BBC research confirms Brexit is a working class revolution ... and they don't like it

Analysis of local voting data by the BBC for the EU referendum has confirmed what everybody knew: Brexit is a working class revolution.

The BBC's research has confirmed that the working class who suffer most from EU membership voted to leave the EU whilst the kids, middle and upper classes and academics voted to remain. Or to put it in BBC speak, thick people in housing estates voted for Brexit and our social superiors and their intellectually superior offspring voted to stay in.

There was a time when the left would have encouraged the working class taking control of their destiny. Now they just sneer at them and call them thick racists.

BBC agree to change wording of trade and economy FAQ to prevent voters being misled

A small victory over BBC bias today - after reviewing a complaint I made last week they've decided that claiming that half of UK trade is conducted with the EU is incorrect and have changed the wording in the "Trade and economy" information box that accompanies articles on their website to clarify that it is nearly half of UK overseas trade.

Around 8.5% of UK trade is with the EU, around 9% with the rest of the world and over 80% is trading with other people in the UK. When we leave the EU, this 80%+ of domestic trade will no longer need to be over-burdened with the red tape that spews out of Brussels.

The word "overseas" has been added following a complaint

BBC bias over EU exit "risks British science" article

The BBC ran an article yesterday with the headline EU exit 'risks British science' in which the director of the EU-funded Francis Crick Institute claims that leaving the EU would be detrimental to the science industry. His claims are backed up by "Scientists for EU" - an organisation which the Leave Alliance have already taken to task over their dishonest political posturing.

Scientists for Britain, which advocates leaving the EU and opening up research programmes to the rest of the world, is given fairly equal coverage in the article arguing that the most successful scientific collaborations the UK takes part in have nothing to do with the EU and that the extra money we will save from not being in the EU can be put into research funding of our own.

So given the obvious lack of consensus - which the BBC actually reports - why does the headline read EU exit 'risks British science' rather than No consensus on impact of EU exit on British science? The BBC has already failed its impartiality test by giving prominence to pro-EU commentators on flagship programmes and allowing staff to call the EU "Europe" to confuse viewers, according to Tory MP, Andrew Bridgen. This biased headline is yet another example of the institutional bias in the EU-funded BBC.

Nazi-grade propaganda that would have made Goebbels look like an amateur

The BBC screened their own mockumentary The Great European Disaster on Sunday night, painting a picture of a Europe with closed borders, forced deportation of immigrants, terrorists advancing on Vienna and airports closing at short notice ... and all because the EU has ceased to exist.

This programme was propaganda at its worst. It was so well produced that it was impossible to tell who was a fictional character and who was the genuine article. It used imagery of Nazi death camps and the genocide in Srebrenica in Bosnia (which happened under the watchful eyes of EU peacekeepers, a fact that they failed to mention). It was a propaganda file for EU federalism and socialism paid for with taxpayers' money and broadcast on a channel that is required by law to be balanced and impartial.

Right at the start the programme used footage of the second world war and quoted Churchill out of context extolling the virtues of a European union. They left out the bit where he said it was for Europe and not for us. They had a fake news report saying that Prime Minister Farage of Great England (the UK has broken up in this fictional future because the EU has collapsed) has deported all immigrants who have lived in the country for less than 10 years. In the programme, Spain has closed all access to Gibraltar because the EU wasn't there to stop them. Just like Spain was doing last year whilst the EU stood by and watched it happen.

Because the EU has collapsed, ISIS is advancing well into Europe with fighting against hordes of invading Muslim terrorists on the streets of Vienna. The collapse of the EU has caused the worst economic disaster in history (worse than the one the EU have presided over) and the break-up of the €uro has caused "carnage". There are power blackouts all over Europe and extreme weather conditions.

In this post-EU future, a child has been deported from England because her immigrant mother doesn't earn enough money (that evil UKIP again), Germans are banned from entering France which is now run by the French National Front and you have to buy a visa before you can travel between different countries, just like you don't have to do for travel to most of the world.

