London Bridge

 

Today’s MSM are full fo reports on the terrorist attack that took place on London Bridge yesterday afternoon. There are two other ‘events’ which didn’t get that much space because of the terrorist attack. One is the latest poll which tells us more about the election strategies than the actual issue for which this election was called – Brexit, in case you’ve forgotten. The other concerns the MSM themselves and their meddling in this election under the cloak of their assumed ‘impartiality’.  

The MSM are pretty much in unison about what happened yesterday – you can read all about it in Debbie’s News Review (here). However, there are two aspects which illustrate that it is our ‘climate’ of leniency towards criminals which facilitated this event, leading to the death of two people. One is that the terrorist was on ‘early release’ because he’d agreed to wear an electronic tag. The other is that one of our top universities was holding workshops in the Fishmongers’ Hall:

“The attacker, wearing a hoax suicide belt, had been a guest at a Cambridge University conference on prisoner rehabilitation being held in the City of London. He threatened to blow up the historic Fishmongers’ Hall, which was hosting the event, before stabbing several people. A man and a woman were killed and three others — a man and two women — were taken to hospital by ambulance.” (link, paywalled)

What is the point of leniency when it is so easily abused? What is the point of talking about ‘prisoner rehabilitation’ outside of prisons? And what is the point of the knee-jerk reaction by Johnson and Corbyn to suspend their election campaign? Suspicious as I am I suggest that they do this because they need to sort out their response to this attack, to fabricate a ‘winning’ argument.

Perhaps Corbyn needs to work out how best to reassure us voters that his preferred way of “bringing people (terrorists and us?) together” would have prevented this atrocity. This time round he and Johnson cannot get away with ‘lessons will be learned’ because the response of the police shows that ‘lessons’ from the previous London Bridge terrorist attack have been learned. Corbyn and Labour’s mantra of “austerity – Tory cuts – therefore: lack of police” obviously doesn’t apply either. The Times makes some interesting points. Let’s look at them one-by-one:

“First, there are already questions being asked about why Priti Patel, the home secretary, reduced the terrorism threat level for the first time in two years on November 4.” (link, paywalled)

Good question – but wasn’t that decision based on the information supplied to her by the security forces? The same ones who obviously thought an early release and electronic tag for the terrorist was fine?  Next:

“Second, Jeremy Corbyn, when pressed by Andrew Neil to say whether he would give the order to “take” a new Isis leader, responded: “If it’s possible, and only if it’s possible, then you try to capture that person.” He later said that he would “take the appropriate decisions at that time when I knew the circumstances.” (link, paywalled)

Hm … so should the Police not have shot the terrorist then? This goes straight to the heart of Labour’s campaign – not just because of Corbyn’s known ties to islamic terrorist groups but because of Labour’s attempts to make ‘islamophobia’ a more serious issue than their own antisemitism. Not releasing terrorists: a sign of ‘islamophobia’? Next:

“Finally, there are the logistics. This is the first terrorist attack Mr Johnson has been confronted with as prime minister. He had to abandon the campaign trail in Uxbridge and return to Downing Street. Anything that removes the focus from Brexit is bad news for the Tories.” (link, paywalled)

Ah! But haven’t the MSM been doing their best to ‘remove the focus from Brexit’ ever since the GE campaign kicked off? Do they want to create ‘bad news’ for the Tories and ‘good news’ for Labour? Oh, there were a few Brexit twitches but the MSM were and are more interested in pushing their own agenda, which is to make themselves the final arbiters of who should win this GE. 

We don’t need to say anything about the various ‘debates’ and ‘leaders debates’ polluting our screens – the last one took place yesterday. I didn’t watch, there’s only so much drivel I can bear, but The Express has published a few video clips if you’re interested.

