On the ITV/Hope Not Hate hatchet job on Anne Marie Waters and others. A forensic examination of the programme

ITV and Hope Not Hate attempted a hatchet job on well known patriots and failed dismally so obvious was the bias and the spin.

 

Because of family and other responsibilities and duties, along with Remembrance Sunday, I have only very recently had a chance to view the YouTube video of the much discussed ITV documentary on what they call ‘Britain’s Far Right’. Therefore I thought it time to put together a detailed and may I say forensic assessment of the programme.

The programme opens with images of Union Flags and people chanting ‘Muslim paedos off our streets’ a sentiment that you don’t have to be ‘far right’ to agree with, you just need to be a normal sensible human. After all, are there really any moral people, no matter what their political persuasion, who feel that having Muslim paedos targeting children is acceptable? ‘Muslim paedos off our streets’ is something that many people of a variety of races and religions would like to see. Not wanting your daughters or sisters raped or enslaved by a menace called Mohammed isn’t a ‘racist’ or ‘far right’ sentiment, no matter who we are, we want to see our families kept safe from harm and that includes the harm coming from Islamic paedos.

The tone of the film was set by some worryingly dishonest editing at the start. Apart from the lead clip as discussed above the opening, accompanied by ‘shock-horror’ style narration, I noticed that a number of different demonstrations had been stitched together to look as if it was one event. Clips of the Manchester anti-terror demonstration were mixed in with what looked like some of the demonstrations in Sunderland and also with NF demonstrations that were nothing to do with the above two examples. There was highly selective editing of the audio as well. A comment was made by a person speaking at one demonstration saying ‘hang them from lamp-posts’ with no context given by the editors as to the context of this phrase. Does this expression represent merely the anger of a member of a British community beset by Islamic sex crime or is it aimed at all Muslims or is it aimed at the Islamic sex criminals and their enablers in policing and politics or something else? The viewer is left completely in the dark as to the context and the reason for the inclusion of this comment, which was revealed later and it turned out to be something else entirely. The edit then jumps to Anne Marie Waters speaking in Manchester about how ‘Islam is a killing machine’ which is a pretty reasonable thing to say when Islamic history, culture and theology is looked at dispassionately.

Also as part of the opening is the rather shaky claim that there has been a massive amount of ‘hate crime’ following the Brexit referendum. The reality is that there has been a rise in unsubstantiated ‘hate crime’ reports, few of which have been tested either by proper investigation, sifting by the Crown Prosecution Service or by the court process. Left wing activist groups and Islamic groups along with the diversity obsessives embedded in our police forces, actively fished for anything that could be regarded as a ‘hate crime’. It is these fishing expeditions that bring in complaints that are either wholly false or are of the very minor ‘he looked at me in a funny way’ type and it is these often spurious complaints that the ITV programme is relying on when they say ‘massive amount of hate crime rise’.

Now after the sensationalist introduction that the programme started with, onto the programme itself.

The opening scene was mobile phone footage taken during the Manchester Islamic terror attack along with a statement that, following the Manchester bombing, many people shared ‘far right’ material, then they followed this with a clip of Tommy Robinson. Those who have followed Mr Robinson’s story will know that he holds views that are the very opposite of those held by the traditional racialist far right of old, a racialist far right that I myself marched against back in the day. I’ve seen and read a lot of Mr Robinson’s stuff and it is obvious that he is an opponent of the idea of judging people by the colour of their skin. However he does, as I do myself, seem to believe that you should judge people by the content of their character and that includes the character of any ideologies that a person may follow. There is a world of difference between Mr Robinson’s criticism of the content of some people’s headspaces and the way that the traditional far right judges people by their race.

The first interviewee from the programme was Nick Lowles of the far Left Hope Not Hate organisation, a man seemingly incapable of making such subtle judgement between decent people who are worried about what is happening to their societies and the jackboot lickers. He lumped together populism, worries about immigration, concern about Islam and other political problems with European society under the catch all banner ‘far right’. It was obvious that Nick Lowles’ primary concern at this point in the programme is with what he called the ‘far right online’ which is making me wonder whether Hope Not Hate are joining the sleazy Tell Mama organisation in calls for censorship of social media.