The makers of the programme have taken the most extreme set of circumstances that they can make sound plausible and turned them into an hour and a half of Nazi-grade propaganda that would have made Goebbels look like an amateur. It preyed on every fear, insecurity and prejudice that the population could have and demonised their opponents.

Unsurprisingly, it transpires that the programme has been partly funded by the EU so that it can be translated into other languages to be broadcast across the EU. Our taxes are being used to produce and distribute naked socialist, federalist propaganda across Europe whilst at home it's being peddled by the BBC which has received £2.2m of EU funding in the last 2 years.

Complaints about the BBC's bias can be submitted here and complaints to OFCOM can be submitted here.

Meet the UKIPpers on BBC 2 tonight

The BBC documentary, Meet the UKIPpers, is airing on BBC 2 at 10pm.

Although this is unlikely to be a hatchet job on the scale of the EU-funded Channel 4 mockumentary it's the BBC so it will of course focus on the negatives and the main thing it will be concentrating on is the comments made by former UKIP councillor, Rozanne Duncan, who said she has a problem with "negroes".

The only people I do have problems with are negroes. And I don't know why.

I don't know whether there is something in my psyche or whether it's karma from a previous life or whether something happened to me as a very, very young person and I've drawn a veil over it - because that sometimes happens, doesn't it?

But I really do have a problem with people with negroid features.

Duncan says she wasn't being racist when she made the comments and actually she's right. Racism is the belief in superior or inferior qualities based on a person's race or prejudice or discrimination against somebody because you believe that your own race is superior which is clearly not the reason she has "a problem" with black people. But she used language that has been considered offensive for decades and can't be trusted to represent everyone equally so it was right to expel her from the party and I would hope that she would do the right thing and resign as a councillor to make way for someone who doesn't have "a problem" with 1 in 50 of the population.

Anti-UKIP campaigners will ignore the fact that Duncan was immediately expelled from the party and use the footage to attack the other 42,000 UKIP members and the thousands of UKIP councillors who don't share her views. Election candidates are now vetted by the party for anything above town and parish council level but what questions would you have to ask to identify that kind of irrational phobia? There is nothing that could realistically have been done to identify Duncan's unsuitability for public office in advance but the important thing is that she was removed from the party as soon as it became apparent.

Comedian Andrew Lawrence criticises "moronic liberal" comedians attacking UKIP

Comedian Andrew Lawrence has ruined his chances of ever working for the BBC again by criticising BBC political comedians for ripping into UKIP all the time.

He posted an article on his blog ripping into "moronic liberal" comedians who think it makes them look "enlightened" if they attack UKIP. Mock the Week is obviously the programme that particularly riled him because he describes the show as "aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic".

Lawrence says he wouldn't describe himself as a UKIP supporter but hits the nail on the head with this comment:

The reason UKIP have resonated with voters is because all the other parties are too spineless to tackle the issue of immigration.

For every wonderful, welcome skilled worker our open borders bring into this country, there are also benefit tourists and criminals … Can’t say that I’m a UKIP supporter, but I can see why other people are, and I don’t disrespect them for it.

Dara Ó Briain, the ageing, balding, fat, Irish presenter of Mock the Week tried his hand at humour in his response on Twitter:

Hey Andrew, sorry I’m so aging, bald and fat, but as an an immigrant I’ll retain my disdain for anti-immigrant politics.

Spends days researching for a show, can't be
bothered to spend 5 minutes reading
UKIP's immigration policy

As an Irish citizen Dara would have had an automatic right to live in the UK thanks to the Common Travel Area that's been in place since Irish independence. Assuming that agreement (which UKIP has never indicated it intends to do away with) wasn't in place, under UKIP's immigration system - a system in place in the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand that somehow manages to avoid being described as racist - Dara would have no trouble coming to live in the UK. He has a job and the means to support himself.

What Dara wouldn't get is the unconditional, uncontrolled right to move here as an EU citizen regardless of whether he would be making a positive or negative contribution to the country. UKIP's policy on immigration is to treat everyone wanting to live and work here equally rather than discriminating against Indian doctors or African nurses in favour of Polish plumbers or Romanian fruit pickers exercising the EU's right to free movement. Far from being discriminatory, UKIP's immigration policy treats everyone exactly the same and seeks only to manage immigration to keep it sustainable, not ban it.

