BBC Radio 4 Today
@BBCr4today‘The size of the lie was so great’ – Martin Amis on Robert Conquest and Stalin’s ‘utopia’ http://bbc.in/1MXQC9a
We looked at the BBC’s refusal to report the words of the Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, about immigration and its potential to have hugely damaging economic and social effects in Europe and give them the import they required. The BBC totally ignored his comments until this morning when the subject finally came up. Did the BBC want to investigate the extremely serious issues that Hammond raised? Did they think that a warning that the economy will suffer and that society may break down due to uncontrolled mass immigration was something that needed to be part of the public discussion about immigration?
No.
The BBC instead went to war against Hammond and Cameron declaring that they had got the ‘tone’ wrong when speaking about immigration in the manner that they had. What we have is a BBC, supposedly a news organisation, that instead of examining the issues coolly and rationally, deliberately seeks to ratchet up the extremist pro-immigration rhetoric by trying to silence all voices critical of mass immigration, and that even includes the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, labelling them either racists or people who are using inflammatory language that incites racism and hostility towards immigrants….which pre-supposes that all people who have an opinion which leans towards less immigration are doing so because they are racist or led by the nose by rabble rousing politicians….this is the same BBC that itself exploits highly emotive language and images to manipulate the audience’s perceptions and opinions on immigration and is quite happy to metaphorically and in reality to dangle dead bodies of immigrants in front of us, continually hyping up the ‘desperation’ of the migrants and the dangers they faced in their journeys to get here…all intended to play with your emotions…..so whose ‘tone’ is inflammatory and exploitative?
The BBC has decided that it will sit in moral judgement and that it is the final arbiter of what our immigration policy should be. It is vastly overstepping the mark when it comes to its role in society believing it has the right to not only decide government policy but also to publicly denounce and vilify government ministers who don’t toe the BBC line.
They managed to bully and intimidate Andrew Mitchell on the Today programme (08:10) demanding to know what he thought about Cameron’s use of the word ‘swarming’ and Hammond’s words…Mitchell shamefully backed down in front of their bullying and refused to back them instead repeating the approved BBC mantra that all migrants are humans and need to be treated with digntity and respect or some such happy clappy sentiments.
Hmmm….from 2003….did they get the ‘tone’ right?…..
A report by the influential House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published earlier this month said the large number of asylum-seekers was threatening “social unrest” and had to be curbed.
Later on(about 08:43) we had someone on from Oxfam. He was asked how he would sell the public the idea that we must allow in more migrants…..not a leading question at all is it?, one that pre-supposes we should let them in….once again the BBC not reportng but campaigning.
His answer was that Britain has to accept more asylum seekers… he’d sell the idea by ‘describing the misery of the lives of people in Syria and the desperation of those who are crossing the ocean with terrible risk to their lives and terrible suffering….when you get that sense of personal connectivity you recognise that these are not just people who are looking for a sunnier tomorrow, they are people who are living in fear and in poverty.’
Curiously that is exactly how the BBC goes about ‘reporting’ the issues already. In other words they are ‘selling us the idea’ of more migrants being allowed in to Britain….wherever they come from and for whatever reason.
Later on on 5Live (around 12:20) we had Le Crackpot, the UN’s Francois Crépeau, who thinks anyone who opposes mass immigration is racist and that the borders should be flung wide open …..to allow people to come and go…trouble is there won’t be much ‘going’ will there?
To give you an idea of how mass immigration would be handled but with no ideas on how the welfare system, the NHS, schools, housing would survive…no ideas on how they would be managed…but here’s some fine grandstanding by him with some thoughts that demonstrate just how out of touch he really is with the world…look at how complicated and impossibly involved his solutions are…
The sustainable management of diversity
by François Crépeau1 July, 2015
Not investing in migrant integration doesn’t bode well for the future. The sustainable management of diversity requires strong political leadership (diversity must be made part of the founding features of our societies, on a number of indicators: age groups, social classes, generations, religions, sexual orientations, family models, lifestyles, social media communities, epistemic communities, to name only a few), fact-based and efficient policies (anti-racism, hate speech prosecution, anti-discrimination, reasonable accommodation in the labour market, development of school curriculum…) and active, informed and well-trained institutions (courts, administrative tribunals, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, complaint mechanisms, lawyers, social workers, labour inspectors…). Without such strong and coherent public discourse, policies and institutions, fractious nationalist populist politicians will wreak havoc, advocating for simplistic “solutions” based on myths, fantasies, stereotypes and threats that will go unchallenged. For their lack of leadership on the mobility and diversity issue, mainstream political parties are presently failing the populations they represent, as well as endangering the democratic institutions that these populations have been so painstakingly built over the past decades.
