Around 70 MPs have apparently signed a letter to director-general Lord Hall complaining about the Corporation’s gloomy reporting of Brexit.
Tory MP Julian Knight
Tory MP Julian Knight, who apparently co-ordinated the letter, has warned that the BBC is in danger of losing touch with its viewers and giving too much airtime to ‘diehard Remainers’.
The BBC has a duty to offer impartial coverage of Brexit, said Mr Knight, a former BBC journalist.
He added: ‘It must be careful not to lose the trust of the 52 per cent who voted Leave, as well as those Remainers like myself who respect the will of the people and want to get on with delivering Brexit.’
Mr Knight gives the example of the prominent coverage given to so-called “regretful Remainers” in the aftermath of the vote, even though all available polling suggests no shift in public opinion towards the EU since the vote.
The Daily Mail gives these examples of BBC bias.
In January, the Victoria Derbyshire show visited Great Yarmouth, which voted heavily for Leave, but everyone they interviewed expressed doubts.
MPs said in October shows were ‘heavily biased’ against Leave campaigners. An analysis of Radio 4 found listeners were two and a half times more likely to hear a pro-EU speaker.
Pro-EU producer Nick Pisani, 53, handled a 50-minute debate on the BBC World news channel.
Assistant political editor Norman Smith predicted the pound would fall after Theresa May’s comments on the single market. The pound rallied.
Positive economic news is often presented ‘despite Brexit’. An online headline in November read: ‘UK construction rises despite Brexit vote.’
Former Tory Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who is among the signatories, said: ‘Anyone can see that the way the BBC is covering this issue is not balanced. Everything is reported in a negative way, and we are subjected to endless coverage of the likes of Blair and Major. We are constantly told by the BBC that it is all too difficult and everything is going to go wrong – it is almost as if they feel they have to act as the opposition on this.’
This poor reporting by the BBC is one of the reasons behind us starting The Red Pill Report.
Obama is, by all appearance, setting himself up as an alternative government. A socialist, pro-globalism, opposition organisation in opposition to the Trump.
Tony Blair is also setting himself up in opposition to our government.
The British people have voted for a Conservative government and for Brexit, but “They” know better than you do!
Tony Blair is bringing a number of projects that he has been working with under one roof and founding The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.
The Institute is a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to making globalisation work for the many, not the few. Don’t believe it. Globalism is for the good of the globalist elite, not for you and me.
Institute for Global Change website.Institute for Global Change website.The institute website is institute.global
Institute for Global Change website.The Institute will offer, “new thinking and new approaches” to address some of the most intractable problems leaders today are wrestling with. Hey, Tony, we followed your ideas, and they did not help many normal people. We just kill a lot of innocent brown people. Hoo, and toppled a government, brought about the right conditions for ISIS and… well let’s stop there.
The Institute “works to provide policy and strategy in support of a vision of globalisation,” no thank you, Tony, we have just voted for friendly open nationalism. We do not want globalism.
The last time we tried globalism was at the Tower of Bable. God wants us in nations, not under one ruler. That is the Luciferian dream.
They go on to say that this globalism is, “designed to improve the well-being of the people, economically, politically, and socially.” They would hardly tell us that it was to make us more enslaved and work for lower wages and to become more like slaves, but globalism generally is about enslavement, not freedom. It is the new serfdom.
It is my opinion that we need to be VERY wary of Tony Blair and his new institution.
The Guardian is reporting that “Record numbers of EU nurses quit NHS.”
My question is, Why is this a problem?
Yes, I do know that it is going to be a problem. I understand that we will be struggling to provide sufficient staff for the NHS if we do not have thousands of foreign workers…
According to the Guardian the “shocking numbers” are something like this, EU nationals registering as nurses in England has dropped by 92% since the Brexit referendum in June, and a record number are quitting the NHS.”
This, “haemorrhaging” of foreign staff is being blamed by the Royal College of Nursing, (RCN) on the failure of the government to provide EU nationals in the UK with any security about their future.
Instead of blaming this situation on Brexit and on the lack of security for EU nationals, (even though the government appear to have assured EU nationals that NUN of them will be told to leave.) Should we not be asking the much more foundational question of…
“Why is Britain dependent on foreigners to staff our health service?”
An estimated 57,000 EU nationals are working within the NHS. This figure includes 10,000 doctors and 20,000 nurses, which probably means that we have something like 25,000+ ancillary staff and cleaners etc.
