Verbal

In other words: "See the world as I do or my kipper head will explode." You've blown a gasket over the BBC's supposed bias against Brexit without being able to quote a single programme you've actually seen that demonstrates it. And you've demanded that the BBC be stripped of the licence fee - so thousands of people employed at the Beeb ought to be deprived of a living, just to satisfy your Trumpy tantrum. Even funnier, you've now resorted to slavish copying of the ignorant language of your kipper mate. Arguments are 'pony' (he doesn't know a single other rhyming slang word?) and we're all 'snowflakes' (oh, the irony). Don't be such a Schlump - invent your own idiotic idioms. Your method so far seems to consist of dumping a prejudicial pile of crap on this thread and, when challenged, resorting to emergency googling, and then flinging that up on here, even if it means endorsing Jew haters. So I ask for the third time: what have you seen on the BBC that you think was biased against the great lord Brexit?

If Martin McGuinness the murderous IRA commander had not existed, it would not have altered the IRA's bombing campaigns, executions, knee-cappings or intimidation (nor the Protestant murderers either). If Martin McGuinness the peace negotiator had not existed, it's unlikely anyone else in the IRA would have had the authority to deliver the Republican side of that peace.

As your bete juif, Shylock, has pointed out, neither of these supposed studies has anything to do with Brexit. So where are your specific examples of BBC programmes demonstrating bias in covering Brexit? Surely you must have them, given your threat-in-your-head about abolishing the licence fee.

Got any actual examples of this persistent BBC bias? Give us a list of news items, with dates, that have shown this bias. I bet you a boxful of shekels you can't stand this up.

The strongly pro-Brexit Sun on how the May government has done precisely no work on the impact of leaving the EU on Britain's airlines. Nada - nothing at all. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3116950/officials-have-ordered-no-research-for-the-impact-of-brexit-on-our-airlines-the-transport-minister-john-hayes-admits/ This follows David Davis's admission this week to the Brexit select committee that he had "no idea" how a no-deal, hard Brexit will impact the British economy. If I were a Brexiteer I'd be getting nervous at the incompetence of government's handling of Brexit preparations. They'll get away with it only because Britain has become the first western democracy in which there is no opposition. So the only opposition (as with the budget) can come from within Tory ranks - and on this subject it just isn't going to happen. The ship of fools has sailed. It does mean though that with such incompetence comes the prospect of growing popular rejection among those (basically all areas of the UK except London) who will suffer the consequences.

Which is of course the usual nonsense, and in so many ways - for example city firms could have got much lower corporation tax elsewhere in the EU, if that were anywhere close to a priority. What matters is that London is a prime business location within the huge single market that is the EU, and not that it's a capital city subsidising a bunch of failing provinces. There will be a succession of these kinds of 'we're off' announcements, but here's the latest, from the Japanese financial firms located in the City, who will start moving operations to inside the EU's post-Brexit borders within the next six months. https://www.ft.com/content/cc085d38-c349-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354 Admittedly, though, Japan was an Axis power seventy years ago, which presumably means we should put out the bunting and have demob parties when they leave.

You seem rather 'sensitive' on the subject. What have you got against Jews? Do you collect 'memorabilia'?

Calling shurlock to the Lounge. There's another doolally mess to clean up.

So you'd think the May government would be doing some forward planning on this worst case scenario. But no. They continue with the 'have cake and eat it' fantasy, all while the constant message from the 27 is that any deal Britain gets, if it gets it, must be bad. Just as Cameron refused to allow the civil service to plan for a Leave vote, May is refusing to allow the civil service to allow for the most likely non-outcome of negotiations. I'm amazed the Brexit loons are not hopping, but rather seem to be wandering blindly into a cul de sac where they'll find themselves kettled. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-deal-failure-gross-negligent-crispin-blunt-foreign-affairs-committee-a7476411.html

Just to reassure us that we're in good hands, the excellent Sam Coates, in The Times, gives a revealing insight into the quality of discussion on Brexit in cabinet. Mrs May's summaries typically give little indication of future decision-making and usually involve a request for more information. Boris Johnson...has so far said very little. He appears to be adopting an "I'm only going to care when it matters" approach Liam Fox gives expansive updates on world even on "things that you wouldn't necessarily know". Andrea Leadsom gets "quite irritated" when three people in a row say Brexit is quite difficult and "puts them right". ...Mrs Leadsom's contributions have been noted for repeated references to post natal depression and the importance of a child's first 1,000 days. Brilliant. Cabinet debate by Brexiteers is just as cretinous as on here.

