Via Instapundit, I found this article on race relations. In general I think it strives to be fair, even sounding a note of regret over the way that until recently any politician raising the issue was labelled a racist. However given that I am more pro-immigration than many on this site, perhaps commenters will disagree. Be that as it may there was one paragraph in the article that showed how even a well-intentioned BBC writer tends to leave out stories that don’t fit the preferred narrative:
Britain’s last serious race riots – when violent clashes erupted between white and Asian youths in northern England – happened seven years ago.
Bad as they were, I don’t recall the riots between whites and Asians of 2001 resulting in any deaths. In contrast the riots between blacks and Asians in the Lozells area of Birmingham in 2006 resulted in the unprovoked murder of Isiah Young-Sam, a black IT worker.
I would have described the riots in 2006, not those of 2001, as the “Britain’s last serious race riots”. They were more serious and more recent. I suspect that, probably unconsciously, the writer of this article did not consider them because whites were not involved.
I found it a little odd that the BBC didn’t seem to regard various immigrants/children of immigrants setting off bombs in London and killing 50 people in 2005 as an example of a racial violence legacy of immigration.
More likely that being in 2006, they didn’t fit the BBC narrative of “no recent race riots”
The BBC didn’t even report the racial aspect of them for DAYS, long after even the Guardian and Independent were describing them as what they were, i.e. race riots.
Of course the riots of 2006 don’t count to the beeb…only white people can be involved in racist violence.Any friction between other minorities is either a right wing lie or just another wonderful example of the extra colour and spice our new citizens bring to dull old Britain..how did we ever do without them?
The Bradford riots of 2001 were not whites vs asians.
“I found it a little odd that the BBC didn’t seem to regard various immigrants/children of immigrants setting off bombs in London and killing 50 people in 2005 as an example of a racial violence legacy of immigration.”
Probably because the motives were more religious than racial.
Natalie:
The BBC did rather fuck up here didn’t they?
There is, of course, more BBC deference to the over-represented, unrepresentative Mr. T. Phillips today.
“Phillips warns of race ‘cold war'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7356993.stm
Without irony, we are told that he will give an address in the same Birmingham hotel room as did Mr. E. Powell, 40 years earlier. The Midland Hotel must be pleased: ‘coach trips, school visits welcome. Visit Enoch’s room. Plaque to be unveiled soon’. Rageh Omaar had his turn to visit recently. So why not another English expert on immigration and race: Mr. T. Phillips?
While Mr. Phillips says that Mr. Powell closed down any debate on race and immigration, the reality is that now Mr. Phillips closes down debate on mass immigration by not recogising the full impact of what his Labour government is engineering. Mr. Phillips does not, for example, call for a halt to Labour’s campaign to get Turkey into the E.U. At least 1 million Turks, unstoppable under
E.U.rules, are likely to emigrate to the UK; and the conflicts between different cultural and racial groups will increase:
Channel 4:”Immigration: The Inconvenient Truth,” (Part 2, final section)-
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=-lf4NZp7KQA&feature=related
“While Mr. Phillips says that Mr. Powell closed down any debate on race and immigration” – what else would this tosser say? He has to spout the party line. The truth is that Powell made many people aware for the first time that there was something TO debate. But Beeboids and McLiars are too dumb to see that.
“While Mr. Phillips says that Mr. Powell closed down any debate on race and immigration”
What a joke.
The government, the media and all the supporters of mass immigration at the time had absolutely no intention of opening up a debate on immigration – ever.
It was to be simply imposed upon the British people from above, whether they liked it or not.
The only reason we are belatedly discussing immigration now, decades later, is because the authorities are no longer able to keep a lid on a situation entirely of their own making.
Is this how Labour’s Mass Immigration ‘policy’ is decided? -By the Ethnic Catering Alliance? ( I trust that this Ethnic Catering Alliance does not exclude white people. If it doesn’t, why is it named the Ethnic Catering Alliance?)
“Restaurants in migrants protest”
(Apostrophe after the ‘s’ missing.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7356990.stm
This story is ideal for a BBC HYS (not making it up) as follows:
“Are you a restaurant worker affected by the changes in the law? Are you planning to take part in the demonstration?”
“I trust that this Ethnic Catering Alliance does not exclude white people. If it doesn’t, why is it named the Ethnic Catering Alliance?”
I did some research into this, and it turns out ‘White British’ is actually an ethnicity.
“What is the indigenous White British population of London, England and Wales?”
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/minority2.html
“While Mr. Phillips says that Mr. Powell closed down any debate on race and immigration”.
On the contrary, there has been one long one-sided debate about race ever since.Race pervades every nook and cranny of national an local politics.
What Jack Hughes Said.
In so far as the Bradford riots opened with an attack on a wedding party celebrating the marriage of a Hindu lady to a native Briton, ‘whites vs Asians’ manages to include two lies in only three words.
