Laughed long and loud this morning as Labour’s Keith Vaz came onto 5Live (11:40) and congratulated the BBC for its focus on immigration and the foreign national offenders being allowed to slip into the country by the chaos at Border Control as the BBC ‘discovers’ that one in seven people arrested in Britain today is a foreign national….and a listener involved in charity work stated that 75% of rough sleepers in London are foreigners.
The only reason the BBC focuses on it now is that it is embarrassing for the government…the ‘Tory’ government.
Vaz says its important that these foreign offenders aren’t allowed into the country in the first place…if we check and cross check we can run the border control sytem much more effectively.
Of course no link to Labour’s disastrous open door policy and Europe by the BBC that allowed untold numbers of criminals, not to mention foreign nationals sent to gather intelligence, both government and commercial, to enter the UK.
You might have thought that Labour’s part in all this would get a mention especially as last year the very same Keith Vaz said this:
Keith Vaz, the chairman of the influential home affairs committee, said the roots of Britain’s problems with immigration lie in the last government’s failure get to control the borders while issuing ‘jingoistic messages’.
And he ridiculed a speech by Labour’s immigration spokesman Chris Bryant for failing to provide answers to how to deal with the numbers of people moving to Britain.
In an article for the Leicester Mercury, Mr Vaz added: ‘The challenges with our immigration policy will not start on this day; they started a long time ago.
‘Seven years ago a Labour Home Secretary, John Reid, described the UK Border Agency as “not fit for purpose”, yet it limped along for another five years before being abolished.
‘The previous Government oversaw the disastrous contract for E-borders, the method by which we count people in and out, which so far has lost the taxpayer £750 million.’
The BBC does report this shameless piece of deception from Labour without any comment:
“Stronger checks” will be carried out to stop foreign criminals from becoming UK citizens if Labour wins the next election, Yvette Cooper has said.
The shadow home secretary told the BBC it was “shocking” that killers had been given British passports because “the Home Office failed to do basic checks”.
Immigration is one of the major issues in the next election as the same BBC report admits…and very important for Labour:
BBC political correspondent Alan Soady said immigration would be one of the big election issues and Labour was trying to convince voters that they can be trusted to tackle it.
So you might be asking why Labour isn’t being put on the rack about their record...as even one of their own MP’s admits is abysmal…not only that but has led to increased danger to the UK on many different levels…criminal, cultural, socially, political and commercial.
The BBC thinks the problem is not the actual immigration but that we don’t talk about it….we know that the BBC believes that people are anti-immigrant because they are uneducated and ill-informed not because they have been able to formulate some reasoned and coherent thoughts on the matter themselves. We need to debate this more…but only on the BBC’s terms…once you have had the chance to listen to and absorb the BBC’s narrative you will then understand the benefits of immigration and that your previous ‘thoughts’ on the matter were misinformed and prejudiced.
Here they illustrate that thinking….
Defining the problem – Bigotgate
His {Brown’s} private comments afterwards suggested that he thought to even raise the subject made someone a “bigot”. He apologised but the damage was done.
Have things changed under Ed Miliband?
The easiest way to sum it is up is from this speech a couple of years ago where he said “to put it simply I think we became too disconnected from the concerns of working people”. He sought to define himself against the low point of the Brown years, saying that worrying about immigration did not make people bigots.
So the problem with Labour wasn’t their actual immigration policy but that they decided that anyone who criticised it was a bigot. Now apparently Labour has agreed we can talk about immigration without being called racists….as long as you support their policies on it.
In the Sunday Times (paywalled) today John Humphrys talks in an interview with Camilla Long about this….
The Labour government underestimated by a factor of 10 the number of people who were going to move from Poland,” a vast uptick in numbers that, among other changes in population, was not sufficiently “interrogated” by the corporation. “We were too institutionally nervous of saying, isn’t immigration getting a little bit out of hand? And can we be critical of multiculturalism,” he says.
“We didn’t interrogate immigration rigorously enough. We failed to look at what our job was.”[The BBC] was “arrogant”, he says, employing people who “thought they knew what was best for the country. It was and still is relentlessly middle-class. Unfortunately. There was a predominant voice and that was the liberal Oxbridge male.” Exactly the sort of people who would fail to interrogate immigration, he says.
The BBC is still exactly the same…it professses to have changed and yet it hasn’t, it still fills the airwaves with pro-immigration propaganda.
On the 30th of November Frank Field stated that we would need a city the size of Birmingham every 30 months to be built to deal with the mass immigration we are suffering now….from the Daily Mail:
We’re adding a migrant city the size of Birmingham every 30 months reveals MP who co-chairs migration group
Almost immediately the BBC set up a counter argument to try and undermine the concerns….the Today programme decided to look at the issues…(07:40)
Attempts to measure whether immigration is on balance good or bad for the country are usually hijacked by the different political interests in the debate.
