Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread!
Bookmark the permalink.
“America and pay through the teeth for it cos their health care is a load of overpriced shit.”
Is there any evidence of this?
“Since the start of the National Health Service in 1948, its cost has risen enormously.
In 1949/50 (the first full financial year of data) gross NHS expenditure was £447 million pounds in the UK as a whole, compared to an estimated £114,541 million in 2007/08. In terms of 2007/08 prices the figure in 1949/50 would have been £11,429
million, just one tenth of the current expenditure”
“In 1949/50 NHS expenditure took up 4% of GDP, but this proportion had doubled to 8% of GDP by 2005/06. In parallel, NHS cost per person rose from £9 in 1949/50 (equivalent to £227 in 2007/08 prices) to £1,875 in 2007/08”
http://www.ohe.org/lib/liDownload/613/Sixty%20years%20of%20NHS%20expenditure%20&%20workforce.pdf?CFID=218839&CFTOKEN=34829372
“..quick to knock Britain”
So no criticism of Britain, it is Utopia.
Matt Frei was just talking to a head scarf-clad young woman from the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. They discussed that Muslims in the US are mostly educated and successful, contrary to what Frei said were “stereotypes of Muslims in America”.
I don’t remember ever hearing stereotypes like that. In fact, uneducated and unemployed Muslims sounds like a stereotype in the UK and Europe instead. As the conversation went on, the Muslim woman revealed that 40% of Muslims in the US described themselves as “thriving”, as opposed to 7% in Britain. Apparently Muslims are far better off in the US than in the UK, even though we’re supposedly racist. Frei Boy even admitted that we don’t have quite the same problem of home-grown Islamic mass murderers as Britain.
Frei asked why, the woman replied, “Economic opportunity.” The conversation seemed on the brink of entering the dangerous territory of integration. Frei sensed this, and shut that down by saying that the difference was that most Muslims in the US “wanted to be here”.
Apparently all those unemployed, angry Muslims in Britain were forced to move there and accept benefits against their will.
Next segment: They’re comparing Churchill and FDR’s united front in war to President Obamessiah and Prime Minister Gordon Brown standing together in the great crisis facing the world today. Propaganda on full display. Not enough beer in the house to make this tolerable.
David Preiser (USA) | 03.03.09 – 4:41 am | “Apparently Muslims are far better off in the US than in the UK, even though we’re supposedly racist. Frei Boy even admitted that we don’t have quite the same problem of home-grown Islamic mass murderers as Britain.”
Europe / UK – especially the left has always resented US absorption of ‘minorities’. Love to focus on the negative (homogenous culture – mcdonalds etc). My own experience: middle management meetings (IT/media co.) Chicago everyone very ‘american’ but many first generation – ethnically a veritable UN (including muslim of Indian extraction). Same company, same level London, Amsterdam – spot the difference. (Situation not unusual in the industry I know – no reason to suspect not the norm)
Islamic Pakistan vainly tries to change the image of Islam with its campaign advertising, as propagandised on BBC website, still available here:
‘Pakistan’s British Muslim campaign ad’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7904277.stm
Of course, the emphasis of this campaign is ‘Muslim first’.
Despite the Pakistan reference to cricket, this, as today’s new on ‘cricket’ from Pakistan indicates, is not a socially cohesive activity for Islam:
‘Jihadwatch’
‘Pakistan: “Gunmen” with rocket launchers and grenades kill 11 in attack on Sri Lanka cricket team’
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025081.php
‘Jihadwatch’ raises the question again – for which the BBC always gives the answer ‘no’:
” D.C. Watson: Is the ‘religion of peace’ being defamed?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025077.php
Re-above, the BBC attitude is that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, except for a tiny minority of ‘extremists’. The historical and daily evidence of jihad is irrelevant apparently.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
BBC’s ‘Panorama’ decides that now is the time, NOT to discuss putting a strict block on Labour’s unending policy of Mass Immigration, but to discuss an amnesty for the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Britain:
‘Immigration – Time for an Amnesty’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j4bd7
So, BBC ‘Panorama’ is sanguine about this:
‘Mail’
“One in nine people living in Britain now born overseas as 300,000 more foreigners settle in the UK”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153928/One-people-living-Britain-born-overseas-300-000-foreigners-settle-UK.html
And so BBC ‘Panorama’ avoids discussing the urgent need to control mass immigration as the key policy issue here:
‘Migrationwatch’
‘Balanced Migration’
(59 pages pdf document)
[Introductory extract]:
“• Over the last ten years, almost three quarters of a million British people have left
the UK and nearly 2.5 million immigrants have arrived. This rate of inflow is
25 times higher than any previous period of immigration since the Norman
Conquest in 1066.