BBC Panorama hatchet job on Farage and UKIP

The BBC finally aired the Panorama hatchet job last night that Nigel Farage has been warning us about for the last few weeks and what a disgraceful piece of politically-motivated gutter journalism it was too.

The BBC's charter says that the BBC must be impartial and balanced but this programme was anything but. The programme set out to attempt to discredit Nigel Farage and UKIP from the outset, dredging up disaffected former members, defectors and agitators to sling mud.

There was no balance to the programme, just a string of baseless accusations and innuendo. It was like watching a televised version of the anti-UKIP Junius blog and many of the slurs Darragh MacIntyre came out with appeared to be lifted directly from that website.

Panorama spent two years putting together their programme and many of UKIP's opponents were hoping that it would bring down Farage. What's actually happened is that the BBC have been widely criticised for their bias and a large number of complaints have been made. You can add your own complaint via the BBC Complaints website.

Farage destroys Clegg in EU debte

Tonight's EU debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage was even better than last weeks with a cool, calm and collected Farage wiping the floor with a discredited, desperate Clegg.

Clegg made very few attempts to defend our membership of the EU, spending most of the hour-long debate making bizarre personal attacks on Farage.

The post-debate polls say it all:

YouGov: 68% Farage, 27% Clegg

Guardian: 69% Farage, 31% Clegg

Sky News: 76% Farage, 24% Clegg

We'll leave you with Nigel Farage's final words from the debate: Come and join the people's army. Let's topple the establishment who got us into this mess.

Barroso tells BBC it could be impossible for Scotland to join the EU.

Emperor Barroso has told the BBC that it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to become a member of the EU if it declares independence from the UK.

The SNP's stance on the EU is frankly bizarre - they want to swap a British union dominated by Scots and Scottish interests for a European Union in which it would be a tiny, insignificant voice. Despite being told several times that their belief that they will automatically be given EU membership is incorrect, they continue to plan for a future in which Scotland breezes into the EU and nobody makes them join the €uro.

Personally, I would be happy to see Scotland declare independence. The Scottish people never wanted union with England in the first place and they never took to Britishness the way the English did. The relationship between the two countries has always been strained with the 700 year old Battle of Bannockburn being invoked in most "debates" about Anglo-Scottish relations as if it was still a raw wound. The battle for independence should be won honestly though, not by bluff and bluster which is what the SNP is coming out with now.

As the independence referendum gets closer, the wheels are coming off the SNP's wagon. The Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have all pledged to block any currency union with Scotland which was one of Alex Salmond's key pledges for an independent Scotland along with EU membership, a budget surplus, not taking on a share of the British national debt and some other pie in the sky stuff. Most Scots know they can't afford independence even if they want it and the SNP's habit of making promises it can't keep won't help change their minds.

BBC promoting Greens in London

Last night the BBC ran a special edition of Newsnight in which they invited four candidates for London mayor.

The Tories and Labour were, of course represented, as the two biggest parties by far.  The Lib Dems were invited, not because they are going to win, but presumably because they're part of the coalition and of course their candidate is a gay ex-copper which ticks the diversity boxes.

So who was the fourth candidate invited on the programme?  Logic would tell you it would be the candidate for the party consistently polling in 4th place (sometimes 3rd) in London, the fourth largest party in the UK.  But logic doesn't apply in the BBC, just institutional bias and political agendas so naturally the BBC chose the Greens who fill the three main criteria for getting on a BBC election programme of being on the far left, environmentalists and not being UKIP.

So many times we see the BBC unduly influence elections by ignoring the UKIP candidate and promoting a no-hoper Green extremist for no other reason than because in the mind of your average BBC producer, that is how the world should be.  If you're not a europhile environmentalist then you're a far right extremist who must never be given the oxygen of publicity, regardless of what the electorate says.

