The BBC and Britain’s MPs Confront the Grooming Gang Issue – ‘Ooh Look! A Squirrel!’


Why is the BBC proving so reluctant to report on the horrific story of the 1000 young girls who, over a period of 40 years, have been groomed, drugged, serially raped and sometimes murdered by predominantly Muslim gangs in Telford, Shropshire?

Possibly for the same reason that so much of the UK media is now giving such prominence to the poisoning of Russian ex-double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, presumably on the orders of Vladimir Putin.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

How Obama’s Green Crony Capitalism Is Reducing the US to a Banana Republic

“They are going to try to dirty him up,” said Court, a Steyer ally. “He is personally committed on a moral level to preventing a 4-degree temperature change that is irreversible, and he has $3 billion to pursue his passion.”

I have a couple of problems with this imaginative thesis, presumably advanced with Steyer’s blessing in order to distract from unhelpful stories like this one about  his latest egregious eco-fail in California.

1. How would it be possible, even with the combined resources of Chevron, Exxon, BP, Shell, Petrobras and whoever else, to cause more reputational damage to Tom Steyer than he has already achieved through his own magisterial efforts?

Sure he must have been clever or cunning sometime to have made at all that money for himself. But his more recent career, ever since deciding his new job was to save the world from ManBearPig, has been a succession of humiliating failures.

His NextGen SuperPac was a massive flop.

In Florida, it dispatched more than 500 staffers and volunteers to criticize Governor Rick Scott’s energy policies and used a “Noah’s ark” to show the threat of rising ocean levels. Scott still won re-election.

So was his Proposition 39 in California which, at yet further cost to the taxpayer, was supposed to have created 11,000 new “green jobs” a year. In fact the true figure has been closer to 600 green jobs a year, each costing $175,000 – and quite likely killing many more real jobs than the fake ones it created.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Free the Greenpeace 30!

(And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)

The Arctic Warrior: a fine marine reserve in the making (photo: Greenpeace)

Like most caring, nurturing souls who believe in a cleaner, better, happier world I’m keen for the 30 Greenpeace activists currently being held on piracy charges by the Russians to be released from prison as soon as possible. If you saw last Thursday’s coverage of the issue on BBC Newsnight, you might understand why.

It featured an interview with Paul Simonon, formerly guitarist with the Clash, about his experiences in 2011 when – after getting involved in a similar Arctic rig protest with Greenpeace – he found himself arrested by the Norwegians. The way Emily Maitlis’s brow furrowed sympathetically during the interview, you’d think he’d been banged up for a year in the punishment block of Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea, not held for a day or two in a cell in Greenland. Little was left to the imagination as to where the programme’s sympathies lay; nor, perhaps, would one expect otherwise from a programme now edited by an ex-Guardian man Ian Katz.

Simonon’s heartbreakingly moving account of celebrity suffering nicely set the tone for the subsequent studio non-debate between Greenpeace’s Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and a Russian journalist. Naidoo was given carte blanche to chant the green mantra: “Scientists have told us we are heading for catastrophic climate change”…”children and grandchildren’s lives at risk”…”addicted to oil” etc. Not one of these extravagant claims was challenged by Maitlis. (To be fair, she probably wasn’t sufficiently well informed to question or contradict them – and in any case had she tried to do so she would have been in breach of the BBC’s semi-official policy to big up the great climate change threat at every opportunity.)

Maitlis did at least question Naidoo on the wisdom of sending RIBs full of Greenpeace activists against an installation as high security (and vulnerable to terrorism) as an oil platform owned by the Russians. Naidoo described Greenpeace’s action as “responsible and proportionate” – apparently because the threat posed to the world by ‘climate change’ is so grave that no action to raise awareness of it could possibly be deemed irresponsible and disproportionate. (Though as Pierre Gosselin notes at No Tricks Zone, he appears to be developing a more emollient line now that he knows that Russia means business and that any more goading and grandstanding from their mouthy executive director could cost the Greenpeace 30 rather longer in the slammer than they’d anticipated).