• Contrary to public perceptions, most immigrants come from outside the European
Union and asylum seekers are relatively few in number. In 2006, for example, only
one third of foreign migrants were from the EU; and only 3% were successful
asylum seekers.”
Click to access balancedmigration.pdf
So typically, the British licencepayer -funded BBC takes up the case of illegal immigrants, not the case to limit UK immigration numbers; that’s the ‘liberal/left’ political bias which is the orthodoxy at the BBC.
One breaking news story is all over the political blogs this morning; in an apparent snub to Gordon Brown, there will be no joint press conference with President Obama….
“Mr Brown Goes to Washington” – http://www.order-order.com/
“Brown Visit unravels” – http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/
The dead tree press are picking up the story…
“White House: No Press conference for Brown” – http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/
“Barrack Obama cancels Brown Press Conference because of Snow”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/03/barack_obama_cancels_press_conference_with_gordon_brown_because_of_snow
But on the BBC all we get is this • “Brown to hold Obama economy talks”. In the entire article there is not one single mention of the cancelled Press Conference • why? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7918345.stm
Labour’s politically pathetic U-turn, and sideshow, enacted by H. Harman:
“Why is Harman after Sir Fred?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7919054.stm
-should be seen in the broader historical context of Labour’s contradictory attitudes towards the ‘City’, ‘high finance’ and ‘big banks’, as Nick Cohen argues in this extract from his new book:
‘Mail’:
“NICK COHEN: A fatal attraction: Labour’s fascination with the super-rich will destroy the party and could take Britain down with it”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1145222/NICK-COHEN-A-fatal-attraction-Labours-fascination-super-rich-destroy-party-Britain-it.html
Perhaps it wouldn’t suit the BBC’s political predilections to take this up.
GeorgeR
What an excellent piece by Nick Cohen. He always seemed to me (at the Guardian ?) one of the very few clear thinkers on the left who recognised the threats we face.
Who are the Lahore killers?
The BBC, via Barbara ‘tears for Arafat’ Plett, gives about as much uncritical space to this Pakistan Minister’s anti-India speculations, as to any other:
[Extract]:
” But a Pakistani minister, Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol, reportedly told private Geo TV that evidence suggested the attackers came across the border from India.
“He said the assault came in reaction to the Mumbai attacks, and was a ‘declaration of open war on Pakistan by India’.”
‘Gunmen shoot Sri Lanka cricketers’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7920260.stm
George R | 03.03.09 – 1:08 pm |
I’m sure Plett will figure out that this attack on a few Buddhist cricketers – which resulted in the deaths of Muslim policemen only – was really due to Sri Lanka’s relentless attacks on Tamil Muslims. Oh, sorry, “Tamil Tiger separatist rebels”.
Why not mention the “M” word when discussing the Tamils in Sri Lanka, I wonder? Perhaps, like trying to place blame for the attacks in Bombay on India’s treatment of Kashmir, we’re supposed to take the simplistic route of blaming it on the government of the victims.
If anybody ever doubted the power of the BBC to lead and distort the news agenda, then please read the following piece courtesy of Dizzy Thinks • And remember it was Robert Preston who broke the Fred Godwin story on the eve of the GVN’s potential £325 billion insurance bail-out of RBS…
Headline: Six Months And £114,000 later and its suddenly an issue?
“Will someone, anyone, explain to me why there has been shock and outrage at the size of Fred Goodwin’s pension? I mean it’s not like its been some sort of secret for the past six months.
