facilities that far exceed what the city’s team will ever need.  So although we have lost the bid, in the long run we will be better off, saving a significant amount of taxpayers’ money – and having the BBC show itself up as a spiteful corporation to people who normally wouldn’t realise or be interested in knowing. Eyes will have been opened tonight.

Amusingly the kneejerking has already begun, with Labour demanding an inquiry into the bid failure, and BBC journalists such as Peter Allen on Five Live suggesting the Russians might have engineered a stitch up before the vote and knew they had the outcome in the bag, which was why Vladimir Putin had stayed away.

As for FIFA’s choice, good luck to Russia’s World Cup organisers. They will need it. With the extent of corruption, terrorism and organised crime in that country they will have their work cut out delivering this tournament safely, making money and attracting overseas visitors to the games. It seems Russia and FIFA deserve each other and fate has finally united them.


Rejoice! Forget the American Dream. Another country is the place to be. Oh yes.

  • Where else in the world can you pitch up in a distant country and ask for asylum and be provided with protection, accomodation and money completely free?
  • Where else in the world can you indulge in criminality unmolested, taking hard drugs and not having to contribute to the society which has afforded you protection from supposed oppression?
  • Where else in the world can you so hate your hosts’ values you can take yourself off from that bountiful sanctuary and travel to a country that supplies the majority of the world’s heroin, where camps operate to train people to slaughter innocent civilians and where terrorists are killing your host’s soliders, to play a part in the insurgency?
  • Where else in the world can you try to return to your host country using a forged passport to conceal your true identity and have that questionable criminal behaviour and your motives completely ignored because you complain that after your capture you claim to have been tortured?
  • Where else in the world can you then continue to avoid any examination of your own actions and motives for being around terror training camps in a warzone and trying to return to your host country in suspicious circumstances using a forged passport even though you are allowed to return legally using your own?
  • Where else in the world can you claim to have only gone to an opiate and terrorist haven only in order to get off drugs and still be believed without question by your hosts’ public service broadcaster and compensation chasing legal whores?
  • Where else in the world can you be encouraged to take legal action against your host’s government and secure a settlement payment believed to be in excess of £1 million?


Yes, move over America, it’s time to celebrate the British Dream!  Britain is the new land of opportunity. Britain is where anything can happen and pretty much does. Britain is the land where you can pull yourself up by your sand covered bootstraps and secure wealth beyond your wildest dreams. Britain is where you are not held to account for your criminal behaviour and desire to partake in atrocities against its people. Britain is where after all this the self loathing liberal elite will blame themselves for your actions and ensure you will continue to be coddled by the state for life at the expense of its people. Britain is where you can hit the jackpot for being nothing more than a parasitic ne’er do good. Congratulations! Welcome to our land of craven appeasment and moral inversion where, like Binyam Mohamed, all you need to get on is malice aforethought and a violent intent.

Guardianista’s spiteful attack on EUsceptic over Ireland bail out money

‘Will Bill Cash, the historian, change his mind and agree to support Ireland? Veteran Eurosceptic says no to supporting Ireland as Downing Street confirms Britain is prepared to help fund a bailout.’

So writes The Guardian’s pride and joy, Nicholas Watt on the much acclaimed (ok, I made that bit up) Wintour and Watt Blog. Not content with posting the question, Watt includes a photograph of Bill Cash with the strapline: ‘Bill Cash believes Britain should not contribute a penny to help its ailing neighbour.’ Nice. Not the slightest bit of emotive rabble rousing from yet another internationalist, big government fanatic who hasn’t got the sense he was born with. He ruminates thus:

When you are blinded by hatred it is sometimes difficult to see the wider picture.

Bill Cash, the grand daddy of Tory Eurosceptics, gave a masterclass of this today when Downing Street confirmed that Britain may have to contribute to a possible bailout of the Irish Republic.

On cue, this is what Cash, chairman of the Commons European scrutiny committee, told the London Evening Standard:

Not a penny of British taxpayers’ money should go to bail out Ireland.

Cash does not want to help the Irish Republic because it is a member of the eurozone. Ireland has only itself to blame, goes the Eurosceptic thinking, and should turn instead to the likes of France and Germany which enticed Dublin to join the single currency spurned by Britain.

If Cash is struggling to summon up any generosity towards Ireland, perhaps a potted history of his career might help him to think again:

Oh piss off. Clearly Nicholas Watt is another idiot subscriber to the idea of the magic money tree that allows us to harvest vast quantities of cash on demand. Perhaps Watt needs a little (well actually a lot) help here. His spiteful and pejorative comments ignore a very simple fact. To help out Ireland the already heavily indebted UK would have to borrow even more money at a time we need to reduce public debt.