I had to laugh at Nick Lowles’ apparent dismay that women would be becoming involved in what I prefer to call patriot or national identity movements. I’m not at all surprised at this phenomenon, not one little bit. This is because it is women who are all too often placed at risk of sexual abuse, exploitation and murder when governments import a large number of people from cultures such as exist in the Islamic world, where women have slightly less social value than a goat and where misogyny is so ingrained that these cultures could be described accurately as violent and murderous patriarchies. It is natural, in my opinion, that women, especially bright women who have benefited from the gains made by first and second wave feminism, look on Islamic culture with a sense of horror and become filled with a desire to oppose it. True equity feminism, to my mind, is giving women choices. It says a lot about Nick Lowles that he opposes women choosing to look at the misogynistic cesspit which is Islamic culture and saying ‘I’m not having that, not for me, my sisters or my daughters’.

Then the programme went on to explain the methodology of the undercover operatives, which basically appeared to comprise bullshitting on Twitter using a fake profile. The programme made a big play about the fact that one of the people that interacted with the researchers was Anne Marie Waters and the fact that Ms Waters is an ex-Labour Party member. There then followed an obvious attempt at a hatchet job on Ms Waters, including the smear that Tommy Robinson is ‘far right’. Nick Lowles was given carte blanche to criticise Ms Waters by the programme at this point in interview segments. It goes without saying that none of the clips of Ms Waters used at this point in the documentary were calling for violence against Muslims and were plainly criticising Islam for the content of its ideology and the horrors that it persuades its adherents to commit.

The programme also made much of Ms Waters association with Jack Buckby, a former BNP member but failed to emphasise that Mr Buckby is no longer a member of that party. Many of us have had political changes of heart and I myself have taken the journey from Left to centre right, but the reasons why Mr Buckby left the BNP were not given.

The programme makers talked up the fact that following the tragic murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, Mr Buckby stood in the byelection called in the Batley and Spen constituency when other mainstream candidates stood down. What the programme failed to mention is that his party Liberty GB, stood in the byelection partially in order to highlight the problems allegedly being caused by Islamic Rape Gangs in the Batley and Spen constituency area, problems that the notably pro-Islam Cox failed to either highlight or tackle. Confidential contacts in the area have told me that that their own families have been affected by Islamic sex crime and that nothing effective was done to protect their daughters from assault by Islamic groomers, either by the local police or by the constituency’s ruling Labour Party establishment. Whether you agree with Mr Buckby’s views or not, it was not, as the film appears to be trying to suggest, that it was an offensive abuse of the democratic system for Mr Buckby or his party to stand. Liberty GB had the perfect moral, ethical and political rights to stand in this byelection in order to highlight issues that this party believed needed highlighting and which the local political establishment, including Ms Cox, had done little about.

Although I condemn most strongly the murderous mental case that took Ms Cox’s life and believe that such actions have no place in a democratic society and should not be repeated, that does not mean that I or anyone else have to accept blindly the Left’s idea that Ms Cox as some sort of secular saint. She was human and subject to human failings. To my mind a particularly worrying failing was the fact that Ms Cox never seemed to find an Islamic or ‘refugee’ cause that she didn’t like. A cynical look at Ms Cox’s Parliamentary activity and her pro-Islam interests can be found in two posts on this blog which are here and here. A brief perusal of Ms Cox’s interests such as ‘Palestine’, increased Islamic ‘refugee’ migration and her close association with Islamic groups and individuals both locally and nationwide, some of whom are less than palatable, shows her as not the first person one would have in mind to which to bring complaints about the police not doing enough to tackle Islamic sex crime.

Sadly, it seems as if Ms Cox’s successor as MP for Batley and Spen, Tracy Brabin the former Coronation Street actress who also appeared in adverts for some less than good value insurance products, may also not be the sort of person to whom one would want to bring complaints about Islamic sex crime. An examination of Ms Brabin’s Parliamentary Questions using the records of Parliament itself, shows that she has never tabled a single written question about the problems of Islamic sex crime in her constituency. She has however submitted copious questions about early years child care, which is to be expected as it is part of her role as Shadow Early Years Education minister, questions about protecting ‘places of worship’ (most likely mosques) from attack and asking how many PREVENT referrals were of those involved in the ‘far right’. It seems that Batley and Spen have been landed with yet another Labour MP who bangs the drum for Islam and there was nothing wrong to my mind in standing a candidate against her and her views as Liberty GB did.

