I write 'Scot Goes Pop!', one of Scotland's three most-read political blogs. Member of the SNP's Conduct Appeals Committee. Email: [email protected]
Scotland
Joined February 2009
- Tweets90.1K
- Following422
- Followers11.8K
- Likes15.9K
Pinned Tweet
I've been elected to the SNP's Conduct Appeals Committee -
scotgoespop.blogspot.com/202…
James Kelly retweeted
It’s hard to grasp the BBC’s systematic attempt to launder Israeli propaganda until you see the sheer scale of it. Here's a compilation of them doing it at 2x speed.
The latest was on Newsnight on 4 November. When Bernie Sanders called Israel’s government extremist, Victoria Derbyshire answered for it: “And the Israeli government would deny that they are extremists.”
As this video shows, BBC presenters repeatedly do this as guests describe Israel’s crimes: “Israel would say.” “Israel would deny.” “They would reject that.”
We counted 70 of these denials and justifications in 52 aired interviews. The BBC calls this impartiality. But in not one of those 52 did a presenter raise any of these words from Israel’s own leaders:
- “We are fighting human animals.” Yoav Gallant, 9 October 2023
- “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Isaac Herzog, 12 October 2023
- “They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.” Israel Katz, 13 October 2023
- “Remember what Amalek did to you.” Benjamin Netanyahu, 3 November 2023
- Starving two million people in Gaza until the hostages came back might be “justified and moral”. Bezalel Smotrich, 5 August 2024
On 10 October 2023, Tahani Mustafa told the BBC that Israeli forces were not distinguishing civilians from fighters. The presenter replied: “They would reject that.” Mustafa then had to bring up Gallant’s “human animals” herself. The BBC supplied the denial. The guest had to supply Israel’s own words.
That is cherry-picking. The Royal Charter requires the BBC to be impartial, and the public pays for it through the licence fee. In these interviews, it handed its audience Israel’s denials and left out its leaders’ own words, during a genocide streamed live to the world.
We have archived the BBC’s coverage for three years, and we are now counting all of it: 50,000 video clips and many more written excerpts.
We are calling this first part: "BBC: The Would Say Files".
Handing Israel its denials is only one of the ways the BBC launders Israeli propaganda, so we will count every other technique too. Over the next few weeks, we will announce each milestone as we complete the report.
These are the first results, with every clip, quote and source: newscord.org/editorials/bbc-…
I've just passed a house with a Christmas tree. Each to their own, I suppose, but it's 7th November. I think people a) put them up, and b) take them down, far too early.
James Kelly retweeted
The only ground allowed to be heard in Supreme Court appeal was balance between countering terrorism and freedom of speech and assembly.
The judges referenced terrorism, terrorist or national security 60 times.
They mentioned freedom of speech zero times.
craigmurray.org.uk/archives/…
James Kelly retweeted
Then the scary question:
Was this a one-off? Or have other injunctions been granted, supposedly to prevent harassment, but actually silencing people - even in private conversations with friends, family and the police?
I don't know if there's any way to find out.
James Kelly retweeted
And for the judiciary: how could a judge grant such an order against an unrepresented defendant, without a trial, without determining whether her allegations were true and without, it seems, any assessment of proportionality?
James Kelly retweeted
The firm acting for Messrs Brand and Goldsmith was Archerfield Partners LLP. We think they have serious questions to answer.
James Kelly retweeted
"It became very plain to me that this went beyond judicial testing of the strength of the case into active hostility designed to prevent the case from being developed, with elements of ridicule.
It was extraordinary and very unpleasant."
craigmurray.org.uk/archives/…
James Kelly retweeted
I’ve no difficulty with impartiality obviously. But impartiality rules have to be both consistent and sensible. The BBC does not say “of course Mr Putin would deny he is the aggressor”. Shoehorning in an absurd qualification for mass murder is a courtesy afforded to Netanyahu.
James Kelly retweeted
"Lord Sales interrupted that criminal law might not prevail. You might not catch the criminal. If you did catch them then it might be difficult to prosecute and bring witnesses."
Surely using this logic, we should ban all people going to banks, in case one person robs it?
My full account of Day 1 of the Supreme Court hearing on Palestine Action. Vital detail you will find nowhere else.
craigmurray.org.uk/archives/…
James Kelly retweeted
Extremely tedious this absurd BBC business of interjecting “of course the mass killers would deny they’re mass killers.” And it’s not a consistent policy. Netanyahu given this fig leaf for his war crimes in a way Putin never would be.
James Kelly retweeted
"If we come to logic... the entire purpose of the Human Rights Act is to defend the citizen against executive overreach, against abuse of power by the executive. And what the judges are saying is that there can be no abuse of power by the executive because they're democratically elected... In which case, what's the point in having a Human Rights Act?"
Standing outside the Supreme Court in London following the appeal against the proscription of Palestine Action on behalf of Huda Ammori, Craig Murray breaks down the alarming reality of executive overreach and the erosion of judicial accountability in the UK. When the courts defer entirely to the Secretary of State, claiming the executive cannot commit an abuse of power simply because they are democratically elected, the foundational purpose of the Human Rights Act collapses. If citizens are stripped of their livelihoods, assets, and legal recourse without independent judicial protection, we cross a dangerous line. As Murray highlights, it is a massive mistake to confuse the law with justice when the two no longer meet. Watch the full breakdown and share your thoughts on where this leaves our rights.