We've seen this happen so many times in elections.  In Norwich, Glenn Tingle was polling well ahead of the Greens and his opponents were even predicting a UKIP win and then the BBC propaganda machine kicked in and suddenly UKIP was on the fringes and it was a battle between the LibLabCon and the loony Greens.  Even the Tory fifth columnist Dan Hannan criticised the BBC's bias against UKIP.  In 2010, Lord Pearson threatened to issue legal proceedings against the BBC if they didn't stop their political bias against UKIP in their American-style "Leaders Debate".  In the run-up to last year's vote on an EU referendum in the Commons the BBC pulled Nigel Farage from an appearance on Breakfast at the last minute so they could replace him with a pro-EU Tory instead.  These are just a few of many examples of institutional bias, politicking and gerrymandering at the BBC.

I have sent the following complaint to the BBC today, I would urge you to do the same:

In last night's GLA election themed Newsnight, you had four candidates for the London Mayor: Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green.  Despite the fact that UKIP have been consistently out-polling the Greens in every opinion poll by 2% you chose to promote the Green candidate.  UKIP has even been polling above the Lib Dems at times. This is exactly what you do whenever UKIP is doing well in pre-election polling: you invite on the LibLabCon and UKIP's place is always filled by a Green.

Your excuse will no doubt be that the Greens have two assembly members but that has no bearing on the mayoral election and is a reflection of public opinion in 2008, not 2012 so I don't want to hear it as an excuse. I want to know why the BBC's inherent bias against UKIP and in favour of environmentalists (with emphasis on the "mental") is allowed to so obviously surface in persistent discrimination against UKIP, why the BBC's legal obligation to be impartial is ignored where UKIP are involved and why the BBC seeks to unduly influence elections by promoting candidates that it would like to win over those that polling shows are most popular with the electorate.

I don't want excuses, I don't want denials, I just want an explanation as to why you aren't doing your job properly and a promise to put in place immediate steps to end the BBC's political bias.

BBC cancel UKIP appearance on Breakfast

The BBC have cancelled Nigel Farage's appearance on BBC Breakfast tomorrow so they can have two representatives of the pro-EU Conservative Party instead.

The BBC is once again failing in its duty to provided balance and unbiased programming, bending over backwards to suppress the opposition to its paymasters in Brussels and Westminster.

The BBC are suddenly interested in UKIP

The BBC are suddenly interested in UKIP after Thursday's historic second place in the Barnsley by-election.

BBC News: How would UKIP cut the deficit?

The BBC interviewer was hostile, naturally, but it was good to see someone from UKIP interviewed on a subject other than the EU.  Nigel did sound a bit vague though, he could have done with quoting some figures such as the amount of money we could earn from a Commonwealth free trade agreement.

Nigel was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today show - "UKIP leader Nigel Farage describes the significance of the Barnsley by-election result".

The EU is not Europe

I may have mentioned this before but a real pet hate of mine is when people call the EU "Europe".  They are not different words for the same thing.

Watching the One Show on BBC1 tonight, they started talking about the European Arrest Warrant and the case of a young man extradited to Greece and currently stranded there, unable to leave the country, while he waits for a trial to answer assault charges.  Except it's not the European Arrest Warrant, it's the EU Arrest Warrant.

The presenter said the EU Arrest Warrant makes it easier to extradite people to any country in Europe.  But that's not true, because there are only 27 European countries in the EU and 19 that aren't.  You won't extradite someone to Albania on an EU Arrest Warrant.  Or Switzerland.  Or Norway, Iceland, Bosnia, Ukraine, Russia ...

The history revisionists in Brussels want to plaster "monuments, memorial sites, and places of remembrance" with blue plaques to commemorate their imaginary contribution to the imaginary shared values and imaginary shared history and culture of the European Empire.  I won't even go there otherwise I'll be up all night ranting at my keyboard instead of sleeping and Gawain has already done the honours in his usual concise and scathing way.  But I will have a little rant about the name of the plaques - the European Heritage Label.  Aaaargh!  EU Heritage Label, not European!