This programme, which appears to be heavily influenced by the views of the Leftist Hope Not Hate group, failed to give any context to the situation in Batley and Spen and why this influenced the decision of smaller parties such as Liberty GB to stand in this byelection. The programme expects us to take as fact that there was something wrong in a party and an individual exercising their right to stand in a Parliamentary election. The fact that Liberty GB stood in the Batley and Spen bylection may offend or anger some mainstream politicians and leftist and Islamic activists but that doesn’t take away from the fact that Liberty GB were doing nothing that could be legally termed as wrong.

The programme continued to smear Ms Waters with association with Mr Buckby when they went to hear Ms Waters speak at Sunderland, I presume at one of the Justice for Chelsey demonstrations. The programme used a short clip of Mr Buckby claiming to be the campaign manager for Ms Waters and that he, Mr Buckby kept in the background to avoid attracting leftist shit towards Ms Waters. To this I say, so what? There are many people who write about political issues, and sometimes contentious ones, who take care not to expose their families and friends to the growing levels of Leftist and Islamic violence. So what if Ms Waters pushed herself and not Mr Buckby to the fore? It should also be remembered that the Labour Party has some far worse associates when it comes to racism and anti-Semitism than a lot of those who I have encountered on the Right, such as one of the board members for Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite place of worship, the Finsbury Park Mosque, which has Hamas members involved in running it.

This documentary then left Ms Waters and Mr Buckby alone for a bit and moved onto the subject of Britain First. Now I need to say at this point that I’m neither a supporter or a member of Britain First. Their politics is not altogether my politics, but they have a right to voice their opinion, a view that does not seem to be shared by groups like Hope Not Hate. This section was introduced by yet another Hope Not Hate talking head, Matthew Collins, their Director of Research, who expressed concern about Britain First but conceded that there were some BF supporters who appeared decent but he was troubled that they were espousing Britain First views. The programme again made the point that social media activity for Britain First increased following the Islamic murders at the Manchester Arena. It was as if the film is trying to spin it that the problems are with social media, rather than with Muslims murdering kids at pop concerts and the justifiable anger expressed at such murders, along with anger at the murderous ideology that caused them

The narrator used a shocked and concerned tone to describe some of the, highly edited I must say, comments about immigrants. Again there was little context given for the conversation, such as where an unidentified group was described as ‘savages’. But if they are referring to the Islamic murders and Islamic sex crime that Western nations have been burdened with over the last few decades, then ‘savages’ is probably a reasonable and accurate description. The other conversations about the danger of Islamisation and the dangers of civil conflict if nothing is done to roll back Islamisation are merely expressions of a valid opinion that some people hold. My own view and one I’ve expressed often on here is that something does indeed need to be done to protect the citizens of European nations from the depredations of the more lunatic followers of the ideology of Islam. Maybe Islam needs to be legally restricted in some way, as Roman Catholicism was in the UK in the past, when that faith was a political threat? But any actions against Islam should be done by elected governments and by using legitimate legal, political and even military force and not by mobs of angry men with flaming torches. Vigilantism is not the answer but is a symptom of a societal breakdown that I do not wish to see.

Further on in the Britain First section of this programme, the narrator claimed that chants of ‘allah is a paedo’ were ‘offensive’ even though Islamic scripture plainly allows practises that we would today call paedophilia. The phenomenon of ‘child brides’ is endemic in parts of the Islamic world and Islam’s founding ‘prophet’, Mohammed, married a six year old girl and had sex with her when she was nine. The issue of Mohammed and Ayesha might only have been a yukky footnote to religious history, just as Christianity and Judaism have what later generations might call yukky bits to their histories, but for the Islamic exhortation to treat Mohammed as the perfect man to be emulated and all his actions to be considered as good. A culture based on the example of Mohammed is not likely to be one where children, women and non-Muslims are treated with any sort of respect or protected from harm and this is demonstrably the case. It also needs to be said that it is virtually impossible for people to safely question in Islamic societies or Islamic communities, the life and actions of Mohammed. This means that the actions of a robber, warlord and paedophile is held up to Muslim men as an example to follow and there has been no re-evaluation of Islamic scriptural texts and foundational stories, something which both Christians and Jews have subjected the Tanakh and the Christian Testament to. I follow what Christians would call the Old Testament, but an OT that has been subjected to thousands of years of open debate and examination and where commandments have been modified or sidelined to take account of later knowledge. I also know that Biblical violence is a record of historical acts or acts that are claimed to be historical and are therefore confined to the past. I have for example no desire to go and slaughter Cannanites of a Sunday or stone adulteresses or commit any other similar gruesome act. But, because Islam still tells its adherents to follow Mohammed’s example, as awful and horrid as it was, we have the continuing problems of Islamic sex crime and of Islamic violence. Islam as a religion uses the Nuremberg Defence in that they are only following the orders of their long dead founder who was not a good man, but a demonstrably evil one. Shouting ‘Allah is a Paedo’ is nothing when compared to the moral crimes of Islam, the ongoing slavery, violence, misogyny and murder.