Far more important is what can only be called blackmail by the BBC, telling Johnson that he won’t be ‘invited’ to the Andrew Marr show unless and until he agrees to be grilled by Andrew Neil (here, paywalled here). The wording used is illuminating:

“the BBC made clear that a date for an interview between Mr Johnson and Neil had to be announced before he would [be] allowed on the Marr programme.” (paywalled link)

How impartial is that – the TV corporations ‘allowing’ the PM to appear on their shows while throwing a strop when he doesn’t! Labour meanwhile is miffed because Corbyn was grilled and it’s unfair that Johnson tries to wriggle out – for once, I agree with Labour!

The point though is that Johnson and Farage know only too well that these ‘debates’, these interviews, are not about getting information from them (Andrew Neil excepted) but to fabricate cheap ‘gotcha’ moments to influence the viewers, blatantly.

It is thanks to the MSM that this GE even more than previous ones has been turned into something akin to US presidential elections, where their primary debates are watched by millions.The MSM thus try to make voters feel they must vote for ‘a leader’. That meant in 2017 that PPCs could boast their standing on a Leave manifesto while being firmly Remain – with the known consequences. 

It means in this context that Labour candidates can make reassuring noises off-screen, saying that a vote for them means Corbyn will be ‘controlled’, while the past of a possible Corbyn-replacement is only mentioned here. That McDonnell, the deep-red socialist, is a possible Corbyn replacement – no, forget that. It also means that the MSM can freely speculate about the future of Jacob Rees-Mogg just to get another ‘gotcha’ answer from Johnson (here).

Meanwhile, there’s another poll out which has the MSM and presumably the campaign strategists in a tizzy (e.g. here, paywalled here). Once you look past the headlines – that the Tories’ predicted majority of 80 seats is ‘slashed’ to 12 – it doesn’t make sense:

“The Electoral Calculus data – which follows all three parties’ manifestos and Mr Corbyn’s “car crash” interview with the BBC’s Andrew Neil – shows the Tories on 41.9 per cent, down from 43 per cent this time last week.” (paywalled link)

Do such car-crash interviews really not have any influence on voters’ behaviour? Why do the MSM then insist on broadcasting them? Because it’s all in the ‘calculus’:

“Labour is squeezing the Liberal Democrats by gaining Remain voters who see the party as the better prospect to block Mr Johnson’s bid for a rapid Brexit, according to Electoral Calculus which uses socio-economic and past voting data to take account of individual constituencies’ profiles.” (paywalled link)

Suddenly it’s about Brexit, about Leave or Remain – who’d have thought! Were these the data Cummings had access to when he published his warnings? But look at this: they use ‘past voting data’ … nuff said!

Obviously we voters are like sheep, constrained by our economic situation and our previous votes: we won’t or can’t change our minds. Then why are the MSM so obsessed to do it for us anyway, with their interviews and debates? Something isn’t adding up here!

Finally, note that there are coy references to Brexit, with RemainCentral quietly to the fore:

“Boris Johnson has admitted for the first time during the election campaign that Britain could still leave the European Union without a deal. The prime minister had previously suggested that no-deal was off the table because he had an “oven-ready” deal that he would push through parliament if he won a working majority. However, he said yesterday that the Conservative Party would remain in a “state of readiness” for a no-deal Brexit.” (link, paywalled)

Why ‘being in a state of readiness’ is a sign for us ‘crashing out’ – well, ‘tis the same progressive mindset proclaiming in the 1930 that rearming our country would only encourage the German dictator to go to war … and ‘tis the same progressive mindset that maintains convicted terrorists should be allowed to roam free to kill again because it’s ‘humane’. That’s where virtue signalling leads to!

Isn’t it odd how those in power always reassure us that ‘lessons will be learned’ while assuming that we voting peasants are incapable of ‘learning lessons’ on our own – lessons which will certainly influence our voting behaviour in this GE, in contrast to what pollsters and politicians think. It’s not because of ‘dead cats on tables’ – it’s because of ‘events, dear boy, events’ …

 

KBO!

 

Photo by Stephen Braund

Print Friendly, PDF & Email