The BBC has a habit of calling the EU "Europe".  The British government does it as well with its Europe Minister and Europe Office, neither of which have a remit outside of the EU.  I've put in a complaint to the BBC about them calling the EU "Europe" and pointing out that they have an obligation to accurately report on the EU.  It won't make the slightest bit of difference but it made me feel better.

BBC: What now for UKIP's Nigel Farage?

Nigel Farage has been interviewed by the BBC on what the future holds for him.

Surprisingly for the EU-funded Brussels Broadcasting Corporation, it hasn't been a stitch-up.  In fact, the BBC seem to have developed a grudging respect for our former leader.

Read the BBC article What now for UKIP's Nigel Farage?

BBC admits that only UKIP will address immigration

At last, the Biased Broadcasting Company admits that UKIP alone will deliver.



Cross-posted

OK, and the BNP. But then, UKIP is not racist.

UKIP to seek injunction against BBC

Lord Pearson has written to the BBC warning them that UKIP will be seeking an injunction requiring them to give equal billing to Lord Pearson in the Leaders' Debate on Thursday. The text of his letter is as follows:

Leader's Office

United Kingdom Independence Party

Room 230

10 Greycoat Place

London SW1P 1SB

Mark Thompson, Esq.,
Director-General,
British Broadcasting Corporation,
White City,
201 Wood Lane,
London W12 7TS.

27 April 2010

Dear Mark,

Proposed claim for judicial review

I wrote to Sir Michael Lyons at the BBC Trust on 22 December, asking that UKIP should be allowed to participate in the televised debates between party leaders. Sir Michael wrote explaining that you rather than the Trust were the appropriate point of contact, and you wrote to me on 15 January 2010, conveying to me your decision and that of the BBC to reject my request on the following grounds:

"The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005. Similarly, the starting point for coverage of the 2009 European election was the previous European election of 2004. This means that UKIP - on the basis of its strong performance in 2004 - was given the same level of coverage in the 2009 election as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. In 2005, however, at the last General Election (notwithstanding its performance at the European election less than a year before), UKIP attracted just over 2% of the vote and won no representation at Westminster.

"It is, therefore, appropriate and consistent for the BBC - and other broadcasters - to offer the opportunity to take part in the Prime Ministerial debates only to those parties which have substantial electoral support in the context of Westminster. There will be additional opportunities across the BBC for other parties to receive appropriate coverage responding to the Prime Ministerial debate."

We have been given no adequate opportunity to respond to the first two debates. What arrangements is the BBC making to address this? How can the coverage be "appropriate" if we cannot reach the leaders' audience?

The first two of the party leaders' debates have been held and, as I feared, have given spectacular prominence to the three parties whom you, ITV and Sky TV allowed to take part. The unfairness in our being excluded from the party leaders' debates is now all too evident.

Most recently, I wrote to you on 23 April, sending you my recent correspondence with Sky TV, and inviting you to rectify the lack of impartiality which broadcasters have demonstrated in refusing to allow UKIP to participate in the televised leaders' debates. I have not had a reply to my letter to you. The final leaders' debate is in just two days' time. The matter is now urgent, and I have done my best to pursue it timeously.

Since time is now short, I have taken advice, in the light of which I should like to draw your attention to the following provisions in the BBC's own election guidelines:

"3. Due Impartiality in coverage of parties and issues

"3.1 Coverage of the Parties

"To achieve due impartiality, each bulletin, programme or programme strand, as well as online and interactive services, for each election, must ensure that the parties are covered proportionately over an appropriate period, normally across a week. This means taking into account levels of past and current electoral support.

"Due impartiality must be achieved within these categories:

"clips;
"interviews/discussions of up to 10 minutes;
"longer-form programmes.

"Previous electoral support in equivalent elections is the starting-point for making judgments about the proportionate level of coverage between parties.

"However, other factors can be taken into account where appropriate, including evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections, changed political circumstances (e.g. new parties or party splits) as well as other evidence of current support. The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor." [my emphasis]

These election guidelines - as you may know - were approved by Jenny Watson, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, in a letter dated 11 January 2010 to Ric Bailey, the BBC's Chief Adviser for Politics (Editorial Policy), as follows:

"In addition we are satisfied with the draft Election Guidelines, and the approach taken regarding the participation of candidates in constituency items during the election period."