Part of the supposed benefit of the Euro currency was that Eurozone members would support each other in times such as these. We are not a Eurozone member and we have our own problems to overcome. It is not any imagined hatred of Ireland as Watt disgracefully suggests which is at the heart of Bill Cash’s views, it is economic illiteracy of accepting we do not have enough money for our own needs yet borrowing billions on markets nervous of our debt levels to send to Ireland. The fact is if Cash’s comments had been made by a non-EUsceptic, Watt would not have written this piece.

Think about it another way. Perhaps when the Unison trade union (currently hard at it recruiting new members) starts castigating the government for not spending more on its domestic departments, Watt will be happy to tell them it was more important to borrow money to send to Ireland rather than use it for the benefit of the UK. Realism and common sense are qualities notably absent from the Guardian. But if nothing else at least the Guardianista is always good for a bit of fantasy economics.

Peter Preston owes families of Falklands war dead an apology

Never underestimate the capacity of the self loathing liberal elite to indulge in supremely distasteful and arrogant commentary. Why did Peter Preston pick today, Remembrance Sunday, of all days to publish this insulting article on the Guardian online?

On the day people fell silent to remember the sacrifice of men and women who died in the service of this country, this pompous prat serves up a piece called ‘Ditch the Falklands – It makes no economic or political sense to hang on to the Falklands, but no one will face the truth’. What a complete and utter prick this man is. He is an absolute moron. This is not the day to have a discussion about pounds, shillings and pence spent defending the Falklands after blood has been spilled to protect and uphold the self determination of the Falkland Islanders.

Some of those poppies and wreaths laid today at War Memorials around the world, including on the Falkland Islands, were to mark the sacrifice of the 258 British servicemen who died in the fight to retake this sovereign British territory from Argentina. Servicemen who endured appalling conditions to expel the invaders and free the British citizens who live there and absolutely wish to remain British. But to Preston on Remembrance Sunday it is more important to grandstand in the paper and try to appear profound by declaring that we should simply abandon the islanders for economic reasons – thus ensuring that the British servicemen who were killed, maimed and injured suffered for nothing. If any Briton should be abandoned it should be this washed up old hack.

It is hard to feel anything other than complete revulsion at Peter Preston. He is beneath contempt. I hope he didn’t dare show his grotesque face at a war memorial today, it would have been an hypocrisy of the worst kind. He couldn’t have been much more insulting if he had danced on the graves of those we lost. Incensed doesn’t come close to how I feel about this.

To resort to cliche, he is the kind of person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. He owes an immediate, unreserved and grovelling apology to the families of those who died.

Ignore Special Immigration Appeals Commission – remove Abu Hamza’s passport

We’re stuck with him. That is the decision of the morons on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission – it would be more accurately described as the Special Immigration Abettor’s Commission – who say that Abu Hamza al-Masri cannot be stripped of his British passport and therefore deported.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to take decisive action to put this right. They will roll over as they always do at the first sound of the words ‘Rights, Directive, Judgement, European’.

Surprise, surprise, it is the Human Rights Act once again that comes leaping to the defence of another lawbreaking alien who hates this country and works actively to do it harm, yet cravenly seeks the protection its liberal laws provide. Despite there being no proof that Egypt has withdrawn Hamza’s citizenship, the Commission has decided it is so and said Hamza must keep the British citizenship he acquired through marriage, or else he would become stateless.

So bloody what?

Perhaps if we showed some guts and acted in our own interests the spiteful hate mongers who come to this country and are determined to attack it at every turn would learn there are consequences for their actions and stay away. This bleeding heart decision is a travesty and exposes how we have been weakened by the community of activists judges and campaigners who pontificate about moral superiority and are loathe to take action against those who mean us harm.

As it is Abu Hamza is still fighting a case in the European Court of Human Rights to prevent deportation to the United States for investigation into alleged terror offences. No doubt the left wing academics who make up that illegitimate kangaroo court will fall over themselves to rule that he must not face justice and must stay in Britain, taking up a prison cell or sponging off the welfare state.

Abu Hamza al-Masri and his ilk will be laughing like drains at the stupidity of these moronic commissioners whose hand wringing further undermines the interests of this nation. The man is Egyptian. His own country despises him and refused him a new passport, but it has never stated that his citizenship has been revoked. We should test it by putting his oversized, taxpayer subsidised arse on a plane to Cairo and permanently refusing him entry to this country again.

If the Egyptians don’t want Hamza, for a few hundred dollars they can strap him into seat on a plane bound for Washington where the Americans are very eager to play host to him. In fact, a phone call to the US Embassy would probably see a transport aircraft divert to Egypt to pick him up and save Egyptian taxpayers the trouble of sending him packing.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive