BBC kalder ham ‘muslim fra Kashmir,’ når han bliver nægtet amerikansk visum.
Da han sex-misbruger en mindreårig pige, er han pludselig ‘indisk atlet’.
Da han sex-misbruger en mindreårig pige, er han pludselig ‘indisk atlet’.
During debates and discussion on the issue, BBC presenters did not mention the fact that sharia law has been declared, by the European Court of Human Rights, as
“wholly incompatible” with human rights and democratic principles; due overwhelmingly to its treatment of women. Nor has the BBC provided significant details about sharia law, such as that it allows men to use physical force against their wives, mothers have no rights over children, and a woman’s word is worth less than a man’s.
Moreover, secular or Islam-critical voices have not been included in these debates.
As licence-fee payers, we demand that the BBC provide complete coverage of this important matter and to fully inform the public. We also demand that those who believe in a single democratic law for all are given every opportunity to object to sharia councils, for whatever reason, and that our voices be heard. It is not for Muslims alone to determine whether or not the United Kingdom accommodates sharia law, or what form that should take.
Se, hvordan han flere gange tvinger “journalist”en far British Bias Corp til at forsvare sig
Gorka (og Trump) ved at angreb er bedste forsvar , og nu ved BBC “journalisten” det også 🙂
Gorka skal nok ikke regne med at blive interviewet på BBC mere 🙂
At tænke at BBC = British Bias Corporation stiller spørgsmålstegn ved en chefs ret til at fyre en ansat, der nægter at gøre, som han har bedt hende om …
Jeg tror ikke at Gorka bliver inviteret mere på BBC …
Men vi ved fra videoen at morderen også råbte Allahu Achbar = Gud er størst ( Hodja har allerede bragt videoen)
Så det er sikkert at morderen ikke var budist/hinduist/kristen/jøde,men muslim !
Det prøver MSM-fake-news organisationen BBC ( og andre) at skjule
Her er en Fox News video, hvor man ikke skjuler noget …
Utroligt at de MSM-fake-news “journalister” tror at vi kan narres – som om man ikke kan finde sandheden på blogs !
Taget fra Vlad
But in 2009 he first encountered people who said their children had been groomed like this. These informants had non-white people in their immediate and extended family, and were thus unlikely to be racists. So McLoughlin dug deeper and what he found shocked him: there were mounds of evidence that social workers, police officers, Muslim organisations, journalists and even some Members of Parliament must have known about these grooming gangs for decades, and they had turned a blind-eye to these crimes. He also came across references to incidents where any proof had since vanished. McLoughlin spent several years uncovering everything he could and documenting this scandal before the evidence disappeared. He demonstrates that the true nature of this grooming phenomenon was known about more than 20 years ago. While he was writing this book, Parliament was forced by rising anger in Britain to conduct its own low-key investigation. The eventual report concluded the grooming problem was basically in one town: Rotherham. Official reports finally admitted there were more than 1400 victims in this otherwise unremarkable town. McLoughlin argues the authorities will continue their cover-up of this scandal, with many thousands of new victims across the country every year. The criminal indicators in Rotherham are to be found in scores of towns across Britain. McLoughlin’s book is an attempt to get the public to wake up, for them to demand civilised solutions, because if the social contract breaks down, people may turn to vigilante justice as the prostituting of schoolgirls continues unabated. The book documents the hidden abuse of Sikh victims by grooming gangs, and how Sikhs in Britain have already resorted to vigilante justice. The book exposes how political correctness was used to silence potential whistle-blowers, and how this grooming phenomenon demonstrates that multiculturalism does not work. Every layer of authority in the British state comes under detailed examination to expose their part in the scandal. McLoughlin leaves no stone unturned, and at 130,000 words in length, it is likely to be the most detailed critique of this scandal for years to come.
The lofty contempt for ‘low information’ Americans. The barely concealed disgust for the rednecks and cretins of ‘flyover’ America who are apparently racist and misogynistic and homophobic. The haughty sneering at the vulgar, moneyed American political system and how it has allowed a wealthy candidate to poison the little people’s mushy, malleable minds. The suggestion that American women, more than 40 per cent of whom are thought to have voted for Trump, suffer from internalised misogyny: that is, they don’t know their own minds, the poor dears. The hysterical, borderline apocalyptic claims that the world is now infernally screwed because ‘our candidate’, the good, pure person, didn’t get in.
This response to Trump’s victory reveals why Trump was victorious. Because those who do politics these days — the political establishment, the media, the academy, the celeb set — are so contemptuous of ordinary people, so hateful of the herd, so convinced that the mass of society cannot be trusted to make political decisions, and now those ordinary people have given their response to such top-down sneering and prejudice.
Oh, the irony of observers denouncing Middle America as a seething hotbed of hatred even as they hatefully libel it a dumb and ugly mob. Having turned America’s ‘left behind’ into the butt of every clever East Coast joke, and the target of every handwringing newspaper article about America’s dark heart and its strange, Bible-toting inhabitants, the political and cultural establishment can’t now be surprised that so many of those people have turned around and said… well, it begins with F and ends with U.
The respectable set’s allergy to Trump is fundamentally an allergy to the idea of democracy itself. To them, Trump’s rise confirms the folly of asking the ignorant, the everyday, the non-subscribers to the New York Times, to decide on important political matters. They’re explicit about this now. In the run-up to election day, big-name commentators wondered out loud if democracy is all it’s cracked up to be. Trump’s ascendancy showed we need better checks and balances on ‘the passions of the mob’, said Andrew Sullivan. We should ‘cool and restrain [these] temporary populist passions’, he said, and refuse to allow ‘feeling, emotion’ to override ‘reasoned deliberation’. The little folks only feel and wail, you see, and it’s down to the grown-ups in the system to think coolly on their behalf.
Elsewhere, a writer for the New York Times asked Americans to consider installing a monarchy, which could rise above the ‘toxic partisanship’ of party politics — that is, above open, swirling, demos-stuffed political debate. In a new book called ‘Against Democracy’ — says it all — Georgetown philosopher Jason Brennan argues for an epistocracy, an ‘aristocracy of the wise’, who might decide political matters for those of us who are ‘low information’ (ie. stupid). This echoes the anti-democratic turn of liberals in the 2000s, when it was argued that daft, Bush-backing Americans increasingly made decisions, ‘not with their linear, logical left brain, but with their lizard, more emotional right brain’, in Arianna Huffington’s words. Such vile contempt for the political, democratic capacities of the ordinary person has been in great evidence following Trump’s win — across Twitter and in apocalypse-tinged instant responses — and it is likely to intensify. Anti-Trump will morph more explicitly into anti-democracy.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the same kind of pleb-fearing horror that greeted the Brexit result four months ago. ‘Why elections are bad for democracy’, a headline in the Guardian said. The people are deluded and it is the task of those with ‘reason and expertise’ to ‘un-delude’ them, said a writer for Foreign Policy. ‘What if democracy doesn’t work? What if it never has and never will?’, wondered a pained George Monbiot. Boom. That’s it. The secret and not-so-secret cry of the elites and the experts and the observers over both Brexit and Trump is precisely that: ‘What if democracy doesn’t work?’ It’s not so much Trump they fear as the system that allowed him to get to the White House: that pesky, ridiculous system where we must ask ordinary people — shudder — what they think should happen in the nation.
The anti-Brexit anti-democrats claimed they were merely opposed to using rough, simplistic referendums to decide on huge matters. That kind of democracy is too direct, they said. Yet now they’re raging over the election of Trump via a far more complicated, tempered democratic system. That’s because — and I know this is strong, but I’m sure it’s correct — it is democracy itself that they hate. Not referendums, not Ukip’s blather, not only direct democracy, but democracy as an idea. Against democracy — so many of them are now. It is the engagement of the throng in political life that they fear. It is the people — ordinary, working, non-PhD-holding people — whom they dread and disdain. It is what got Trump to the White House — the right of all adults, even the dumb ones, to decide about politics — that gives them sleepless nights
This nasty, reactionary turn against democracy by so many of the well-educated both explains the victory of Trump, which neatly doubles up as a slap in the face of the establishment, and confirms why democracy is more important today than it has ever been. Because it really would be folly, madness in fact, to let an elite that so little understands ordinary people, and in fact loathes them, to run society unilaterally. Now that would be dangerous, more dangerous than Trump.