In the last "equivalent" election, the 2005 General Election, UKIP won 2.2% of the national vote, as you have pointed out. However, in the more recent European Election of last year, UKIP came second in the UK, with 16.5% of the national vote, compared with 15.7% for Labour and 13.7% for the Liberal Democrats. This surely constitutes compelling "evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections". In the circumstances, I should have expected your correspondence to have referred to this provision within your election guidelines. You have allowed Labour and the Liberal Democrats to participate in the leaders' debates, though they received smaller shares of the vote than UKIP in the most recent test of national opinion, which was the European Election of last year. Yet you have denied UKIP the chance to participate.

Furthermore, UKIP - as of today - is fielding 560 candidates, a number not far short of those fielded by the three parties whom you are allowing to participate in the leaders' debate. As your own guidelines say, "The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor." I should have expected your correspondence to have referred to this provision of your electoral guidelines too. Certainly, UKIP - in the number of candidates we are fielding in this General Election - is close to parity with those parties whom you are allowing to participate.

Both these circumstances are directly relevant to any decision whether to allow UKIP to participate in the leaders' debates. Yet you do not seem to have taken account of them in your decision as conveyed to me, or in any of our subsequent discussions.

There is also the question of the BBC's obligations under its charter, which has been the subject of correspondence between us on many previous occasions. In the leaders' debate so far, the question of our EU membership, its lack of democratic accountability and its heavy financial and constitutional cost has not been debated at all. Mr. Brown has been allowed to get away with saying, unchallenged, that three million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union. Nor has there been any discussion of our proposal to introduce binding initiative referenda at local as well as national level, which is the only effective way to allow us, the people, to rule once more, as well as to address the issue of corruption in Parliament, to say nothing of the increasing gulf between government and the governed.

It is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the election guidelines as cited above, and having regard to the absence of UKIP from the first two leaders' debates, that UKIP should be allowed to participate fairly and fully in the final leaders' debate.

Since you did not adopt my original suggestion that UKIP should at least be allowed to participate in some part of each debate, and since all other avenues available to me have been exhausted, and since UKIP has been denied the opportunity to participate at all in either of the first two debates, and since time is running out, I must now ask you to reconsider your refusal to allow UKIP to participate in the third and final leaders' debate, to be aired on Thursday evening, 29 April 2010.

Should you and the BBC fail to accede to this request by noon tomorrow, Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, please take this letter as notice, in terms of the pre-action protocol in judicial review proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules, that the United Kingdom Independence Party, of PO Box 480, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 9BG, and I as UKIP's leader, as claimants, will apply to the Administrative Court at or as soon as practicable after 2 pm tomorrow afternoon for judicial review of your decision and that of the BBC, as defendants, expressed in your letter to me of 15 January 2010, to refuse to allow UKIP to participate in the third and final leaders' debate, and for an injunction requiring you and the BBC to permit me, as UKIP's leader, to participate in that debate on an equal footing with all others whom you and the BBC shall have permitted to participate.

I regret that the notice is very short, but time is pressing and I have not had an answer to my letter to you of 23 April.

Details of our legal advisers will be notified to you in due course. In the meantime, any reply and any court documents should be sent to me at the address below:

The Lord Pearson of Rannoch,
Leader's Office,
United Kingdom Independence Party,
Room 230,
10 Greycoat Place,
London SW1P 1SB.

Yours sincerely,

[signed] Malcolm

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Of course the BBC will argue that the EU elections aren't equivalent to a general election and to a certain extent they are correct.  However, their own guidelines specifically say that past election results are a starting point.  UKIP's support has risen significantly since the last general election and the EU election results last year back that up - they may not be equivalent elections but electoral success on the scale that UKIP achieved wouldn't be possible without a general increase in support for UKIP.

UKIP has representation in all four home nations which is something only the Tory wing of the LibLabCon can claim.  UKIP is also standing 560 candidates in the general election. The BNP are standing 339 and the Greens about the same amount.  UKIP is head and shoulders above any of the small parties and set to make the biggest gains from the three failed parties.