The trouble is it won’t be ‘populist politicians wreaking havoc’ but mass immigrant populations destabilising society and undermining the economy along with the huge conflicts that will result.
Here’s the BBC in 2006 telling of the tensions already in existence before it decided that it would decisively take sides in the immigration debate…
Rise of UK’s ‘inter-ethnic conflicts’
As three Asian men are found guilty of killing a black man during riots in Birmingham last year, the BBC News website examines what caused two ethnic minority communities to clash.
What made the clashes stand out even more was the fact that it was two ethnic minority communities – black and Asian – that were at loggerheads. According to Birmingham race campaigner Maxie Hayles, the trouble was rooted in long-standing division between the two communities.
“Just because people don’t throw bricks at each other on a daily basis doesn’t mean everything’s rosy in the garden,” he says.
“The reality is that there’s an apartheid situation. We live in a society where you’ve got white on top, Asians in the middle and then black at the bottom, particularly in economic terms.”
Lozells is an inner-city area that has seen significant change in its ethnic mix. Forty years ago African Caribbeans were its main ethnic minority group.
Mr Cantle, who wrote a review for the government after the 2001 riots warning of communities living “parallel lives”, says until recently such “inter-ethnic conflicts” were not on the agenda of public bodies and the mainstream media.
The UK’s shifting racial mix and changing definitions complicated matters, he said.
“At one time, going back into the 60s, 70s and even the 80s,”black” was an all-encompassing term, almost a political expression of being in a minority counterposed against a white majority,” he says.
“All of that’s changed and identities are increasingly fine-tuned and now include faith groups.
“So the pressure is now to work across boundaries but those boundaries are becoming increasingly reinforced.”
And if you’re going to look up close and personal at the migrants in order to ‘sell the idea’ then you have to look at the whole…the good and the bad…from 2003….
Criminals ‘use asylum as cover’
High levels of organised crime across the country are linked to immigrants and asylum-seekers, according to one of England’s most senior police officers.
People-smuggling, prostitution and drug dealing are among the crimes linked to immigration by Chris Fox, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
Immigration and asylum are also being used as a cover by criminals to enter the country, he told BBC One’s Breakfast.
He warned a “tidal wave” of mass immigration had brought a “new wave of crimes”, in an interview with the Observer newspaper.
“Mass migration has brought with it a whole new range and a whole new type of crime, from the Nigerian fraudster, to the eastern European who deals in drugs and prostitution to the Jamaican concentration on drug dealing,” he said.
“My personal view is that this is a small island.
“We have some very, very intensely-populated areas and I think we have to be careful just how we let the mix develop.
‘Balancing act’
“It’s healthy that we’ve got lots of different people, but if you go into some of the cities, looking at the north, Bradford simmers, Blackburn simmers.”
Mr Fox said it did not take much to disturb that balance
“We’ve got to be very careful to make sure that we’re not overwhelming our current infrastructure,” he said.
A report by the influential House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published earlier this month said the large number of asylum-seekers was threatening “social unrest” and had to be curbed.
Mass immigration is clearly dangerous for all concerned…immigrants and the native population. No good will come of it, certainly when the public start to realise they are being ‘sold’ an idea, especially based upon so many lies by the BBC.
If die-versity is so great, then why do they have ”anti-racism, hate speech prosecution, anti-discrimination, courts, administrative tribunals to enforce it” ??
In the Soviet Union they were told it was ” a workers paradise”, yet it was surrounded by armed guards and a wall to enforce it.