All, yes all four, ‘Establishment’ interviewees were pro-immigration. Not a single ‘official’ critic was allowed onto the programme.
The BBC field reporter, Matthew Price, summed it up with the new pro-immigration line of defence…..whilst most studies show that immigrants bring little benefit, if any to the country, Price decided to state that the problem is that the benefits they do bring are being hijacked by national government and resources are being removed from the area they are created in….the problems are created by government not immigrants.
So the BBC presents this as a problem created by….government cuts to local services. The number of immigrants isn’t the problem, it’s the ‘fact’ that government doesn’t cough up enough money to house, feed, school and treat them on the NHS.
Three days later the BBC finaly gets round to talking to Frank Field……where the Today programme wants to talk about Britishness. (07:33)
Britain is becoming less and less British….BBC reporter Matthew Price dismisses people’s concerns and local experience…he tells us ‘statistics show’ nothing to worry about….but the importance of this debate, as stated above, is shown when people say they will never vote Labour again due to immigration. Important then for the BBC to prove the benefits of immigration….and by default Labour’s open door policy.
Frank Field tells us that the BBC is part of the discussion and implies that it needs to provide accurate and impartial information about the debate, on immigration and the economy…good luck with that…..He says that no MP knows how to cut the deficit, and pressures on state services from immigration needs budgetting for and yet we don’t know how many will come here….he asks how can we fund a city the size of Birmingham every 30 months when budgets are so constrained?
Frank Field is also concerned about the watering down of Britishness saying we’ve been careless of our national identity and says we’ve never been brave enough to make immigrants conform to our values.
The BBC when criticised about its coverage of immigration will point to interviews with Frank Field and say that they prove the BBC is balanced in its reporting. However such interviews are mere drops in the ocean compared to the massive tidal wave of pro-immigration material the BBC broadcasts…not all of it obvious but subtly inserted into programmes ostensibly about other subjects but designed to educate ‘us’ about the wonders of the ‘immigrant’.
Siddiqui has written a book about Islam and the West ‘through the prism of her experience as both a Muslim and a modern woman’ and tells us her audience is not the Muslims really….presumably she must be trying to educate us Kufrs about the benefits of Islam.
She tells us most people see Islam solely though the prism of the veil, terrorism or extremism but most Muslims look at Islam through everyday events…living their lives by it….trouble is many of them don’t live the ‘full Islam’…which is where the fundamentlist ‘extremists’ come in who do want to live a life fully informed by the Koran.
She says radicalisation is not a generational thing…so does that mean it comes from a basic ethos then, such as a certain ideology, an is not merely young Muslims engaging in some adolescent rebellion?
She claims she does not know why it happens.
The BBC interviewer and chief fan it seems, Sarah Brett, asks…. Is it because people don’t understand Islam that they are frightened by it?
[Remember this from David Goodhart….Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.]
Siddiqui says that religion of all types struggle in the West..there’s no definition of religion…people do not understand religion….no distinction between private and public practise….People want to live their religion to the full not just in the privacy of their homes.
Hmmm..no, the problem is that people all too readily understand religion and don’t like it……and the fact that Muslims want to live their religion to the full is a problem…hence the Trojan Horse scandal.
Brett makes the usual uninformed claim that Christianity is characterised by violence…crusades and warrior popes….but that isn’t ‘Christianity’…nowhere in the New Testament, Christianity, does it tell you to go out and smite your enemies and conquer their lands as it does in the Koran.
Brett goes on….. there have been significant holy wars in the history of mankind….You could argue Islam isn’t the issue, religion is.
Siddiqui demurs…slightly, saying…here Islam is the issue….but not the religion of Islam, more the political, social and cultural strands behind it which can create a them and us conversation and attitude amongst Muslims.
Brett suggests that Muslim women are not radicalised by Islam…they are just misled by men
MS agrees with that…they like the excitement and glamour.
Brett gets to the meat of the intended lesson for today asking…How damaging is the narrative of ISIS and AQ being linked to mainstream Islam by media or a misguided public perception?
Siddiqui says….yes they are Muslims in ISIS but asks what are the causes of radicalisation?…nothing to do with religion..Islam is a short cut for the media to cast blame which disregards the geopolitical and cultural aspects of events…its the West’s fault then?
Brett then links immigration and Islam and Siddiqui says there is an atmosphere created by the politics of reaction and suspicion.
She tells us we can’t go back to some golden age of Britishness….native Britons will have to adapt to immigrants…not the other way round.
Brett then suggests we shouldn’t talk about immigration in the interests of community cohesion with only 6 months to an election and the topic is going to be immigration….she asks….how damaging is it to people who already feel marginalised, especially muslims, by all the talk of Muslims being seperate and Brits wanting to keep people out who aren’t originally from here?