Alex: You say that the bombings of 7/7 were more religious than racial. You are partly correct. However, I’d say it was as much a cultural issue as well.
Fact is Muslims don’t like the western way of life and the liberal media make excuses for their savage mentality. I still want to know what a “moderate Muslim” is? It seems to me to be one that doesn’t want to blow people up. That’s not moderate to me.
Female circumcision, forced marriage, execution of homosexuals, their treatment of women generally and their desire to kill anyone who says anything negative about their “great religion of peace”
I don’t think people generally have a problem with people who come here and want to live by our rules. What they do object to is the importing of a savage 3rd world view of life that we left behind a long time ago.
IIRC (but I was living overseas then, so I can’t be sure), Powell didn’t ‘close down debate on immigration and race’, it was the furious reaction to him – from Heath as well as Labour – that effectively muzzled any discussion of the issues Powell had raised. Have people forgotten what 1968 was like? Well, it’s evidently the BBC’s favourite year, to judge by their perpetual juvenile recollections. Trevor Phillips is distorting history (not for the first time – remember his ignorant nonsense about the Ottoman Empire helping England beat the Spanish in 1588?). Of course, since Powell has been dead for years, it’s safe to distort history. (And for the record, the erstwhile Classics professor never said ‘rivers of blood’, as the BBC keeps saying, tho’ there was plenty of blood flowing on 7/7.)
You are perfectly correct and there is nothing wrong with your recollection, Libertus.
Does this mean an unqualified success for the BBC’s ‘White Season’ from last month?
Or an own goal? I’m a little confused.
“Well, it’s evidently the BBC’s favourite year, to judge by their perpetual juvenile recollections.”
Have a look at your calendar and that might explain why the BBC currently has a bias towards years ending in 8, or to a lesser extent 3.
No, Alex, you don’t get it (again), but you evidently weren’t around for the Tet Offensive/Printemps Soixante-Huit/Summer of Love – the sacred trifecta of What’s Happening, Man for the aging hippies who rose to the top of the BBC. They are reliving – at considerable public expense – every moment they “remember” (and remember, if you remember the 60s, were you there?) of ’68. I haven’t noticed many programmes about:
1938 (Munich, anyone?)
1948 (NHS, London Olympics – ouch!)
1958 (Ok, not much to recall then …)
1978 (Winter of discontent – no, better not go there, don’t want to be poltical …)
That one is a valid question, and my answer would be that, while ’28, ’78’, ’38 and so on are remembered for their events, the year ‘1968’ is and always has been used to evoke its events. Other years aren’t used as shorthand in the same way. Or have you ever heard of a ‘soixante-sixard’?
”probably unconsciously”
yeah whatever Natalie
You probably meant ‘sub-consciously’ but that would also be (probably) wrong
The BBC updates its over-represented Mr. T.Phillips report again by using its web headline to allow him to tell us what to do, feel and think about immigration to our country:
“UK told not to fear immigration”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7356993.
stm
We have Phillips telling toeing his Labour Party’s open-door immigration ‘policy’ line, by telling us:-
“Whatever we feel about immigrants, immigration is part of our future”.
Is it? Why? Who says so? For what reason?
Phillips should have said, given the critical impact of mass immigration in the UK:
“Whatever we feel about immigrants,
immigration control is part of our future.”
Avoiding statistical analysis of the historically unprecedented increase, and rate of increase, in mass immigration to the UK, the wily Phillips tells us not to worry about “clever foreigners”! So that’s what’s been happening over the past decade of Labour, they’ve beeb bringing in ‘clever foreigners’!I do not trust Phillips on mass immigration. He still spins for Labour. He shouldn’t tell us what to do, feel and think on immigration. We should tell him.
Where does Phillips say stop mass immigration from E.U. and non-E.U. countries? Where does he discuss the House of Lords’ critical report on mass immigration? He needs to refer to ‘Migrationwatch’:
” Seven Deadly Spins”
http://www.migrationwatch.org/Briefingpapers/economic/1_14_seven_deadly_spins.asp
Phillips cannot be trusted with his shifting spin for Labour, and its continuing ‘policy’ of mass immigration. ‘Let’s talk about immigration’ while the door remains wide open for the Turkish millions and all the others. Yes, let them in, let’s give them priority in the economic recession.
There is no such thing as ‘sub(-)consciously’. The unconscious is not ‘sub’ anything.
“Or have you ever heard of a ‘soixante-sixard’?”
I suppose you mean ‘soixante-huitard’ – rhymes (almost) with ‘retard’ – en anglais, je veux dire, pas en francais. Ca suffit! Je ne veux pas que tu repetes les histoires de tes grand-parents. Tu dois finir tes devoirs si tu ne veux pas redoubler.