“[Goodwin] has an £8.37 million pension pot that will pay him £579,000 per year when he reaches the bank’s retirement age.” – Daily Telegraph 12th October 2008
“[Goodwin] has an £8.37m pension pot that will pay him £579,000 a year.” – Haber 27 (Turkey) 13th October 2008
“[Goodwin] departure will be cushioned by a pension pot of £8.4m, worth £579,000 a year” – This is Hull October 13th 2008
“Goodwin has an £8.4m pension pot that will pay him £579,000 a year when he reaches retirement age.” – The Guardian October 13th 2008
“Sir Fred said he would waive his right to a £1.2m payoff when he leaves, but he will be entitled to an annual pension £579,000.” – The Independent 14th October 2008
“[Goodwin] has an £8.37million pension pot that will pay him £579,000 a year when he reaches 60.” – Daily Mirror October 14th 2008
Are we to presume that now that the pot doubled, and he stands to get a £693,000 per year pension instead, that the extra £114,000 a year was just a step too far for the likes of Brown and Harman? Or more correctly are we to presume that the whole issue is a piece of spin to divert attention away from the far more pressing matter of the Government’s incompetence?
More worrying I guess is the way so many of the newspapers have dedicated column inches to a story they already covered and hardly passed any judgement on six months ago. Amazing what £114,000 and a quiet word from the Downing Street press office can do huh?”
http://dizzythinks.net/2009/03/six-months-and-114000-later-and-its.html
Lunacy alert!
BBC headline: “Government to lend to PFI firms”
Today, Treasury Minister Yvette Cooper has announced that the GVN lend up to £2 Billion pounds to companies which have successfully bid for PFI contracts. Apparently according to the Minister, it is best to stick with the PFI structure because it means construction will begin more quickly and the private sector will “continue to bear the risk of cost overruns and delays”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7920522.stm
How could the BBC allow a GVN minister to spout such bollocks and get away with it • is beyond me.
FACT: This country is currently running a budget deficit • so the GVN will have to borrow the £2 Billion itself (and incur interest charges) to lend the same sum to the PFI contractor.
FACT: The ‘commercial rate’ that the GVN will charge for lending the PFI contractor the money to build the PFI project will be less than the interest rate that the PFI contractor will be charging the purchasing public body i.e. NHS Trust or Local Education Authority.
FACT: UK PLC will now in the last resort be responsible for the debt incurred at all stages in these contracts. Remember • if the contractor defaults, the taxpayer will pick up the tab because we have leant the money to the contractor in the first place. If the purchasing public body defaults then according to standard PFI contracts • the Treasury steps in to pay the shortfall.
So instead of building a Hospital/School with money borrowed directly by the GVN at sovereign debt interest rates. We will be re-cycling this money through a third party • who will then charge the taxpayer an extortionate premium for the privilege. This is absolutely barmy!!!
True • the BBC does report Lib Dem attacks on the scheme (why no comment from the Tories?) but why doesn’t the BBC itself examine the obvious financial lunacy of Yvette Cooper’s statement in more detail.
And before Beeboids cry impartiality! Would anybody, anywhere, care to justify the GVN’s plans?
Classic BBC Radio 5 from John pinhead. Brown is upset there is not going to be a full press conference.
pinhead then states that Obama is not keen on them.
No shit Pinhead. People on this blog were pointing out that the man hates being given difficult questions, so during the election 99% of the media didn’t give him a hard time.
If the media had given his 10% of the kicking that Sarah Palin got every day people might have seen Obama for what he really is. An incompetent wind bag who has no idea.
The latest profound BBC ‘analysis’ of who is to blame for the Lahore killings, from BBC journalist Paul Adams on BBC News TV:
-The “MILITANTS” are responsible, plus the Western forces (US and other forces), which are attacking such “militants”, because such Western attacks put the Pakistan government under increasing pressure, from the ‘militants’.
The BBC remains in denial about how ISLAMIC JIHADISTS, inspired by the texts of Islam itself, are ruthlessly acting to impose Islamic supremacy everywhere they can.
The only vague ‘M’ word the BBC uses is “militants” in this context.
Don’t trust the BBC on Islam. It has a political agenda.
Here’s how Toenails Robinson is reporting the Great Leader’s trip to Washington from his vantage point up the prime ministerial fundament:
It is just a first step, albeit a significant one, in establishing what the White House now likes to call the ‘special partnership’ between Britain and America.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
And here is the State broadcaster’s official line:
Mr Brown will be the first European leader to meet Mr Obama since he became president in January.