The BBC have been inconsistent with their election coverage.  In some areas, all candidates have had equal billing and in others - Shropshire, for instance - the non-LibLabCon candidates have been virtually ignored.  I made two complaints to BBC Shropshire about the LibLabCon candidates being described as "the candidates" when their election programmes were being introduced or promoted when they are actually only half of the candidates.  The producer conceded the point on the second occasion and said he would issue revised guidance to staff but the BBC still present it as a three-horse race, they just slightly change the way they say it.

It's ironic that the BBC, which is left wing to the core, should actively seek to give an unfair advantage to the privileged and powerful LibLabCon who already have all the publicity, politicians and state funding at the expense of the non-LibLabCon parties such as UKIP who are deprived of publicity and no state funding and suffer as a result.  But then perhaps in the eyes of the BBC all political parties are equal but some are more equal than others?

Climate change religion is falling apart

A Populus poll conducted for BBC News has shown a marked increase in the number of people who don't believe in the global warming climate change CO₂ pollution religion.

Just 3 months ago 41% of people believed in man-made climate change, now only 26% believe.  38% believe that climate change is not proven to be man-made when 3 months ago only 32% held that opinion.  Three months ago 8% of people thought man-made climate change was environmentalist propaganda, that figure has now risen to 10%.

Worryingly, the number of people who think climate change is not happening at all has gone up from 15% three months ago to 25%.  I say worryingly because the climate is changing, just as it has for billions of years!

Overall, this is excellent news.  The wheels are falling off the global warming wagon as more and more people see through the lies, dishonesty and propaganda.

BBC letters

Thanks for your e-mail.

We note your concern that UKIP has not been invited to take part in the planned Prime Ministerial Debates.

You’re twisting things with your very first sentence. My concern was that once again UKIP is being kept out of the debates. Calling them Prime Ministerial debates is your way of keeping the 4th party out. If the BBC seriously want to argue that Nick Clegg can be Prime Minister, then please explain where those 200+ gains are going to come from.

Televised debates between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister of
the UK have never taken place before, despite some evidence that the electorate
would welcome such a development. The BBC – along with ITV and Sky – put forward
proposals aimed at establishing in principle that such debates would take place
during the coming General Election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.

It was announced on December 21st that the three largest parties at
Westminster had agreed, in principle, to the broadcasters’ proposal.

This is basically a repetition of what you’ve already said – but interesting to note the use of the word “proposal”. Proposal to whom? The state? The British public? Because if either were the case there are a great number of questions that would then follow.

The broadcasters have also made it clear that each – individually – would put
forward additional proposals to ensure due impartiality across the UK. The BBC
intends to hold election debates between the largest parties in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland. The details – both of the BBC’s UK-wide debate and those
in each of the nations – have yet to be agreed.

For all other parties,
the BBC will also bring forward proposals to ensure that there are opportunities
for their views to be given appropriate coverage in the context of the UK-wide
debate.

Ah ok….so Plaid Cymru, who only contest 40 constituencies, and who live in a part of the UK where power is already considerably devolved, will get a full hearing. But UKIP, who are contesting 500+ constituencies WON’T? And you consider this fair?

The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests
on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons
in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005.

As I told you in my original letter, and reminded you with my second response – this “argument from incumbency” is not only heavily biased in favour of the status quo, but demonstrates again the “innate bias” which the BBC has more than once quietly admitted.

Similarly, the starting point for coverage of the 2009 European election was the
previous European election of 2004. This meant that UKIP – on the basis of its
strong performance in 2004 – was given the same level of coverage in the 2009
election as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

This is just utter fiction. Anyone who was involved in ,or followed last June’s election knows that UKIP didn’t receive equal coverage. By ramping up your lies in this fashion, you are showing that the BBC really is fighting a war of propaganda.

In 2005, however, at the last General Election (notwithstanding its performance
at the European election less than a year before), UKIP attracted just over 2%
of the vote and won no representation at Westminster.