On the BBC page we read:
BBC home editor Mark Easton says …
the effect of Powell’s speech was in fact to force the issue of immigration off the political agenda, with any politician who ventured to broach the subject risking being accused of playing the race card.
This idea is going around at the moment.
Lets have a think. Imagine if Powell had not made his speech at all – if he had flu that day and never made the speech. Are these pundits – including Mark Easton – really trying to suggest that there would have been an open debate ? You know sensible discussion about the reasons for immigration, the benefits, and the possible problems ? Maybe followed by a referendum ?
No. Not at all. So trying to scapegoat Powell for problems he warned about is sick.
By way if introduction, I’m an American, living in Florida, and am a regular reader of the Biased BBC. Since I don’t actually watch the BBC I can rarely comment on the bias of the BBC.
However, I did read that article yesterday after following Instapundit’s link, and do have some comment on how that article reads to an average American.
The article starts by saying 52% if the British public fear racial violence. The fifth paragraph, when they mention, “… violent clashes erupted between white and Asian youths in northern England”, is the only mention I see of the elephant in the living room — the large Moslem population in the UK.
It isn’t bias, since it is common and well understood usage in the UK, but it would be quite confusing to the majority of Americans.
That confusion would be amplified when, after mention Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech and how it affected immigration debate in the UK. the article goes on to say that immigration is now back in the sphere of public discussion.
However, this then follows:
“The million Eastern Europeans who’ve come to the UK in the last three or four years are not looking to settle for good. Their motives are economic. And perhaps most importantly they are white.
“Forty years after Enoch Powell, the issues of race and immigration have been separated once more.”
The impression given is that it is Eastern European immigration that is causing the tension leading to the poll’s finding that 52% of the British public fear racial violence.
It seems to me to the article subtly conflates white immigration as the likely trigger for racial violence, while more or less completely ignoring the much more serious tensions between Moslem and non-Moslems in England, which — correct me if I’m wrong — I have the impression is the actual simmering cauldron.
In the US the blogsphere would demand that the actual poll questions asked and other raw data of the poll be provided. This all strikes me as being carefully massaged in an attempt to scape-goat the Eastern Europeans.
The BBC updates its over-represented Mr. T.Phillips report again by using its web headline to allow him to tell us what to do, feel and think about immigration to our country:
“UK told not to fear immigration”
George R | 20.04.08 – 6:42 pm
Yes, I spotted this too on Ceefax, they have put a completely different spin on the same news story in the same day:
Version 1:
Phillips warns of race ‘cold war’ – Sun Apr 20 11:20:46 UTC 2008
The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission says tension over immigration is leading to a “cold war” among rival ethnic communities.
Version 2:
UK told not to fear immigration – Sun Apr 20 15:20:47 UTC 2008
The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission says the UK must not “cower in fear and fret” about admitting “clever foreigners”.
Luckily Newssniffer has caught this massive change:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/116295/diff/2/3
The first version makes mass immigration sound dangerous, the second version has shifted the blame onto the British.
Wonder if Labour rang up the BBC and told them to change the spin on the story?
So trying to scapegoat Powell for problems he warned about is sick.
Jack Hughes | 20.04.08 – 9:57 pm
It reminds me of “The Big Lie“. They hope if they repeat it enough, people will start to believe it.
This all strikes me as being carefully massaged in an attempt to scape-goat the Eastern Europeans.
ambisinistral | Homepage | 20.04.08 – 10:22 pm
Yes, “Immigration: The Inconvienient Truth” on Channel 4 also tried to scapegoat the Eastern Europeans (they’ve got white skin, you see) and they aren’t very happy about it. Channel 4 tried to say that immigration only became a problem after 2004 (another one of their “Big Lies”). It seems to be a running theme on both Channel 4 and BBC, just like how they are both also trying to scapegoat Enoch Powell. Maybe it’s that “Common Purpose” thing that another commenter mentioned the other day?
Am I right in thinking that there are family relationships between senior bods in Al Beeb and Channel 4? And ditto senior personnel movements between them?
Nearly Oxfordian | 20.04.08 – 11:33 pm
Am I right in thinking that there are family relationships between senior bods in Al Beeb and Channel 4? And ditto senior personnel movements between them?
Andy Duncan, chief exec at C4 , was at the BBC immediately before taking up his current job.
Mark Thompson, DG at the BBC, was previously Chief Exec at C4.
Julian Bellamy, head of programmes at C4 was previously Controller of BBC 3.
Tessa Ross, Head of Drama/Film at C4 joined from the bbc
Channel 4’s Head of Documentaries, Hamish Mykura, previously spent 10 years at the BBC.
Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion, joined Channel 4 from the BBC where he was deputy editor of documentaries at BBC Religion. One of Ahmed’s predecessors as head of religion at C4 was Elizabeth Clough, partner of the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman.