He will also become the fifth British prime minister to address Congress when he does so on Wednesday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7918345.stm
But THIS is the real story:
Oh dear. Gordon Brown has landed in Washington to discover that there is to be no joint press conference with Barack Obama, none of the treatment that Bush, Clinton and Bush routinely gave visiting British Prime Ministers. Just a 30-minute chat and a couple of questions probably sitting on some chairs. To the frustration of No10, it seems that the Obama White House has its own protocol….. Hilariously, No10 is claiming the press conference was planned but was cancelled “because of snow” – as if Obama had made podiums out of snow in the rose garden, but visibility wasn’t so good. There is more comedy. Brogan observes that the gift that Brown has chosen for Obama is a relic from a ship that used to shell rebels in Sudan. Nice touch. No10 say they are still negotiating, evidently still holding out for a press conference. That’s what I call the audacity of hope.
UPDATE: No.10 is in a tiz. It says there will be a “media event” rather than a press conference, and adds it is still “in talks with the White House on the format” of said event. Why admit to the wrangling behind the scenes? Better to pretend it’s all going as planned. If the White House never offered the press conference, why allow journalists to think otherwise? Basic error of expectations management here, it sounds almost as if no one had the nerve to tell to Brown that he will not get the Blair treatment. Just half an hour, no more. It makes it all the worse that Obama’s diary includes a meeting with the Boy Scouts of America.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3405536/brown-visit-unravels.thtml
An incompetent wind bag who has no idea.
——-
summed yourself up nicely there martin
Gus Haynes:
Still waiting for your answer on the GDP issue Gus.
You must remember • you know my ‘arcane’ point about Brown underestimating the national debt by around 60-70 Billion and the BBC not pulling him up on his little Brownie. Sloppy journalism, as opposed to outright bias, I think you called it.
So remind me again, why wasn’t this mistake rectified in the BBC report?
On separate note Gus • perhaps you could explain why Andrew Marr gave Harriet Harman an easy ride on Sunday. You know not mentioning Lord Myners signing off Sir Fred’s pension.
See – http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/03/harriet-harman-let-off-hook.html
Then of course, there is the BBC’s penchant for setting the news agenda to suit labour’s purposes. Where (or should I say, from whom) do you suppose Robert Preston got that story about Sir Fred’s pension in the first place. And as Dizzy asks elsewhere • why is it so pertinent today, when we knew in September that he had walked off with 500,000 + PA for life. Doers the extra £114,000 really make that much difference?
http://dizzythinks.net/
Are these all examples of sloppy journalism Gus? Or might, just might, it be something-else?
what GDP issue?
Anonymous | 03.03.09 – 3:47 pm |
Spot on. Everyone except the BBC and labour supporters are reporting the truth. The BBC is still ramping up Brown for all its worth.
Here in North America Brown’s visit, if at all reported, tends to be on the fag end of news programmes.
On CNN’s Lew Dobbs roundup the take was, “So here’s one of the tossers who have been heaping opprobrium on the US now crawling for a cash bailout.
Unlike other prime ministerial visits this one is minus on the richter scale.
Forget it Beeb. The Times, the Telegraph, the Mail have all got it right. Its proving to be a monumental embarrassment right up there with the Welsh windbags visit to Reagan in the 80’s when he was accompanied by the communist Healey. I recall then the BBC’s doomed efforts to salvage that visit too.
Gordon Brown claiming in a Press Conference that GVN debt was 40% of GDP; on the very day that the ONS told us it was 47.8% [even after excluding the RBS & HBOS bailouts].
Not only did the BBC reporter fail to correct our glorious PM, he repeated the claim in his on-line news-report (I provided you with the link last-time) and presumably his editor either ‘forgot’ or ‘failed’ to correct the mistake. Which was odd • given that the ONS report led TV bulletins that day!
In another thread you then claimed that my point about GDP was arcane • I replied that 7.8% of GDP (or approx. 60-70 Billion) was no trifling matter. Remember, how the BBC faithfully reported all those stories about how ‘unfunded’ Tory tax-proposals would leave a 1, 2 or 3 Billion black-hole in public finances; Brown’s little omission sort of puts them into their true perspective, don’t you think?
So I ask again Gus, why does the BBC allow Brown to repeat these Brownies • over and over again? Follow the link and you’ll find a few more that the BBC failed to spot…..
http://www.spectator.co.uk/search/?whatToSearch=searchTheSpectator&x=0&y=0&search=brownies
maybe he said ‘a world leader’. which the PM is.
Gus Haynes | 03.03.09 – 12:30 am |
At best this is delusional.
Brown is not a world leader. He’s barely the leader of his own party.
At the last election Labour polled just 21% of all those eligible to vote. That’s one in five of the electorate. World leader???