The programme finally gave some context to the ‘hang them from lamposts’ audio from the beginning of it. It was merely one angry man shouting about how paedos should be subjected to extrajudicial killings and is the sort of angry rhetoric that can occur in any group of men talking about the problem of nonces. I think this was included in the programme purely for shock value and tells us very little about Britain First. The programme also claimed that the protesters were directing the chant of ‘paedo’ to any member of the public that could be perceived to be Muslim but the video did not show this, only people within the crowd chanting.

I must say, just to make an observation, that it looks as if Britain First has had a bit of a security breach if they allowed the researcher into their activist group so quickly, they should have been more aware that journalists and leftists may try something like this and do more due diligence checking first. The programme tried to make the ‘activist group’ seem more sinister than it was, as the protest that the BF activists were involved with was against the imposition of a megamosque on a town. I’ve done a quick search and this protest appears to have taken place in Maidstone, Kent in the summer of 2017. The Kent Online coverage of the story of the BF protest can be found here

The researcher appeared shocked that apart from a couple of people who called her ‘fascist’, a large number of people seemed receptive to the idea that there should not be a megamosque in their town. ‘It was just ordinary people out doing their shopping who agreed with BF’ wailed the researcher. If nothing else it shows just what a bubble this researcher must have been living in, if she had not encountered anger about Islam. Every time I meet Christians, Jews, atheists and others who have fled Islamised areas, I hear a similar anger about Islam and the problems this ideology brings.

The programme continued to rely heavily on data supplied by Hope Not Hate and the programme emphasised that Hope Not Hate have charitable status, as if this gives Hope Not Hate data more credibility. Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate did admit though that there has been a massive swing towards dislike of Islam which does not appear to be aimed at other groups. I suggest that the sense of opprobrium that the public hold Islam in is mostly because of the actions of Muslims and genuine and justifiable concern about the effect on our societies of the ideology of Islam itself. Britain has been remarkably and increasingly tolerant over the last two centuries of those with different beliefs and of differing racial appearance and the likes of Nick Lowles would do well to consider just why those of us who can be readily described as tolerant, find Islam and the problems it brings increasingly intolerable?

The programme then moved on to the tiny bunch of genuine fascist jackboot lickers the National Front (NF) and showed one of the researchers attempting to get in contact with an alleged NF activist by the name of Julie Lake. Ms Lake is said to have invited ‘Mary’ to a NF demo in Grantham, Lincolnshire. There then followed an excerpt from a speech by an NF activist decrying ‘third world immigration’ and video of ‘Mary’ hobnobbing with some NF activists who were using racialist language. On the subject of the NF, it must be said that this group are in no way the power that they once were, in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The NF, itself an offshoot of the pre- and post-World War Two fascist Mosleyite tendency, once claimed to have tens of thousands of members in certain branches but according to Wikipedia the membership as of 1985, the latest firm date I could find for membership data, was down to about 1,000. I see no evidence from my own researches that the NF is anything more than a small number of outliers on the patriot and nationalist scene. In fact there are a number of counter Islam activists, including myself, who give the NF a very wide berth, as we do not share their core politics. The inclusion of the NF, even though they are now tiny in comparison with what they once were, in this video seems calculated to link decent patriots and nationalists with the genuine far right fraggles of groups like the NF.

