"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Monday, 26 October 2009

Msm Still Not Running With It

Last Friday and yesterday two stories broke which I would have thought worthy of a mention on all the news channels and in all the newspapers.  The first was about social engineering via unchecked immigration and betrayal of the country by the Labour Party.  As far as I can find out, since Friday the Evening Standard's 'leak' has appeared in the Telegraph (once), the Express (once), and the Mail (three times).  It was also covered by Sky News once on their website but not by the BBC.

Pressure is said to be growing for an independent inquiry, though by whom isn't made clear. I see from the article that Andrew Neather is the Evening Standard's very own Comments Editor which could explain why the Standard's Andrew Gilligan broke the story.

The second news story broke yesterday in the Sunday Telegraph and concerns the extremist Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir being given public money to fund their own schools in England.  All this is despite the fact that Tony Blair said his government would ban the radical group and Bangladesh & about 20 other countries have already done so.

By the way, on the same BBC Radio4 programme where Straw said the English were "potentially very aggressive, very violent," William Hague, then Leader of the Opposition, was reported as saying: "English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK."

No apology for re-posting these two stories - I don't think we should let the issues be ignored since they're obviously connected and are pieces of a jigsaw.


  1. It is all about suppression and Socialist evil. Stalin looks an amateur compared to Labour.

  2. The BBC are disgracefully in the pocket of this govt and also the EU, OR - something as fundamental as this shouldn't be ignored by a publicly-funded broadcaster.

  3. It's beyond me how New Labour have the breathtaking arrogance to attack anyone via their BBC minions.
    I don't understand either, how Marxism = Good with these people. 100 million people butchered worldwide, where ever this evil ideology has shown it's vindictive face.

    But of course we can trust BBC/New Labour to make it work, ours is not question why, we should just shut up and become slaves in their Communist utopia....

  4. It's the Fabian way - smile to your face, stab you in the back. They don't have any compunction about it, they're just really horrible people and the word 'fucktards' just doesn't do them justice.

  5. What New Labour genuinely are, is spelt out here by Michael Tsarion

  6. Thanks D&C - I've blogged lots about them Fabians & CP so I've bookmarked it for another day. If I watch another one at the moment I'll be sick.

  7. Labour MPs and BBC toadies who go along with this will no doubt be rewarded. It won't affect their lives one jot.

    What do they care?

    Look at Blair - he's already worth millions and might just get to run one of the big powers in the world - Europe.

    If then delivers the EU unto the UN, who knows, he might be running the world some day.

    All because of bribery and corruption.

  8. You need to see this, GV:


    I don't believe this is a story that the BBC should have touched, it may become a story in itself but the fact that Neathers is saying that the right-wing press have 'twisted it out of recognition' seems like it this is just a few outlets seeing what they want to see

    and the Torygraph, Mail and Sky are very much MSM - the only reason the others (including the Times) wouldn't run with this now is because they don't think it's true, if it was real they would've just hopped on the bandwagon

  9. Thanks Tarquin. I don't see that Neather is saying anything different in that self-penned article than he was quoted as saying in Gilligan's article.

    He says: "...there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism."

    So tell me how that's different from what I blogged about on Friday?

    I think it's just his version of a 'clarification' and an attempt at damage limitation - he's trying to put a lid on it. He was never the story - most bloggers still don't spell his name correctly.


Related Posts with Thumbnails