Peter Salmon, Creative Director, BBC Vision Studios, is a former controller of BBC1. He started off in the BBC but spent spells out at Granada and Channel 4, where he was Head of Factual Programmes.
Meanwhile over at Channel 5, the main players are Jay Hunt (ex-BBC) and Chris Shaw, husband of the BBC’s Martha Kearney.
Natalie – I’m surprised the BBC didn’t call Lozells “intercommunal violence” – thats what they call troubles in India, Kenya, Rwanda etc. You usually only get the r-word if ‘whites’ are involved.
DJ – the trouble at the wedding was at Easter, a couple of months before the “main” riots, and it was a bit more complicated than you make out. I was interested because it all happened in the area I used to live. I blogged what I think happened here :
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/05/lidget-green-riots-what-appears-to-be.html
Well it’s a tactical retreat for the multicultists if they now no longer dismiss Powell as simply racist. I think they’re buying time. So long as they can keep it up for another 10 years Britain will stop existing, oweing to population replacement, and be taken over by the EU superstate armed with the death penalty political offenders and Biometric ID cards to ensure that there is simply no escape.
“So long as they can keep it up for another 10 years Britain will stop existing, oweing to population replacement, and be taken over by the EU superstate armed with the death penalty political offenders and Biometric ID cards to ensure that there is simply no escape.”
mmmmm of course. i’ll make a note to drink myself to death by 21 April 2017 then.
Rageh Omaar’s recent channel4 programme on immigration had a lot about black v asian confrontations. He even admitted that Enoch Powell might have been right. Wouldn’t get that on BBC.
Thanks, Anonymous! I think I’ve made my point 😉
Nearly Oxfordian,
Further to Anonymous’s revealing list, a good chunk of the programming on BBC America is, in fact, C4 product, being flogged as BBC. There is definitely an incestuous relationship between the two, both legally and personally.
Also, the BBC’s Micheal Grade is now at ITV and used to be Channel 4.
It’s like a cosy little club where the broadcasters are run by the same small group of people. I wouldn’t be surprised if they all lived next door to each other in the same part of London.
[deleted]Edited By Siteowner
My question was, indeed, prompted by the vague recollection that Grade had prostituted himself to the highest bidder after swearing eternal love to one or t’other (Channel 4, probably) and then moving across for a big pile of dosh – of our money, it now seems.
“I suppose you mean ‘soixante-huitard’ – rhymes (almost) with ‘retard’ – en anglais, je veux dire, pas en francais. Ca suffit! Je ne veux pas que tu repetes les histoires de tes grand-parents. Tu dois finir tes devoirs si tu ne veux pas redoubler.”
I mean what I say. But well done for passing A-Level French. There is no equivalent for (most) other years, such as 1966 (at least not in politics, and generally England doesn’t need an anniversary for that one), which is firstly why this particular year has its own movement and secondly why it is getting so much more attention than other years ending in the same digit. J’espere que vous comprenniez, et, s’il vous plait, tutoyez-moi pas.
“J’espere que vous comprenniez, et, s’il vous plait, tutoyez-moi pas.”
Tu veux dire: ‘J’espere que vous compreniez (meilleur: ‘comprenez’ ou ‘comprendrez’) et s’il vous plait, ne me tutoyez pas.’
Bollocks double letters.
“But well done for passing A-Level French” – more patronising nonsense from the usual source.
Cher Alex, je tutoie tous les jeunes et surtout mes etudiants.
On the subject of C4 and the BBC sharing lots of senior executives, is this really surprising? There’s not a lot of competition in the UK for executives in broadcast media. Considering the BBC, C4, ITV, and to a much lesser extent Sky are the only broadcasters who commission original programming in the UK there is a very finite supply of ‘talent’ in that sector. It would seem, to me at least, unavoidable that these people would/could have spent time across any/all of these organisations.
Overseas, it’s a sad day when someone like Grade is described as ‘talent’ … I remember when he was asked, during a press conference 6 or 7 years ago, about some technical innovation (HD, maybe? Let’s say it was, ftsoa) that the press had been writing about for weeks if not months, and which even I had made a point of looking up and reading about. Grade turned to one of his minions and asked in a loud whisper: “What’s HD?”.
You couldn’t make it up.
“Cher Alex, je tutoie tous les jeunes et surtout mes etudiants.”
I see. Any more thoughts on the relative significance of 1968, or have you run out?
Are Beeboid ears burning in relation to this analysis of DHIMMIS?
(Extracts from longer article by Bill Warner, linked in first line):
“Dhimmis roll over for all Islamic demands on our civilization. Dhimmis are aiding and abetting implementation of Sharia inch by inch. We are losing the war of annihilation due to the dhimmis, not the Muslims. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that we are so weak. We are weak because we are ignorant.”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/14398
I don’t believe it’s a question of ignorance so much as one of cowardice.