It gets worse if you look at the bigger picture, 26% of doctors are not UK citizens. The British Medical Association observe that without the contribution of non-British staff, “many NHS services would struggle to provide effective care to their patients”.
The British Medical Association observe that without the contribution of non-British staff, “many NHS services would struggle to provide effective care to their patients”.
The Philippines alone is providing well over 12,000 of its nationals to help staff the NHS.
In 2015 the British government added nurses to the government’s shortage occupation list.
There should be some exchange of workers.
Now, while there is obviously some scope for foreign staff to be temporarily in the UK while there to improve their skills or the like, and while we may have some of our health workers abroad doing much the same thing or even helping in a deprived or needed area, surely a country like the UK should be, on the hold capable of providing its own health staff.
Britain should be able to supply workers for the NHS.
Janet Davies, chief executive and general secretary of the RCN, is describing the NHS as being, “in a staffing crisis like never before.” She also said, “The government has failed to train enough British nurses and cannot afford to lose the international workforce on which the NHS so heavily relies.”
In my opinion, this is not only true of nurses and doctors and other health workers but in many other areas of industry and business.
It is time we stopped arguing about this or that education reform. We need to go back to solid and sound education that leaves people willing and capable of gaining meaningful employment and becoming productive members of society.
A great nation like Britain should be capable of staffing the NHS.
There are important elections in Europe today, millions facing death from famine, but the BIG news is that the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has had to back down on one of his budget items.
Now it may be significant, but does it really warrant top billing in the BBC headlines, or the Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell describing this withdrawal of a budget NI increase as, “chaos” and “shocking.”
Sometimes I wonder just what they would call someone trying to give women the right to kill their own babies? That is not shocking. That is just women’s rights.
McDonnell later went on to accuse the chancellor of “Blundering so disastrously.”
I am sorry I did not see the disaster. Was it the famine in Africa that came as a result of this political miscalculation?
Our MP’s are now so concerned with catching the headlines with a snappy soundbite that there is little real quality of debate.
I am by no means a Conservative, at least not one with a capital “C”. But it appears to me, that Hammons being a little more Logical and less of an empathiser. Felt that there was room within the, “no rise in tax and NI,” promise to get away with, what he felt was a fair correction of the NI levels. Having found out the most of the county felt that this was a breach of the Conservative ‘tax lock’. He has stepped back from this and will now have to find more borrowing or savings.
This is exactly what the opposition called for him to do.
This does not look like a disaster. Unless that is that the savings or extra borrowing creates a disaster, but then the Labour party would have been very much more of a disaster.
Could our MP’s and news media just get some perspective, please?
I was pleasantly surprised by the breadth and honesty of this article in the Mail online. To so much of the media Obama seems to be beyond reproach, so good, such a saint. IT was very nice to see this piece by Piers Morgan, giving a more honest assessment of Obama.
Obama deported millions, killed thousands and now he’s out to slyly depose his successor, so why does everyone think he’s President Perfect?
Forgive me if I don’t join the ecstatic global race to canonise Mr Obama quite so enthusiastically.
For beneath his ever-smiley beatific halo lies a rather different, far murkier reality.
My favourite question for the anti-Trump brigade is this: ‘How many people did Barack Obama deport from America during his eight years as President?’
Most people guess 5,000, maybe 10,000. Even those with a good knowledge of how the real world of US immigration policy works rarely respond with a number higher than around 500,000.
In fact, Obama deported nearly THREE MILLION people.
That is the most deported by any president, ever.
His appalled critics even dubbed him ‘Deporter-in-Chief.’
Featured image – By Piers_Morgan_-_2011.jpg: Pete Riches derivative work: Connormah (talk | contribs) (Piers_Morgan_-_2011.jpg) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons – Text added.
Yesterday, (12th March 2017) Labour MP Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) asked the House of Commons for permission to introduce a Private Members’ Bill to the House of Commons.
The 1st reading before the House of Commons was on the 13th March 2017
The 2nd reading is scheduled for the delayed, (due to Westminster Terror attack), until the 12th May 2017.
The bill full text is not yet published, I will update this later.
Diana said that the bill was to “regulate the termination of pregnancies by medical practitioners and to repeal certain criminal offences relating to such terminations; and for connected purposes.”