This documentary then moved back to attacking Anne Marie Waters, this time for her association with Jordan Diamond, who is a member of UKIP and also a supporter of the youth oriented Generation Identity movement that sprung up first in continental Europe and has recently opened a UK chapter. The programme referred to Generation Identity as ‘far right’ and allowed Hope Not Hate to refer to them as ‘white supremacists’ without challenge and Hope Not Hate made reference to the Defend Europe mission to prevent invaders crossing the Med to the European Union as if preventing illegal migration was a bad thing. The programme closed itself before an ad break with video of Anne Marie Waters quite correctly pointing out that there is a demographic threat from Islam due to the higher birthrates found in Islamic families and her saying that people must be as ‘thick as shit’ not to see the scale or nature of the problem.

Following the ad break, the programme, after yet another dig at Anne Marie Waters, returned to the story of ‘Hazel’, another of the reporters / researchers who was infiltrating the Generation Identity group. The programme showed some of the vetting process that GI do on activists or potential activists. This seemed to comprise a half hour video call with GI explaining to the reporter that they supported UKIP’s stance on immigration but criticised UKIP for saying little about the increased birth rates of Muslims, something which GI see as comprising a potential ‘Great Replacement’ of Europeans. Now whether you agree with GI’s views on this matter is immaterial but they do have a right to hold their views, even if some may disagree with them or file their concerns away under the heading of ‘tin foil hat’. Anyway, to be fair to GI, to me and many other observers it is now beyond reasonable doubt that Islam has brought a vast number of problems to Europe, problems that would either not exist or would be less common, had not Islam been allowed to establish itself and create the often hostile ghettos where crime and jihad are bred.

The programme talked up the ‘extreme vetting’ that GI was said to put their new members through but this may have been all so much bollocks. The researcher was shown going to a pub near to the British Library in London and meeting what turned out to be a bunch of relatively smartly dressed, respectable seeming social conservatives. There was talk about the ‘degenerate hedonism’ that passed for youth culture today and how GI needed people who are intelligent, well read and fit in order to carry out their actions. This comment about the degeneracy of popular culture is to put it bluntly no more outrageous than you would have found among young Christians in the 1960’s who rejected the youth culture upheavals that occurred in their time. The person who the researcher met was to my mind a little over chatty with the newbie and described training sessions on the Continent where activists had been trained to deal with aggression at demonstrations. It should be noted at this point that preparing for police or counter-protest violence by teaching people how to deal with the effects of pepper spray at demonstrations, is not something that is exclusively the province of the Right, such instruction has been to my knowledge a staple of the radical Left for decades in Europe. This programme has worked very hard to make it seem as if GI are paramilitary in nature, something that I have found no evidence of in my own researches. GI do however come over as considerably more disciplined than some other patriot and nationalist organisations. Although I may not align myself with all the views of GI, they did not come over in the programme as violent, as say Antifa do whenever there is a conservative speaker that the increasingly ironically named Antifa want to shut down.

To give the programme credit however, they did broadcast the statement by the GI guy that neo Nazis damage the image of GI and this is why they reject them. I did not take the statement from the GI guy that in the future they might be able to be more open to those with ‘questionable pasts’ as an indication that the doors of GI would be open to the rabid jackboot lickers. It came over to me as only that they would be more willing to accept people whose heart may be in the right place,

but who may have said or done some stupid things in their pasts.

The programme then visited the ‘Last Day of Silence’ demonstration in London on September 23rd which I also attended. The reporter ‘Hazel’ buddied up to Ms Waters following the event and went for drinks with her and Jordan Diamond of GI where Mr Diamond expressed fears that White Europeans would be swamped by those from the third world and this would damage European culture. Again this is a view that this man is perfectly entitled to hold, just as a Leftist is entitled to hold their views. Do I agree with his focus on race and his fear that white people won’t exist in a thousand years time? Well no, not much, but I cannot deny that there are a lot of aspects of third world cultures, especially Islamic cultures that are incompatible with the society that we have built in the West. I also cannot deny that Islamic culture in particular is not bringing much that is good to the continent of Europe even though there may be individual Muslims who are loyal decent and contributory. There then followed footage of Anne Marie Waters getting a little tipsy in a pub and commenting on such matters as Islamic birthrate, a trade agreement between North Africa and the EU and Islamisation, which are nothing shocking and not much different from the sort of discussion that you would find in many pubs or in politically aware families and communities.