Is it surprising that UKIP suffered in the polls when the free coverage awarded to the incumbents was denied them? You essentially kept them off the TV.

It is, therefore, appropriate and consistent for the BBC – and other
broadcasters – to offer the opportunity to take part in the Prime Ministerial
debates only to those parties which have substantial electoral support in the
context of Westminster. There will be additional opportunities across the BBC
for other parties to receive appropriate coverage responding to the Prime
Ministerial debate.

There’s your other big twist. Initially it was to be a debate “between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister” (which I’m sure would include Malcolm Pearson anyway), now you change it to “those parties which have substantial electoral support”.

Once again you aptly demonstrate that the BBC is inconsistent, corrupt and immoral.

I invite you to respond to the points I have made here.

Shooting fish (with Goebellian harpoons)

For those of us currently campaigning hard for the status quo monopoly on the British airwaves to be revised, it comes as no surprise that in their 2010 European Union preview, the Bolshevik Bullshit Corporation show again how RIDICULOUSLY biased they have become in favour of the European Union.

What comes as a slight surprise is that the FIRST aspect of the issue mentioned is the EU’s role in global governance; but now that they have the fascist superstate, why not go for the mystery star prize, eh? Gavin Hewitt is obviously being coached, directly or indirectly by the same Alphaville-style technocrats that wrote Van Rompuy’s maiden speech. These people can’t be fucked to hide their crimes anymore – in fact they’ve begun to assume they don’t need to. Only the British people are to blame for the loss of their own sovereignty, and only the British people can prove or disprove the validity of the elite’s assumption as to their acquiescence. The majority of the people have never WANTED political union*, but now they’ve got it, can THEY be fucked to do something about it?

The SECOND point Mr. Hewitt makes is about “divisions within the union” and by this he is presumably talking about the petty squabbles between the far-left and the centre-left over how swiftly to accelerate their Soviet model agenda. These disputes – which you the taxpayer sponsor – iron out smaller details such as whether the elite need Turkey to help them or whether the rising Islamism there – and the prospect of sharing borders with some of the worst dictatorships in the Mideast – might prompt (finally) a negative public response.

THIRDLY, Hewitt babbles his way through what would normally be some sound concerns about the economy, but then sadly disposes of the final shreds of his respectability when he says that readers should expect the European Commission (a.k.a the unelected bureaucrats who recently completed the most recent stage of their ongoing power grab) to “enforce competition policy rigorously and to resist…protectionism”. One CANNOT regulate markets in order to make them free! And…ladies and gentlemen, I ask you PLEASE…..HOW is funnelling wealth into a (now visible) oligarchy whilst perpetrating mass theft and looting on the people NOT protectionist???

FURTHER outrages from Hewitt may well be deliberately designed to make the reader want to give up interest (and possibly hope) altogether: “Europe will continue to be anxious over its identity”. What a blatantly collectivist pro-EU lie! This is the kind of targeted, one-size-fits-all propaganda that ensures the stooges feel moralised, their patsies capitulate, and the ignorant masses abdicate their minds.

LASTLY, Hewitt concludes with: “Finally, how will we judge whether Europe is serious about managing the environment? My pick is the bluefin tuna. That may be the litmus test of how serious the EU is in protecting species under threat.”

No reference here of the Anthropogenic Climate Change fraud, or the carbon taxes and green financial frauds being carried out under its auspices…just some fucking fish.
It’s often been said that technocrats view people as ants, but now you know you’re more like fish in a barrel. You really must love getting shot to stay as quiet as you do.

* = Q: When was the last time that any people were the driving force in developing rational and ethical truths in Western politics?

UKIP's Godfrey Bloom on the Alex Jones Show

UKIP's Godfrey Bloom, a member of the EU Freedom and Democracy Group was interviewed by Alex Jones.

He rails against politics and big business, global warming, the EU and describes the means by which the British constitution has been overridden, our democratic processes destroyed by treasonous politicians and how the BBC has been complicit from the beginning.

Four-part autoplay:



Read news articles on or by Godfrey Bloom

Cross-posted