”UN’s Francois Crépeau, who thinks anyone who opposes mass immigration is racist.” He name calls, he threatens, he intimidates, all in the name of equality !!
…..” anyone who opposes mass immigration is racist.”
How about they address common sense regarding our ability to accept huge number of migrants. Address the economic viability, our ability to increase the supply of already stretched necessary resources :- food, water, electricity, housing, welfare. The social impact of accommodating a large number whose life style and values are totally different to ours.
Of course we feel desperately sorry for those genuine people who really are escaping persecution, but they have already reached safety long before they attempt to get to Britain.
Ask these so called compassionates this : “You are on a sinking ship and are cast into the sea in a lifeboat designed for 60 and there are 80 in it. There are dozens of people in the sea desperate to get into your boat. You let another dozen or so on but now the boat is seriously in danger of sinking. Do you take on more desperate people which will certainly cause you boat to sink and you and your now 100 fellow occupants will certainly perish, or do you abandon the unfortunates still in the water in order to save the 100?”
This actual situation has occurred many times and the awful decisions had to be made. There are unlimited numbers desperate to get into Britain. We cannot accommodate them all.
Well put. What lefties simply refuse to get their closed, bigoted heads around is that this whole immigration debate has nothing whatsoever to do with race, but is entirely to do with resources. Another analogy I use is the wedding planner argument.
Imagine you are planning a wedding for 1300 invited guests. You have to find a venue to accomodate 1300 people, and to feed them at the reception. What will you do when 20,000 people turn up with a legal right to be there, and when many of them are criminals, and a few are terrorists intent on killing the happy couple?
Is it logical to remain blithely complacent about the ability of the venue and invited guests to cope?
A very good analogy especially as it relates to the uninvited ‘guests’ seeking to take advantage of your hospitality rather than escape danger.
But it’s our sneering, smearing, truth-suppressing BBC.
How long can it survive while despising the very people who pay for it? Long enough to critically influence the future of our country, apparently. No-one is willing to do anything decisive about this Corporation which has now gone completely wild-cat.
The BBC shames us as a nation – it is a national disgrace – a laughing-stock we can no longer afford to condone. I now believe it is un-reformable and should be dismantled without delay, so that the future of public broadcasting can be decided rationally, and nationally.
Indeed the vile, racist, paedophile protecting BBC must be closed down. It is the only reasonable recourse to remedy from those treasonous bastards that this country has left.
Speaking of Today, and what is ‘news’ vs. ‘not news’ ((c) A. Newsroom Tealady), I see this morning that their lead is “How big a problem is racism in the classroom, and what can be done to combat it”.
Given what has likely inspired this, but the BBC’s often perverse determination to steer around reality whilst pretending to address issues (a recent look at antisemitism managed to ignore a major source completely), how they address this will be interesting.
how they address this will be interesting.
More likely is “how they address this will be predictable“. Something along the lines of: “This incident was extremely unusual. It remains the case that Asians and Blacks alike are equally likely to be victims of racism and that the perpetrators are most likely to be White. The rise of Islamophobia and populist anti-immigration politicians, fuelled by a migration crisis that can only resolved by an end to all border controls, can only make matters for those who suffer the burden of institutional racism on a daily basis. Recent reports from the UN and the EU both concur that…” Zzzz, blah blah, etc.
Note to BBC editors: please feel free to use this without acknowledgement.
I am utterly sickened by the BBC falling back on the false argument that they are being responsible, in reporting cultural based news in a sensitive manner so as not to (A) offend “minorities” (can they still be called that, or has that word now been deprecated in favour of some other ludicrous monicker?)), and (B) Not fuel some (mythical) violent right-wing extremism. They cannot report on the true scale of Islamic grooming because it might fuel some protests? So it allows tens of thousands of white children to be repeatedly and brutally gang-raped and tortured, so that anyone who is not a follower of the extremely violent religion of peace, will not tut in that typically reserved “British” way.
So this leads to the BBC pandering to the most vile, racist, sexist, homophobic community in the UK and appeases their wanton violence (done in the name of a religion and holy book which has nothing to do with Islam) in order to prevent fueling a fantasy, non-existant “violent right wing extremism”
The BBC MUST be closed down. It is an enemy of the state.