The programme then went back to bashing Ms Waters and claimed that Ms Waters stating that ‘she can’t bear to see girls treated like shit as they are in Muslim countries’ was evidence of extremism. I think that any sensible and moral person shouldn’t bear to see girls treated like shit in Muslim countries and neither should this sort of thing happen here. I must admit that although I’m a supporter of Ms Waters, I do think she may have been a little too trusting of the researcher posing as a friend and Ms Waters may have let this woman get too close too quickly. Contrary to the assertions of the narrator that Ms Waters put on a ‘moderate face’ for mainstream journalists, that is not what I saw on the video. What I took away from this was that Ms Waters was well aware that the MSM would set traps for her and that she was being harshly questioned because she had previously stated that ‘Islam is evil’ and she did her best to avoid such traps.

The video continued with ‘Hazel’ the undercover researcher, probing Ms Waters for her feelings after being defeated in the leadership election for UKIP. The narrator seemed to be of the opinion that only ISIS should be described as a death cult, when there are ample other instances from places like Sudan, Pakistan, the Arabian peninsula and other places throughout the world where Islam and not ISIS has a lot in common with a death cult. Revenge rapes and stonings for adultery, as happen in places like Afganistan and Pakistan, are not indications of a ‘civilisation’ that has risen above violent death cult status.

This documentary then went on to use the very same shonky post Brexit ‘hate crime’ figures which, as I said earlier, rely to a large extent on unconfirmed, uninvestigated, untested ‘reports’, which could either be meaningful or meaningless. The programme then went on to take another dig at social media and to bewail Ms Waters’ ability to come second in the UKIP leadership race. The narrator quoted nameless ‘experts’ who were concerned about the growth of the ‘far right’ but then went on to feature Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hate, which leads me to suspect that some or all of these ‘experts’ may well be Hope Not Hate supporters or activists. It could even be that the ‘expert’ that the programme is quoting may be Nick Knowles himself?

The next person to be interviewed was Richard Walton, the Head of Scotland Yard’s Counter Terror Command who also weighed in with his view that social media had ‘turbocharged’ extremism, but he qualified this by stating that this extremism is of the Left and the Right and is of a religious nature. This assertion was not challenged or gone into in any detail by the programme makers and there was no attempt made by them to find out exactly what Mr Walton said we should be more aware and concerned about and what, to his mind, constituted worrying material.

The researchers looking at the National Front and the now banned neo-Nazi group National Action were now brought to the fore and Mr Walton noted that the banning of National Action was an unprecedented act that recognised the potential problems that could be caused by NA. The programme shows two of the researchers visiting Preston for a NF meeting and meeting both Mark Collett, formerly of the BNP, and Julie Lake. I thought the programme sailed a little close to the legal wind as regards sub judice by mentioning details of charges that National Action members are faced with. Such reporting may be OK as part of a normal court report, but in the context of this programme it’s possible that some may see the inclusion of this information in this programme as potentially prejudical to the defendants. The researchers attended the meeting where a small number of people listened to the usual neo-fascist Holocaust-denying statements for which the NF has been known for decades, were trotted out. The NF is old news and small news at that, despite the claims of the NF to the contrary.

This programme appeared desperate to draw a link between the genuine neo-Nazis of the NF and the decent pro-West, pro-freedom patriot and nationalist groups that exist. That they tried to do this and that this intention is so obvious to the viewer, illustrates much of the dishonesty of the programme makers and the Hope Not Hate group who appear to be a driving force behind it.

I don’t know why the programme makers appear shocked at NF types praising Hitler as was shown in one part of the programme, sensible people and especially sensible patriots and nationalists have known for years that the NF attracts jackboot-lickers and Hitler worshippers. It’s not news at least not to me as I marched against the NF back in the 80’s to stop my black mates getting their heads kicked in by their thugs. I know what they are and have known what they are for a long long time.

The programme returned to the bashing of Anne Marie Waters by highlighting her appearance at a meeting of the Traditional Britain Group. This group, it must be said, rejects the programme’s claims that it is ‘far right’ and which states that it merely wants a return to the migration and voluntary repatriation policies of the 1970 Conservative Party manifesto. The Traditional Britain Group have a very well written rebuff to the ITV smear piece via this link.