And despite all efforts by the BBC, everyone else regognises Brown’s near singlehanded culpability in the demise of the UK economy.
Reality check please Mr. Haynes or are you employed by the BBC as a news editor?
TPO: Personally I don’t mind Brown being called a World leader; he is PM after all. But I draw the line at Nick Robinson comparing him to Winston Churchill. The man isn’t fit to carry Churchill’s bag, let alone be held in the same esteem.
See “The Spirit of Churchill” http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
NB: I bet if Churchill was alive and well, and visiting Washington today, he’d be given a press conference with the messiah 🙂 [And no • not just because of his age]
Jonathan | 03.03.09 – 4:49 pm |
Over at the Spectator there are some very funny comments about all this. I’ve slightly altered one: ‘Mr. Bean meets Sydney Poitier’
To me world leaders are those that are either leaders of superpowers or those from countries with less clout who, like Margaret Thatcher (blessed be her name) stand head and shoulders above the rest of the mongs like brown.
I’m still a Brit and for me brown is not the leader of my country, let alone a ‘world’ leader. this is a pure invention of the BBC.
Must go and clear some snow now off the sidewalk outside our house (local byelaw requirement). Global warming paid us a visit last night and left a foot of snow, the third in two weeks.
Hi Gus,
Are you there? You disappeared last time I asked about the BBC & Gordon’s erroneous GDP claims.
How about this story from Benedict Brogan
Headline: It’s a shambles
“Even the No10 folk admit things are going a bit awry. Downing Street and the White House are locked in protracted negotiations about the terms of this visit, and Mr Brown is due to turn up any minute. We are in the White House press room after an hour spent outside waiting to be let in. Every 10 minutes or so a British official would offer words of apology. “It hasn’t been an ideal start to the day. There will be something in the Oval Office, we’re just fine tuning that with the White House,” one said. Actually this is fairly footling, a row about journalists and who gets in to the Oval Office. Even now we are packed around the podium in the press room, watching arguments between a hard-pressed No10 official and very firm White House staffers about pool numbers. What is more telling is the crisp way the Obama team work. If Downing Street was expecting the kind of love-in that marked the first Blair-Clinton gala at the White House or the Blair-Bush Colgate and video moment at Camp David, this new administration has proved it wrong. There never was going to be a press conference, despite what No10 said. And there is no couple time planned. No Stevie Wonder, no Meet the Parents, no burgers. This is business. Of course, out of chaos comes opportunity. What chance our being told the Obamas have invited the Browns upstairs for a carbonara?”
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/
Funny thing is • Nick Robinson • is covering Brown’s visit with the rest of the press pack (including Mr. Brogan) but he hasn’t blogged about the above shambles • I wonder why?
Any suggestions Gus?
why would i know? and how does this story prove bias? more misguided chicken.
just cos he/bbc havent reported something it does not mean they are in labours pocket. only a tory could think that. or BNP maybe, judging by some of the characters here
Well I’m not too sure what your definition of bias is Gus? But if not reporting on the PM’s visit to Washington going belly up and not correcting the PM lies about GDP • don’t count, them I not sure anything would. Unless your waiting for Nick Robinson to appear on TV with a Red rosette and a ‘I love Gordon’ hat.
As for your comment that only a Tory or BNP supporter would conclude that the BBC is biased… didn’t Andrew ‘champagne socialist’ Marr once confess “There is an innate liberal bias within the BBC”?
BTW Good call – I will be voting Tory at the next election – care to impart which party you will be voting for Gus? SWP, LIb-Dem or are you one of Gordon’s dwindling few. If so – good luck – you’ll need it 🙂
Brookes cartoon (top one), on Brown meeting Obama (unlikely to be shown on BBC TV):
‘Times’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/
Oh dear: Another story that the BBC missed. This time our £3.5 Billion national state broadcaster was beaten to the punch by the internationally renowned Newcastle Journal…
It transpires that Sir Fred ‘loadsofpension’ Goodwin was a GVN advisor until five weeks ago.
http://blogs.journallive.co.uk/journalblogcentral/2009/03/fred-goodwin-advising-the-gove.html
Of course, this story (like Gordon’s GDP lies, today’s humiliation in Washington etc…) are all embarrassing for the GVN • but as Gus reminds us • just because the BBC doesn’t report them; it doesn’t mean that the organisation is biased. It’s all one big coincidence you see…. Of course, it is Gus 🙂
Just keep taking the pills and you’ll be fine Gus – honest!