In England and Wales, under the Abortion Act 1967, introduced by David Steel, women have a legal route to an abortion. But Diana and those who support this bill wish to not only allow aborting under controlled circumstances, i.e. for medical reasons and upon the approval of two doctors etc. but they now wish to decriminalise the killing of a baby pre-birth.
You may have thought that it was now legal to abort a baby, to kill a pre-born child, but in fact, children in the womb are still protected as human beings under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and other legislation. There is a legal route to abortion, but apart from the provision of David Steel’s act, killing a pre-born child is still against the law.
As one might expect there is a deal of liberal propaganda in the press about this bill. Diana is being painted a hero of women’s rights attacking out of date legislation. Especially the use of the term, ‘Victorian.’ We do not want any of that prim and proper, backwards looking Victorian legislation on out statute books do we.
Diana brought several life stories of women who for one reason or another wished to be able to kill their babies outside of the Abortion Act 1967, but who for one reason or another did not feel safe to do so because it was illegal.
Some of these cases sound deserving if killing you baby could ever be…
“I live in rural England and have no friends and the relatives I have I am not close to. I was hoping to have a termination in the comfort of my own home without judgmental eyes and without worrying about my husband knowing. I fear what would happen if he did. I have 3 children and my 3rd is 11 months old. I considered an abortion when he was conceived and had a terrible pregnancy and am still suffering from post natal depression. I will try to seek help, anonymously if possible. I’m in great need of help.”
Other cases seemed bazaar. Abortion it seems has become such a meaningless act that some inconvenience, like taking a day off work, is just too much.
“I have visited my GP last week and he referred me to my local NHS service. They can only offer me a medical abortion with three visits to the hospital on separate days. On the second visit, I am expected to stay there all day. I work full time and have two young sons so getting all that time off and childcare is going to be very difficult, probably impossible.”
I had a dental crown last year and that took more than three visits.
Diana quoted Dr Rebecca Gomperts, the director of Women on Web said about English women seeking help online, who said,
“Yes, we get them all the time. We had an Islamic girl forbidden from leaving the house without a chaperone. How is she going to get to an abortion clinic? She can’t. For her, her only option might be that she could get the medicine sent to her by post.”
It seems to me that there is a much bigger problem in that girl’s life than the need for an abortion. This girl is all but illegal detained in her home. Get the police and social services into that home and have those who are holding her captive prosecuted. Or is it that as Muslims they can just do as they like and the law can not touch them.
Come on Diana, deal with the real problem here, do not just kill the innocent child.
Diana used the illustration that, the United States has not criminalised women for having an abortion since the Supreme Court judgment in 1973. However, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that this has meant that some cults are now aborting pre-birth children as a sacrifice because it is safe, there can be no prosecution for such an act. But we can not go too deep into that aspect here. Changes in laws like this always have unintended and far-reaching consiquesnses.
Diana tries to paint a picture that this bill with not lead to an abortion free for all, however, we all know how the “very few abortion” that the Abortion Act 1967 was supposed to give rise to has now become a massive flood.
She said that the bill would not, “lead to a free-for-all with unlicensed practitioners providing abortions; as now, there will be strict regulation and licensing of health professionals. For example, both of the pills most commonly used in medical abortions are prescription only. That means they are covered under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which make it illegal to supply such drugs without a prescription.
However, these pills are already being posted into the country, ordered on the internet by mail order. If there is no penalty for ordering or using such pills this will undoubtedly increase. Even if it is illegal to order them, it will be a much lower penalty than for killing a baby.
Diana also says that “On the issue of non-consensual abortions, such as when a man assaults a pregnant woman, these would continue to be criminalised under other laws such as grievous bodily harm.” Though it is unclear that this means. If the baby no longer has any value as a human under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. who’s body, is the ‘grievous bodily harm’ being done to? If it is the woman, I assume that these pills do not cause a great deal of harm to the woman. This may end up being a hard to prosecute offence or a minor one at the best.
Coming towards the end of her speech, Diana says that, “I hope that hon. Members will, like me, conclude that the criminalisation of abortion suits nobody.” The baby might think that it serves them!
She closes with another bizarre statement that, this bill will bring a, “a profound shift in the relationship between the state and its female citizens.” and that part of this is that “for the first time women will be recognised as the authors of our own lives. With that comes our full citizenship.”
As a man, I have never felt the fact that I do not have the right to kill children deprives me of my citizenship.
Nor under any circumstances are any of us the “author of our own lives.” Diana is just using emotional rhetoric to back up the right to kill.