#PalestineAction #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #CraigMurray #SupremeCourtLondon
James Kelly retweeted
Hayes on Medicare for All: "The odds of Donald Trump signing that into law, pretty small--"
Sen. Sanders: "Hold it, hold it, hold it... Our job is to produce it. He wants to veto it, Republicans want to sustain that veto, that is their responsibility, the American people will see it."
James Kelly retweeted
NEW poll: A supermajority of Jewish Americans believe Israeli & AIPAC actions increase antisemitism.
80% say Israel’s actions in Gaza & the West Bank increase antisemitism in the US.
66% say AIPAC’s campaign spending against candidates critical of Israel increases antisemitism.
James Kelly retweeted
Lawyers for the UK government today claimed in the Supreme Court that all these pensioners and priests getting arrested was itself an act of terrorism:
as it was Palestine Action seeking to overwhelm the justice system.
They really did say that!
James Kelly retweeted
BBC Scotland has been forced to issue yet another correction relating to the SNP after falsely claiming John Swinney had announced plans to take buses into public ownership. How many more 'mistakes' like this are to be allowed before an inquiry is held into the station?
James Kelly retweeted
Both @JakeTapper and @DanaBashCNN spent the last 9 months of their lives publicly pushing a self-serving political narrative that was completely fabricated and based on nothing other their own personal emotions and political preferences. Obviously, @AIPAC and @ADL did the same:
Our poll of Jewish voters for @jstreetdotorg: There's no exodus of Jewish voters from the Dem party:
James Kelly retweeted
Wonderful post by @WillHayCardiff on UK Labour and Burnham hypocrisy and deception on ‘devolution’.
For Wales, read also Scotland 👇
The UK Government seems to have double standards when it comes to Wales.
They seem to be arguing that more powers for Wales is predicated on them being devolved to a more local level than the Welsh Government.
There are some clear inconsistencies here and it’s hard not draw the conclusion that Welsh devolution is being viewed completely through an English lens. Let’s analyse three of these inconsistencies.
1. -- The inconsistency between Greater Manchester’s treatment and Wales --
There is barely any difference between the population of Greater Manchester and Cymru in terms of the number of people. Yet Burnham is not saying that further powers for Greater Manchester’s mayor have to be predicated on them being immediately given to Stockport, Rochdale or Oldham.
2. -- Welsh devolution has infinitely more legitimacy than the Manchester mayoralty --
It’s incredibly galling that Welsh devolution is treated the same as devolution in Manchester.
The people of Wales have twice voted for Welsh devolution. First to establish it, and then to give it more powers.
In 2012, the people of Manchester voted against having a mayor by 53/47% (less than a quarter of people bothered to turnout). It was eventually created without a referendum in 2015.
But more than anything, Wales is a nation! We have an elected Parliament. We have a language and culture.
That Senedd is more reflective of the people of Wales than 32 Welsh MPs in a Parliament of 650 based in London elected under first-past-the-post.
Perhaps nothing sums up how many in Burnham’s Government don’t really accept this reality like the (now deleted) post by Labour MP for Rhondda and Ogmore Chris Bryant.
Responding to the First Minister saying that, as local Government is devolved, it was for Senedd (not Westminster) to decide how further devolution went forward, Mr Bryant said:
"Might it not also be a matter for the people of Wales?"
When you think about it, this is the embodiment of how many around Burnham see Welsh devolution. He simply does not view the Senedd as reflective of the people of Wales in the same way he does the UK Parliament.
It would be unthinkable that he would quote a UK Government post which said that “what happens in the UK is a matter for the UK Parliament” and respond “might it not also be a matter for the people of the UK?”.
Whatever Burnham’s instincts regarding devolution, the scepticism among many Labour MPs (including Welsh ones) towards more devolution to the Senedd is very deep.
3. -- Regional empowerment in Wales is totally different to England --
It would be folly for the UK Government to try and impose a regional economic model designed for England on Wales.
Former Welsh Labour Gov minister Lee Waters made the point that what UK Labour are looking to bring in for English regions is simply not comparable to Wales.
He said:
“The term ‘region’ in an English context typically refers to an area covering between 1.5 and 3 million people. In Wales, regions cover much less dense areas. The Swansea Bay City Region captures some 700,000 people, and similarly North Wales around 690,000 people. In Mid-Wales sheep outnumber people by 7:1. Only the Cardiff City region is comparable to English tiers, and even then at the lower end: around 1.5 million people
“Transposing an English mayoral worldview onto a very different political geography just doesn’t work. Wales may be a similar population size to the PMs old manor but that’s where the parallel ends.”
UK Labour are seeking to impose a level of localism on Wales that they are not suggesting for England. A cynic might suggest this is because they are no longer in power in Cardiff Bay...
You can read a full break down of this in my news letter (see pinned tweet).