The closing minutes of the programme showed GI activists talking about the 1920’s ‘Jewish Question’ which one activist said was pertinent to that time but not now. It is, I must admit, somewhat worrying to see this anti-Semitic canard being trotted out by people who seem otherwise to be well versed in history. But, the activist admitted that the anti-Semitism that is coming from sections of the American Alt-Right is a ‘complete tactical mistake’, which is something I agree with and which will hamper the sensible patriot and nationalist movements and will drive away the many Jews of the political Right who recognise, along with those of other religions and none, that today’s threat to civilisation is not Communism or Fascism but Islamism. The programme then covered the recent banner drop where an anti Islamisation banner was hung from Westminster Bridge. I found some of the statements, very heavily edited I must add, made by some of those involved in GI about the Holocaust a bit disturbing such as questioning the death toll of the Shoah, as this is something that has to a large extent been settled. But, a belief in freedom of speech means that I must defend the speech rights of those with whom I vehemently disagree. However, I find I must to some extent agree with the GI statement made at the end of the programme that the comments by GI members appeared to be heavily edited to make questionable statements appear much worse than they may have been intended. I would like to say at this point that I have examined the GI UK website, not completely but relatively thoroughly and cannot see any public statement that I could construe to be anti Semitic. The only reference I could see to Jews or Israel is a statement that the group will not become involved in extra-European conflicts such as Israel/Palestine as it is focussed on European issues. This is a fair statement to make in the context of the GI group.

The programme did at least allow the protagonists to have a final comment on the hidden camera footage and I thought both Jack Buckby and Anne Marie Waters came out quite well in these final comments. They stated quite clearly their positions. Mr Buckby said that he left the BNP because of anti Semitic abuse and Ms Waters basically told the truth about the secret camera footage which was that she wasn’t saying anything in private that she wouldn’t and hasn’t said in public.

The programme ended with a dig at Tommy Robinson and with what the narrator described as a ‘disturbing’ piss take of the programme and the undercover researcher. Unsurprisingly the social media accounts of the undercover operatives have attracted some abuse from those angry at their behaviour and, speaking as someone who has worked in journalism in the past, I have to say that this sort of response where people turn on the reporter is somewhat expected although at the same time it should be condemned. I can’t help but think that these young reporters were exploited to a certain extent by the programme makers. They were sent into situations that could conceivably have turned hostile and where junior reporters, maybe clutching their first NUJ card, should not have been sent. I’ve been that hungry and expendable freelance working for newspapers a few decades back, so I know what it’s like to have that hunger exploited and to be placed in situations where maybe I should not have been placed.

This programme was so obviously a hit piece that it is almost laughable in its blatant and easily discernable bias. When you start to take the programme to bits, as I have done with this piece you can see that it was an almost one hour opportunity for Hope Not Hate to grandstand and put over their point of view virtually unchallenged, in other words it was as bent as a nine pound note.

Do I think this programme will damage the vast bulk of the patriot and nationalist and counter Islam movements that are being set up and which are growing in Europe? I don’t think it will. In fact I think that some of the people, such as Ms Waters, Mr Buckby and Mr Robinson came out of this quite well. I think the majority of viewers of this programme will, despite the dishonest efforts of the producers and Hope Not Hate, be well able to tell the difference between decent patriots who want to defend our nations from a hate filled and violent ideology called Islam and the very small number of genuine neo-Nazis that do exist and who should be criticised.

This was a hatchet job where those wielding the hatchet obviously forgot to sharpen it.

If you want to view the programme then please follow the You Tube link below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IM4wtEr4No

1 Comment on "On the ITV/Hope Not Hate hatchet job on Anne Marie Waters and others. A forensic examination of the programme"

  1. I did some research into total fertility rates (TFRs) around the world.
    What I found was that, on a regional (and often even a Country by Country) basis, the TFR of Muslims is invariably higher than that of the surrounding (Country/regional) non-Muslim populations (where extant).
    This applied even in those Muslim majority Countries where the TFR is below replacement.
    Thus, IMO, the worries expressed in the program about the “higher birth rates found in Muslim families” (its actually TFR that really matters) are well justified.
    To put the consequence of this at its baldest:
    the question is thus not IF Muslims will form a majority in Europe, but WHEN.
    And I cannot but think that that will be very bad for anything that we might call “European culture”. My only caveat is that since this is a gradual, multi-generational, process European culture and practice will also be gradually changed, so perhaps those then living will not really notice.

Leave a Reply