Milo finder sig ikke i den slags politisk korrekt BAVL:
Tåbelige BBC spørgsmål a la disse:
er du ikke bange for at “nogen” ikke kan skelne mellem dine jokes og din mening ?
er du ikke bange for at “nogen” kan/vil misforstå dig ?
betragter du dig selv som en “hvid nationalist” ?
BBC = British BIAS Corporation
Taget fra snaphanen
“Whitehall ser britiske soldater som fjenden og islamister som frihedskæmpere!”
Han nævner at den nuværende version af antisemitisme er hadet til den jødiske stat Israel
af udøverne kaldet “antizionisme” – det er helt korrekt
Jeg synes godt at han kunne nævne at udviklingen først og fremmest skyldes den venstreorienterede propaganda mod Israel i alle MSM medier
Vi snakker om 40 års ukritisk anti-israelsk propaganda
Jeg kan ikke se – på nuværende tidspunkt – at udviklingen vil vende
Ikke med mindre den folkelige bølge mod den muslimske masseindvandring og mod MSM’s misbrug af medierne vinder majoritet i Europas lande og i EU
Taget fra Vlad
Recalling past days when three television channels delivered fact-based news that most people trusted, Obama said democracy require citizens to be able to sift through lies and distortions.
“We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
Det gør mere og mere ondt på politikerne og løgnepressen, at de ikke kan styre informationerne og manipulere befolkningerne.
So wait, 4 women decide after remaining silent sometimes for decades that 1 month before the election is the time to complain?
Som sædvanlig kommer BBC med “man kan ikke kritisere Israel uden at blive kaldt antisemitter”
Sevfølgelig kan man det – MEN hvis “man” samtidig kræver Israels udslettelse, så er det ikke længere kritik, men politik
Der er ikke noget land, der bliver kritiseret så ofte som Israel af de politisk korrekte medier
Det er kun eet tilfælde, hvor “man” kan kræve at Israel ikke skal eksistere og det er, hvis “man” mener at ALLE ANDRE STATER ikke skal eksistere
I så fald behandler “man” ikke jøder anderledes end andre folk
Men det er jo ikke det “man” mener, vel …
Taget fra Vlad
According to a news clip, BBC online coverage, and the comments of its reporter Catrin Nye, a man called “Paul” approached a BBC film crew while recording an interview with Islam campaigner Ruqaiya Haris.
Ms. Haris, a Muslim activist and student at the School of Oriental and African Studies, is told by Paul, “There’s no Sharia law here”.
Her and Ms. Nye’s reactions to the statement made freely in a public place are nothing short of hysterical.
The BBC then clipped its footage of the incident, uploaded it to its website and social media channels, and headlined it: “BBC Islamophobia discussion interrupted by Islamophobia”.
The BBC refused to provide Breitbart London with the unedited footage of the incident.
There is no indication as to what was “Islamophobic” about the man’s comments, leading social media users to believe that the BBC’s position on Islamophobia is now opposition to Shariah law.
Og hvad var så hans “forbrydelse” ?
»Vi har fået nogle sejlresultater fra OL i Rio her til aften.
Storbritannien har taget guld, Australien har taget sølv, og Somalia har taget midaldrende par,
som var sejlende rundt om jorden,«
Uha-da-da : tænk at antyde at der er pirateri i Somalia – det har vi jo ALDRIG hørt om, vel …
Mage til hysteri
Tag dog en tudekiks, grin af det og kom videre i livet …
Heldigvis fortsatte journalisten med sin humoristisk vinkel:
»Den somaliske olympiske træner har været nødt til at undskylde til officials på holdets vegne,
da han fandt ud af, at skydning og sejlads var to forskellige discipliner,« sagde Ian Timm
Hvornår blev somaliere en “race” ?