Forgot to add. Part of Godwin’s GVN remit was to examine “proposals to reduce administrative burdens of regulation” in the financial sector.
I guess that means this story won’t be appearing on the BBC – period!
why would i know? and how does this story prove bias? more misguided chicken.
just cos he/bbc havent reported something it does not mean they are in labours pocket. only a tory could think that. or BNP maybe, judging by some of the characters here
Gus Haynes | 03.03.09 – 5:13 pm |
Ha ha ha. Standard fallback position. “Racist” “BNP” “Tory”
The BBC are in labour’s pocket. QED
The BBC is trying to make a silk purse purse out of a pigs ear with the Mr McBean goes to Washington fiasco!
‘Brown hails Obama and Obama hails the special relationship’ blah blah as it hails outside, all hail everything?
Nick(toenails)Robinson tried so hard to paper over the cracks that he went off for a lie down and hasnt come back yet!
The very idea that brown could swan off to Washington with the crazy idea he could use and abuse Obama in a vain attempt to prance and preen in front of the media is typical of Browns desperation and retarded mind.
In Browns warped mind he thought that he could pose as the new presidents mentor and wise council guiding the inexperienced young man and of course getting his spin doctors to make it appear that Brown was the greater man!
A cheap political stunt more akin to cheap fraud than statesmanship I think? The BBC has driven up a real cul de sac with this bit of manufactured drivel and the furious BBC spinning is comedy gold!
Brown is making a complete ass of himself in front of the world, is there no end to the national humiliation that the crazed fool is heaping upon us?
PeterN | 03.03.09 – 8:39 am |
Europe / UK – especially the left has always resented US absorption of ‘minorities’. Love to focus on the negative (homogenous culture – mcdonalds etc). My own experience: middle management meetings (IT/media co.) Chicago everyone very ‘american’ but many first generation – ethnically a veritable UN (including muslim of Indian extraction). Same company, same level London, Amsterdam – spot the difference. (Situation not unusual in the industry I know – no reason to suspect not the norm)
That’s an interesting perspective. If it came from a United Statesian like me, nobody here could be expected to buy it. But that’s pretty much my own experience as well, which jibes with what the Muslim woman was telling Matt Frei. The thing is, I’m well aware of an immigrant neighborhood scene in the US which is exactly as bad as that of Muslims in the UK. In fact, not only did I grow up in the vicinity of one in Arizona, but I currently live in one in NYC: Hispanics.
In AZ, it was, of course, Mexicans. There were two kinds, both of which were as much first-generation or second as made no difference as far as the longevity factor was concerned. The only factors which did make a difference in the success of the work-able (meaning those who could hold a job, manual labor or whatever) were the ability to speak functional English and a “do it when asked, as asked” work ethic.
No such thing as benefits or political asylum dole in the Southwest of the 1970s, (or ’80s or ’90s for that matter). Other than that, there were plenty of parallels to modern day Britain. Some immigrants were there to stay with their families (or bring them in a year or two, deity willing). The vast majority of them not only learned English but forced their children to adapt the Protestant work ethic, go to school, dream the American Dream, etc. The other faction was there only to earn money to send back home to build the family plot in western Chichuahua or wherever. Those people not only never learned English, but ended up staying for decades, with a second US-based family, as often as not on welfare. The exact same scenario exists three blocks away from where I live now, except it’s all Dominican with a recent influx of Mexicans from the Yucatan Peninsula. The ones who learn functional English and adapt to the local work culture thrive, and their children are mostly successful, even if they breed too young. The ones who don’t, aren’t, nor are any offspring, which are more likely to be spread around the welfare rolls.
There is precious little difference in economic opportunity in working class areas of Britain than there is in the working class area in which I live, or the even harsher environments a bit south and east. Yet, more of them are, well, not so much integrated as cognizant of their membership in human society (which leads to the kind of positive attitude you’re talking about, I think). I believe we all know what the key factor is here, and it ain’t the English-speaking capabilities of the local religious leaders.
In other words, everything the BBC is telling you about why Mohammedans in Britain are so prone to wanting to behead you and your family that the editorial policy must make extra effort to favor them (according to Mark Thompson, for a start, as well as everything Frei Boy was trying to draw out of his Muslim guest) is demonstrably false.