Siddiqui calims she isn’t an immigrant…but, yes, she is..she came here aged 5.
She tells us all this talk about immigration creates a fundamental problem with the reinvigoration of a different kind of them and us attitude…too much divisive language.
We must cater for those who come here and we must have inclusive language…it is, apparently, quite dangerous at the moment.
But….she doesn’t want unlimited immigration….but then again….yes let’s have unlimited immigration on the quiet.
She says there is a deepseated fear of too many people and Brits just want to keep their own culture and society….it’s just not on you know! You’ve got to progress and adapt.
She says multiculturalism was an experiment….but not one that has failed just because of a few bombs….it’s a success really.
Notably she states that when growing up the converstaions you have, the upbringing you have, stay with you for ever….and shapes you into the adult you will be. All very relevant when Muslim children are culturally isolated and brought up to read and regard the Koran as the literal word of God.
How will such people develop, as Siddiqui says, a sense of loyalty, purpose and contribution to wider society?
She tells us we are too lost in political narrative of identity…not Muslims but government and all those who oppose immigration….but would she then abandon her Muslim faith…no…as she showed above when she stated that Muslims want to live their religion to the full and not compromise it.
There is the real BBC in action….trying to damp down any criticism and anger about Islam and the actions of Muslims, as well as promoting immigration and the idea that any criticism of it is from a group of Little Englanders wanting to recreate some golden age instead of welcoming and adapting their lives, society and culture to suit the immigrants…..ala foreign policy…now to be run by a few radical Muslims who threaten to bomb us if we don’t do as they say.
So Keith Vaz openly praises the BBC for pushing the Labour line. Does it not matter anymore to them that it proves the BBC bias? Clearly not.
Keith Vaz is a national treasure. Some political topics are just too complicated for us ordinary folks to grasp. I wait until Vaz makes his pronouncements and then I know to believe the exact opposite.
I wonder what the BBC position would be on cultural ‘rights’ for ‘Native Americans’, Australian aboriginals or New Zealand Maoris?
When can we expect the BBC remake of Zulu with the massed spear-bearing white African warriors bearing down on the BME ‘British’ at Rorke’s Drift? Or reports on the ‘multi-cultural’ experiments in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
Interestingly, the Maori’s have only been in New Zealand for 700 years, far shorter than the English have been in England. But they have indigenous rights. We don’t. Is it because we is white?
Have you noticed how the BBC lauds those who maintain Stone Age cultures in the current age, such as the Aussie Aborigines, but is less inclined to laud those who chose to join the Modern World?
Surely the progress of human civilisation requires leaving Stone Age sensibilities behind?
Or are they keeping the ‘Abbo’ in his place whilst using his plight to berate Western values?
What we all know is, that mass immigration social engineering put into practise by Labour and supported by the BBC, was done without the consent of the British people. Look at the fuss made by the BBC about other policies that a sizeable proportion , often much less than a majority, of the country disagrees with , eg Iraq, Drones, Spare room tax , poll tax , I could go on. But on immigration all we got from the BBC was a massive cover up , a blanket of silence and then lies repeated year after year. Even today all we get are lies and we are only allowed to talk about white EU immigrants, any mention of ROW immigration is immediately met by hysterical accusations of racism and all the vilification that goes with this.
The BBC has been guilty of complicity in the worst case of an anti democratic policy ever pursued by a British government. Both the BBC and the Labour politicians who were responsible should be held to account for the damage they have inflicted on our country.
This country is now in the control of anti-English Marxists. This design was hatched in the coffee houses and student unions of Oxford and Cambridge during the sixties; after WW2, the communists had to wrestle back control of Europe through any means necessary; in addition to politics, media, education and the arts have been the primary mechanisms for this silent revolution.
Subsequent generations have been hopelessly brainwashed by the Marxist tool for subtle (and, these days, not-so-subtle!) indoctrination; the BBC. Self-loathing anti-English sentiment, self-serving individualism and the entrusting of personal responsibility to the state are all core thematic symptoms of this insidious socialist hegemony; the reliance on the State thus becomes addictive and is aggressively protected at all costs by the useful idiots who do their socialist masters bidding.
As a result this country is now irrevocably divided, with Islamo-Marxists gearing up to fight the patriots. Without a shadow of a doubt, war is coming to these lands. It is now unavoidable.
Fat, real ale drinking etc., I’m sure your comment is intended as a spoof, but a hell of it is actually quite accurate and true.
They are called Gramscians
An interesting idea, but could you please explain how this bit
self-serving individualism and the entrusting of personal responsibility to the state
fits together?
It`s the BBC.
The only steer that any of us need is to see where the BBC hope to take us-what they want us to regurgitate for the Vine Show or the ballot box-and then you turn 180 degrees, and go in exactly the polar opposite direction.
That`s where the truth will lie…and only the public sector nonces and cheridee workers who Brown left us with will give a flying f*** about what exercises the likes of Vaz and the BBC.