I might suggest that the BBC is an arm of the state. Both are becoming enemies of the people.
”UN’s Francois Crapeau, who thinks anyone who opposes mass immigration is racist.” Is Crapeau saying this to Turkey, India, China ? no, he’s only saying it to white countries and only white countries, Crapeau is anti white.
Looking at the BBC website last night there was an article about a young palestinian boy. It will filled with all the usual heartstring pulling prose designed to ilicit a sympathetic response in the reader and encourage all to feel sorry for this genuine refugee who simply must be given UK taxpayers money, for we are to suppose that there is obviously no other EU member state which has the resources or facilities to offer this desperate refugee the care he needs.
Back in the real world, this boy is not a refugee requiring British help, as he is in a safe country already.
It is typical of the BBC to filter through the thousands of migrants to carefully select one which it can exploit for its own political ends. Instead of selecting a fair cross-section of those migrants to honestly and accurately report the true situation unfolding in Callais, it carefully selects a case which can be exploited for maximum propagandistic effect.
Why have the BBC not reported about the majority of migrants which are rich Syrians, Eritreans, Sudanese, Somalians, etc. with their top of the range smart-phones, designer clothes and utter lack of any recognisable sign of desperation, who are attempting to get into Britain? People for whom France (it would seem), appears to be worse than Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia in their comfortable desperation to illegaly reach our soft and free-housing and food-laden shores?
Could it be because these comfortable illegal criminal migrants fail to fit the false BBC narritive?
If the BBC were impartial, they would report on the desperation of children who have been displaced from war-zones to safely made it to France, as well as the obvious majority of migrants who have no right to be anywhere in the EU at all and are criminals, attempting to get into the UK without any satisfactory legal reason to do so whatsoever?
The BBC’s bias is becoming more overt by the week.
Edit: “Looking at the BBC website last night there was an article about a young palestinian boy.”
Sorry, it was not a young Palestinian, he was Syrian. I had been commenting about Palestine on another forum. Apologies.
I go through the French/ Italian border town of Ventimiglia every week. How many journalists do?
Yesterday there were a hundred or so illegal migrants queued up in front of Ventimiglia station. Same every time. Almost without exception, teenage young men from Somalia Eritrea Sudan, Afghanistan, and just about everywhere else in sub-Saharan Africa.
Italian police had two vans and a dozen men out, chatting and smoking, with each other, doing nothing,
Asylum seekers? Don’t make me laugh. “Fleeing poverty”? Haa ha.
Watching, there is a smuggling network to get them on into Europe, big money.
Our leaders and our Liberal Media speak lies. No children, no women, just the third world’s chancers, looking for a better life (for them, not us)
There are two problems here: illegal immigration, and worthless journalism.
Today, in Iraq and Syria, a murderous genocide of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis, with all the attendant horrors, is being perpetrated by heavily armed and trained Islamic jihadists. The Christians are unable to defend themselves as weapons have been confiscated by ‘governments’ that leave them vulnerable. Who is going to stand up for these people and who protect them? Where are the voices of the millions who have been taught about the Jewish Holocaust at our schools and universities? Where is the voice of the BBC?
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
W B Yeats
How much more childish, leftist, pro immigration and damn the consequences, BBC rubbish can the British public take? Surely everyone can see that if we follow the BBC path we will be just throwing petrol on the fire that is slowly smouldering in our midst. Doesn’t it occur to anyone that, if they and their friends and family don’t agree with more immigration, but the BBC only ever has pro immigration stuff , then the BBC isn’t representing their views and so why do they have to pay the License Fee? In fact the anti democratic BBC is actively suppressing their views as the corporation itself has admitted. Come on Brits tell the BBC where to go and help the government get rid of it.
They’ve been running the racial mixing experiment in the USA for two hundred years now.
There is a story that a German immigrant was asked at Ellis Island what his name was. He didn’t understand the question so he replied, “Ich verstehe nicht” and the immigration officer wrote down “Ferguson”, as that was what the German sounded like to him.
Ferguson, BBC; I don’t understand either.
The time has come to fully dismantle the bbc and replace it with an impartial broadcaster.