So while you busy yourself making puerile comments, your shining hero Corbyn remains silent while Assad's murderers go door-to-door massacring men, women and children in East Aleppo. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38301629 This is what Corbyn's allies on today's Morning Star call, with criminal cynicism, the 'liberation of Aleppo'. Do you agree with this? Do you agree with the conspiracy theory that the White Helmets are western stooges and the people they rescue merely crisis actors? Will you agree with the White Helmets' appeal: For years, our humanitarian volunteers have worked to save the lives of our people in Aleppo: operating in underground hospitals, rescuing entire families buried under the rubble and risking our lives to document what the daily war crimes committed by Assad regime [sic] and its ally Russia. We can do no more. We can't believe the world's most powerful countries can't get 100,000 civilians to safety that is 4 KM away! In short, are you interested in politics at all, or merely in being a brainless gimp in a 'personality' cult?

So just to be clear, are you one of those dimwitted Corbyn cultists who believe White Helmets conspiracy theory propagated by Assad's regime? Are you really that dribblingly stupid? I do hope not, for your sake. I'm no Blairite, despite your desire to pigeon hole all those who find Corbynism - and the Putin-supporting Stop the War sham - morally bankrupt. Yet Blair deserves some credit, as late, great Christopher Hitchens says: When Tony Blair took office, Slobodan Milošević was cleansing and raping the republics of the former Yugoslavia. Mullah Omar was lending Osama bin Laden the hinterland of a failed and rogue state. Charles Taylor of Liberia was leading a hand-lopping militia of enslaved children across the frontier of Sierra Leone, threatening a blood-diamond version of Rwanda in West Africa. And the wealth and people of Iraq were the abused private property of Saddam Hussein and his crime family. Today, all of these Caligula figures are at least out of power, and at the best either dead or on trial. How can anybody with a sense of history not grant Blair some portion of credit for this? And how can anybody with a tincture of moral sense go into a paroxysm and yell that it is he who is the war criminal? It is as if all the civilians murdered by al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be charged to his account. This is the chaotic mentality of Julian Assange and his groupies. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/02/hitchens-201102 One of the banal idiocies of the Corbynist cult is it holds Blair criminally responsible for all the evils unleashed by the Iraq invasion and all that's happened in Iraq and Syria since. Of course, the truth is that Blair had no effect on the outcome of anything in Iraq. The neo-cons who'd seized power in Washington were going to have their war with Saddam regardless, and the invasion would have happened with or without Blair or anyone else. So as much as anyone wants to decry his decision to support Bush, it changed absolutely nothing. So a suggestion: you'll find you'll manage in life a lot better if you admit that the world might be a tad more complex than the Corbyn cultists would ever allow. Or you can, as here, simply revel in vacuous post-truth virtue-signalling until the cows come home.

So speaks a Corbynist, mindlessly parroting the 'party' line: if you're centre-Left but oppose Corbyn you absolutely must be a Tory. Those percentages are only going to get wider apart with such fatuous dimwittery. And it's only going to get worse, as people see what scumbags the Corbynist cabal really are. Here's another Corbynist, outside a rally led by Corbyn, yelling at Peter Tatchell by spouting one of the Corbynists' favourite conspiracy theories - that the White Helmets are Anglo/US spies, directed by mysterious Jewish forces. https://twitter.com/JonIronmonger/status/807550636065755136 What's especially lovely about this conspiracy theory is that it is widely believed by Assad and his murderous gang, so that when he retakes east Aleppo, courtesy of Putin, the White Helmets will be, literally, in the firing line. You must be so proud.

For the vanishingly small number of people who now give a ****, this week's YouGov poll couldn't be clearer about what is dragging Labour down. Labour are a record-breaking 17 points behind the Tories (Tories 42% Lab 25%) Corbyn himself is a record-breaking 33 points behind May (49% to 16%) on the question of who'd make the best PM. He's like a ten-ton boat anchor on a dinghy.