Forget the BBC bias for a moment and the ministrations of Keith Vaz, and take a look at the drone behind much of the Chaos in the civil service, a woman called Lin Homer.
Despite disastrous failings in nearly every department she’s headed, she keeps on getting shuffled sideways or promoted. Currently she’s in charge of HMRC, and you only need listen to Money box live to understand the chaos that it’s descending into.
This is the woman who was criticised by the Election Commissioner for failings in her role as returning officer during a postal vote-rigging scandal involving Labour candidates the previous year, described by the Commissioner as one that “would disgrace a banana republic”, and involving hundreds of votes failing to be counted. Homer defended her role to the Election Commission, saying she had been in “strategic, not operational control”, and had confined herself to “motivational management and fire fighting”.
Homer resigned from her post shortly afterwards, joining the civil service as the Director-General heading the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, in August 2005. The Home Office was re-organised in 2008, with the formation of the Border and Immigration Agency, later renamed the UK Border Agency, of which Homer became the first chief executive. In 2013, Homer’s tenure at UKBA was criticised for its “catastrophic leadership failure” by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, which said it had been repeatedly misled by the Agency. Committee chairman Keith Vaz said her performance was “more like the scene of a Whitehall farce than a government agency operating in the 21st century”. Homer responded in a letter to the committee, saying that “The suggestion that I deliberately misled the Committee and refused to apologise are both untrue and unfair,” adding that “It is therefore wholly inaccurate and unfair to seek to ascribe responsibility to me for matters of concern that occurred long after I left the Agency.”
In 2010 it was announced that Homer would replace Robert Devereux as Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport . While serving in this role, the Department dealt with the controversial franchise letting process for West Coast Mainline rail network. Homer was among officials accused by Sir Richard Branson, head of Virgin Trains, of ignoring concerns about the letting process, whose failure is estimated to have cost £100 million.
December 2011 it was announced that Homer would succeed Lesley Strathie as Chief Executive of HMRC. In March 2013, HMRC was criticised by the House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee for its “unambitious and woefully inadequate” response to a report from the UK National Audit Office in December 2012 concerning poor customer service by HMRC.[14] Homer has said that the agency has “turned a corner” in dealing with the 79 million calls and 25 million pieces of post received by HMRC each year, having injected £34 million to tackle the problem with that aim of reaching a 90 per cent success rate.
Homer’s appointment to head of HMRC prompted criticism centred on her record in previous positions. However, her appointment was supported by David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the UK Treasury, who said “She is a highly effective chief executive and the right person to lead HMRC”
Homer was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) in the 2008 Birthday Honours. She is married with three daughters
A catastrophic track record, and yet she leaves each position where she damaged a department in some cases to such an extent it had to be dismantled and reorganised and millions of taxpayer money has been lost, and gains a new senior role heading another government department.
I expect you’d be thinking that there must be something behind all this, and you’d be right. Lin Homer is Common Purpose. (surprise!)
I’m not the only one wondering about the appointments of this train wreck of a woman though take a look that these comments:
http://4liberty.org.uk/2013/03/26/who-else-is-behind-people-like-lin-homer/
http://markreckless.com/2012/11/27/why-is-she-promoted-and-bonused/
The reason for posting this on a BBC bias blog are so people can be aware of the screw ups going on in open sight, and the fact that the BBC are probably employing people like this who can’t even run a bath let alone a major corporation, but have people behind them who protect and promote them when ever there’s a disaster.
I don’t know where to start , such is my industries suffering from the civil service .
I’ll try by saying that we need open governance (not the same as government ) and not be afraid of a word usually used derogatively ; populism .
Thanks thoughtful. Who needs ‘fifth columnists’ when you can have Lin Homer at the helm protecting the UK interests. She must be a plant surely… Nobody could be that incompetent and still be in government unless there is a clear common purpose of being the femail equivalent of Mr Bean. But perhaps she is not alone and they are all (HMRC) employed because of – (not in spite of) being less than a ‘stooge’ half wit. Our nation demands little else as we head to EU disintegration.
“CLAIM:
SMUG, MIDDLE CLASS BBC FAILED ON IMMIGRATION BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY KNEW BEST”
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/15/Claim-Smug-Middle-Class-BBC-Failed-on-Immigration-Because-They-Thought-They-Knew-Best
“A spokesman for the BBC said: “John Humphrys was merely echoing other senior BBC figures who have previously acknowledged that we were slow to reflect changing opinions on immigration. This was a historical issue and we now believe our reporting is in the right place and we cover this complex issue in depth”
An anonymous BBC spokesperson is wheeled out to parrot corporate belief in explaining what one of their most senior presenters ‘meant’.
Sticking with the script too rigidly can serve the principle of ‘tell it often enough’ poorly.