My sympathies in this regard are mostly with the Russians. (As are Dominic Lawson’s in this excellent piece here) They’re being painted by the BBC as the bad guys for over-reacting by imprisoning supposedly harmless, peace-loving activists as “pirates.” But how, exactly, is a country meant to react when one of its most vital industries is threatened with economic sabotage? Russia – unfortunately for the Greenpeace 30 – has yet to fall prey to the kind of intellectual decadence which now afflicts much of the West on green issues. In Europe, for example, our industry has a longstanding tradition of caving to Greenpeace’s every bullying demand – as we saw when Shell gave in over Brent Spar. And even on those rare occasions when industry stands up to it – as Kingsnorth Power Station did when it sued Greenpeace for the £30,000 of damage carried out by its protestors – Greenpeace can not only afford the best legal teams you can buy when you’re a multi-national organisation with annual global revenues of £196 million but can also rely on a sympathetic hearing from juries which have been brainwashed from childhood by a farrago of Greenpeace lies, half-truths, junk-science factoids and emotive propagandising.

I understand perfectly why the Russians wish to teach Greenpeace a lesson so hard that hereafter it will concentrate its anti-capitalist activities against countries of a more surrender-monkey persuasion. But if they really want to hit back at Greenpeace they should do so where it really hurts – financially – rather than handing it an unnecessary propaganda coup in which, day after day, the likes of Kumi Naidoo and his celebrity mates Damon Albarn, Jude Law and Paul from the Clash are able to go on presenting a bunch of hard-Left activists hell bent on destroying industrial civilisation as lovable, heroic martyrs.

If they’re feeling generous, the Russians could impound the Greenpeace boat Arctic Sunrise until Greenpeace pays them a swingeing fine. If they’re feeling a bit more hard core, they could take a leaf out of the French’s book and sink it.

Personally I’d favour the second option – purely on environmental grounds, of course. As we learnt from the disposal of the Brent Spar and also of the Rainbow Warrior, a sunken boat or a sunken oil platform do quickly make a truly excellent marine habitat.

Related posts:

  1. Redfaced Greenpeace insists ‘we didn’t make it up’ – we just ’emotionalised the issue’
  2. Greenpeace goes postal
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard

One thought on “Free the Greenpeace 30! (And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)”

  1. Uncle Bobby says:17th October 2013 at 10:00 pmI love the smell of victory in the afternoon:

    “A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and
    political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party
    members know more science than non-tea partiers.”

    Dig deeper into the article, and it appears that the RINOs are weighing the conservative movement down enough to the point where the liberals have the slight edge in scientific literacy.

    Still, I think it’s high time for a gloat.

    Let it be known that real conservatives are at the head of the class.

Comments are closed.

Sarah Palin is a kingmaker, not the next US president

It’s Sarah Palin month!

Palin would never shoot a tiddler like this puny cub

Palin would never shoot a tiddler like this puny cub

Just because it’s Sarah Palin month on Telegraph blogs, some readers have mistakenly imagined that we’re using our enormous power as the UK blogosphere’s answer to Fox News to ensure that she becomes the next US president. But we’re notI think I can speak for most of us here when I say that though Sarah Palin is undoubtedly hot – and is probably the only person in the world capable of outdoing Vladimir Putin when it comes to posing for semi-pornographic outdoor photoshoots with rod, horse and gun – her real value is as a kingmaker not as POTUS.

I have yet to speak to a single person with an inside track on the US political scene who doesn’t think this. “She’s earning way too much money being Sarah Palin,” they say. “Why would she even want to be POTUS?”

Related posts:

  1. Why we still heart Sarah Palin
  2. Yippee ki yay, liberals! It’s Sarah Palin Month on Telegraph Blogs!
  3. Sarah Palin totally gets it
  4. Farewell, Sarah Jane

2 thoughts on “Sarah Palin is a kingmaker, not the next US president”

  1. michael says:7th February 2011 at 3:18 amShe is not a Kingmaker, but she will be the President. The other rhinos are all losers. Mitt especially.
  2. Bernie says:9th February 2011 at 9:03 pmI tend to agree with you James. But politics is an aesthetic exercise (I believe this week). America remembers Sarah as she stood on the stage holding her Downs Syndrome baby which she had just introduced to the Republican convention. She didn’t say a word. But everyone at the convention rose to their feet cheering wildly. And everyone knew just what she was saying: My Christian convictions would not allow me to do away with the innocent life of this baby. What you saw at the convention must have had the same effect throughoutAmerica. The effect was somewhat like Bryan’s “You shall not crucify America on a cross of gold” speech. It did not win him the presidency but it won him the nomination. He ran and lost. I should mention that the feminist movement immediately recognized her speech as throwing down the gauntlet of culture war. They weren’t wrong.

Comments are closed.