For grown-ups, this is an excellent commentary on the Article 50 case before the supreme court: https://www.ft.com/content/83965752-f008-39e0-a039-48a43c508266 Green makes a good point about the myth of the unwritten constitution, and its bearing on the case - as well as about the actual stakes in the outcome, rather than those paraded on the front page of the Daily Mail.

Which reminds me - I've heard more sense from Talibs talking about the 72 virgins after martyrdom than Brexiters refusing to be deflected, whatever the cost, from their 'sunny uplands' equivalent.

Interesting to note from this that ministers are insisting that they are brought only good news on Brexit. No wonder they're always dribbling on about 'having cake and eating it.' Here's the reality they refuse to face: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/06/twenty-reasons-brexit-trickier-than-we-thought Meanwhile, the companies who can't tell ministers that Brexit will be a disaster are busy doing what you'd expect companies to do. In the City, for example, an exodus is well under way, and has reached due diligence stage, with many in advanced planning to move substantial operations to Paris. Bang goes a big chunk of the UK's tax base. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646

Brexiters at their finest... The wholly admirable Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the Article 50 case currently being argued in the Supreme Court, has had a torrent of abuse of Brexit fanatics, including threats of acid attacks and death, along with - of course - a great deal of racist/misogynistic yelling and screaming aimed at her criminal stance of being non-white and non-male. She makes a telling point too about having to do what should have been done by the now terminally incompetent Labour party, buried under the worst, and dimmest, leadership in its history. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/bigger-just-brexit-how-gina-miller-held-government-account-over-eu

What does this even mean? The Italians knew perfectly well that they were voting on constitutional reforms, which many across the political spectrum felt were undemocratic. As for Brexiters: Some want membership of the single market. Some do not. Some want to remain in the customs union. Some do not. Many don't even know what it is. Some want to 'take back control' of immigration. Some do not. Some want dozens of bilateral free trade agreements. Some do not because they won't protect jobs; they want to 'Trump' the UK with a 'Britain First' protectionism. Some want the restoration of Parliamentary 'sovereignty'. Some rail against the metropolitan elite who reside in that same Parliament. So which of these binary opposites did you vote for?

Brexiteers' finest: 'Someone Jo Cox Anna Soubry'. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/anna-soubry-shares-jo-cox-death-threat-tweet-as-she-laments-what-has-happened-to-our-politics_uk_584133f0e4b00b318b0f5858

In Yiddish it's 'firer'. Suit you better?

Nope. Not only have you defended a rabidly anti-semitic rant, with the laughable qualification that it was about the supposedly world-controlling behaviour of 'A Jew'. You've also resorted to renaming a poster on here as 'Shylock', one of the most notorious Jew-hating stereotypes in literary history (although you seem to have ceased doing this, hopefully because you've finally been shamed out of it). Jew hating is a uniquely middle class pastime, and is often denied by the perpetrators. And on the question of the denialism of the political (now Brexiteering) Right and its responsibility for the murderous and violent behaviour of the far Right, here's the way in which the Daily Mail scandalously covered the outcome of the Thomas Mair trial: It uniquely among the nationals kept the story off the front page: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/daily-mail-jailing-jo-coxs-murderer-front-page And on the inside pages it sneaked in a suggestion that Mair was driven to murder by immigrants and the actions of Jo Cox herself: https://twitter.com/cglendinning95/status/801759166578774016 So as a staunch defender of anti-Semites, do tell whether you fellow-travel with this scumbaggery as well.

Excellent piece by David Aaronovitch (warnings Tender, he's Jewish, and the following makes reference to books) in The Times today, on why the political Right needs to take responsibility for the violent and murderous behaviour of the far Right: A snippet: "Nor do I think the fact that Mair was probably mentally ill helps us to explain his crime. Mental illness explains everything and explains nothing here. Why, after all, would such an illness take that specific form of psychotic behaviour? I have yet to come across an example of a public figure murdered by a mad liberal whose home was found to be stocked with books by John Stuart Mill and covered in slogans calling for proportional representation."

One Brexiter murder trial down, one to go. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/23/thomas-mair-slow-burning-hatred-led-to-jo-cox-murder

[video=youtube;1o6-bi3jlxk]