EG
Please ensure that the staff are also dismantled and stopped from poisoning some other organisation.
Dare I say here that there are probably no political parties ready to seriously cap net immigration to the UK even though our population size has long been unsustainable?
Birth rates within indigenous populations of developed nations are below average replacement levels (2.2 children) so the solution is to allow net immigration to be set higher than would be normally acceptable, with potentially disastrous consequences.
People on both sides of the argument are missing an important point; that allowing the population to grow boosts the economy (on paper at least). But it is so damaging to infrastructure and sustainability, we’re heading towards many many social problems.
would normally be acceptable?
None of it is acceptable, not one more alien enemy.
Then start exporting them.
Some economists are starting to question this “that allowing the population to grow boosts the economy” and Japan’s aging population is now the one to watch. It is thought that Japan will opt to manage their way technologically to an ever smaller population.
In Europe, the same would be true of Italy except ‘manage’ and ‘economy’ might not fit together so well.
Note the inverted commas around the word ‘lie’ in that last sentence.
Sorry to bore you again.
Apache wars, Zulu wars, Kaffir wars, Maori wars, Sikh Wars, etc.
Everywhere the Europeans went they were met with armed, violent resistance by the natives.
Armed resistance organised by the leaders of the natives.
In Europe we have no resistance and our “leaders” are organising the lack of resistance.
The sole historical example.
So we have replace them with leaders who will expel these unwanted aliens.
Andrew Mitchell was thrown overboard at the first whiff of grapeshot back in 2012(wasn`t it?) over his alleged use of the word “Plebs”.
Since when was THAT worth a report?…well, if the Police Federation can tell the media about it from the inside-then of course the BBC/Union axis of weevils will become a gay maypole to dance around-or slide up and down upon if they`re addressing students and younger.
So Mitchell is no balanced defender of the Tories-shell shocked and due to pay whacking damages for nothing much…hardly in his right mind is he?
No-when I saw the Conquest quote, I thoght that maybe the BBC had noted his passing and learned something from the Big Lie when told Often Enough.
Course not-these self righteous wankers will ring an ex EU President on a mobile these days to get the “narrative moved along”.
They also reckon we`ve “got the tone wrong” when it comes to Bin Ladens death, to fussing over 9/11 as we did…and in regard of Lee Rigby and Islamic State too.
Heard just my usual “sour hour” of radio 4 earlier…some crap called “Romantic Outlaws” where Shelley(child abuser/kidnapping druggie and philanderer) brings in Mary Woolstencroft/Godwin-and they rail about wealth and its evils from Lake Geneva and Bath, once the “season is done”.
Then Virginia Woolf walks round Southern Spain abit-oh, how outre…none of us could do THAT with such brio, verve and style.
House got bombed in the Civil War-now why do I think that it was the Left that did that-had Franco done it, we`d surely have heard.
As ever-the Good Rebellion gets yet another airing.
Nah, fuck `em,,,the BBC are serial Romantic Outlaws, hoping to consummate something marvellous and eye-catching with Islamic State…and we let them speak for us.
How will we squash IS. if we`ve not shown them what we do to OUR traitors at the BBC-not paying them would be the first sign that we` ll fight for this country and its culture-while we still can.
The London Borough of Haringey (Tottenham) has over 190 different languages spoken.
This is where ‘Saint Duggan of BBC’ was raised.
..
“It will deprive the inhabitants of Third World countries of the incentives needed to change their own nations if they can simply move somewhere else and refrain from confronting the reasons for their failures.”
Fjordman ‘Defeating Eurabia’.
“allow in more migrants…..not a leading question at all is it?, one that pre-supposes we should let them in”
Have thought for many years that a retired Judge ought to be drafted in to The TODAY Programme to intervene when the presenters lead witnesses, sorry .., I mean interviewees. One or two are especially poor. Of the others, one doesn’t need an interviewee or contributor at all. They could just supply all the answers and then give the questions – in that order.
They usually do.
When are BBC Editors, Producers, & Station or Channel Heads going to develop some nous and backbone and sack the delinquents? It would happen in any other business but not, apparently, at the BBC.