BBC asks "Why so sensitive on immigration?"

From this morning’s Today programme:

As the election approaches, immigration has become a primary concern for many voters but the sensitivity around it is preventing election candidates from making immigration a central issue.

Could that sensitivity and reluctance perhaps have anything to do with the way the BBC has dealt with the issue in the past? When immigration – or more specifically Tory immigration policy – became a major topic during the 2005 election campaign, the Today programme responded by doing an outside broadcast (on St George’s Day) from Leicester. The leader of the Conservatives on Leicester City Council was invited on to defend his party’s policies; he faced a hostile audience and a clearly biased Carolyn Quinn who sided with the crowd and lobbed easy leading questions to a pro-immigration community representative.

It’s a bit rich of the BBC to suddenly start asking why politicians from the mainstream parties are reluctant to talk about immigration when the BBC itself has shown such antagonism towards those who have raised the issue in the past.

Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to BBC asks "Why so sensitive on immigration?"

  1. dave s says:

    Interesting that now a “debate” is called for. Perhaps the reason is that , having suppressed debate for so long, the lib elite is now afraid that it has lost control of the agenda.
    I suspect that the majority population has made it’s mind up and debate is now futile. The decision has been made and it is not one to the elite’s liking.
    All the parties know this and have no idea how to cope.
    The attempt to socially engineer this ancient country to fit some insane idealistic world view was always going to end in tears and the elites were so arrogant and stupid that they simply could not see it.
    Debate all you want. It no longer matters.


  2. John Anderson says:

    Here’s an article I found today that gives numerical detail to the way large-scale immigration has improved the Dem polling and damaged the Republicans :

    Exactly the same has been happening in Britain,  to the extent that the Labour Party is now hugely dependent in immigrant votes.  It knows that most immigrants are relatively poor and unskilled,  and will be more dependent on state and local council benefits and services.   So it has been in Labour’s interest to build up this huge dependent class – as voting fodder.

    And at the same time Labour has massively increased the size of public-sector employment – again increasing the proportion of people who depend on the state for their employment.  Asking them to vote for parties who will take an axe to public spending is like asking turkeys to vote for Chrismas.

    Does the BBC ever point out these clear demographic/polling facts ?  No – because the Beeboids want the left parties to win.


    Meanwhile the whole tone of the BBC’s coverage of the “problems” at detention centres for illegal immigrants has taken the side of the illegals.   Sod the indigenous population who clearly want all immigration cut,  legal or illegal.  No,  we have to have sympathy for people who choose to come here illegally and put their children at risk of being sent to detention centres.


  3. hippiepooter says:

     “Rich” doesn’t even begin to cover it.  I remember when Hague was running for PM, the BBC pounded away relentlessly that he was a racist for making an issue of bogus asylum seekers, and the British public, as much as they dont like bogus asylum seekers, dont like racists either, so enough didn’t vote for him to let Blair in again.  Immigration is yet one of numerous issues that the BBC dictates the terms of debate on according to its left-wing agenda.  There isn’t much hope from the current Tory Leadership that they’re going to give any lead in giving BBC bias short shrift.  
    Even if Cameron is elected, he’s going to find that getting elected by pandering to BBC bias is just going to make the country ungovernable for him.  If he’s not willing to take on the forces that are destroying our country while in Opposition, these forces are going to destroy him when he is in Government.  His ‘cleverness’ is going to make the Tory Party unelectable for a generation.  Its better he loses.


  4. George R says:

    This Labour government (aided and abetted by the BBC) has undertaken a policy of mass immigration since 1997; such a policy has served the dual purpose of:

    1.) increasing Labour’s vote among the 3 million immigrants since then from countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria and Afghanistan;

    2.) forcing this ‘multiculturalism’ on British people (mainly the English).

    “The Ethnic Cleansing of the English” (by Paul Weston)


    • John Anderson says:

      George R

      You say 3 million.  But the plain fact is that no-one knows how many people have entered the UK, legally or illegally.  No proper figures are kept of entry and leaving, no proper census is taken each 10 years.  There has been a large “industry” organising mass movement,  whether by “work permit” – endless unskilled Bangladeshis etc claimed by employers toi be needed in catering, by marriage,  by bringing-in of in-laws, parents and grandparents, by illegal entry, by “student” entry which is supposed to be temporary and for worthwhile courses but is usually a scam aimed at permanent entry.

      Meanwhile there has been a sharp increase in British emigration,  especually to OZ, New Zealand, Canada etc. and warmer climes in Europe for the retired.  

      In major cities,  the social balance has seen massive change.  Downgrading of skills,  increasing the lower-levels of educational attainment and employment,  increasing the socially dependent, economically inactive.

      If the total is only  “3 million” – I’m a Chinaman.   And even 3 million portends serious demographic change.

      Just look at any UK primary school.


  5. George R says:

    BBC: is for  Labour’s mass immigration stealth policy, and is for Labour’s Islamisation of Britain.

    There’s nothing online at BBC about this further implementation of Sharia law:

    ‘Jihadwatch’ comment on ‘Daily Mail’ report:


    “The problem is not that Muslims want to live according to the dictates of Sharia. The problem is that everyone else has to as well. ”

    “Note that increased demand from Muslims results in discrimination against non-Muslims: the Muslims in the area apparently would not have been content with halal selections on the menu. All food not in compliance with Islamic food laws had to be eliminated — in accord with the unilateral and supremacist nature of Sharia.”

    UK: KFC diner told “you can’t have bacon in your burger here – we’re now halal”


    • dave s says:

      KFc ‘s decision is fully in line with the doctrine of submission. It is monocultural rather than multicultural. However in the inverted reality world of the liberal West it is seen as the exact opposite- that is a selfless multicultural gesture.
      They are insane.
      On another level it is yet one more example of the alliance between the corporations and the ruling libleft world view.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        This reminds me of that fast-food story in France. There are a couple of different types of bias on display in this BBC report about Quick Drive in France having halal-only outlets.  It’s presented as the fast-food change “reaching out” to Muslims.  Now, as someone with libertarian leanings, I don’t have a problem with that at all. If a business wants to make money, they offer what customers want.  That’s not dhimmitude:  it’s pragmatism.  If they don’t make more money doing that, they’ll stop. The BBC even reports that halal food is big business in France.  Of course, the obligatory PC language made them say this is “reaching out”, as if this were a Social Cohesion move (which is probably how most Beeboids see this anyway, as they have no clue about the real world), and not an amoral, practical business decision.

        The reporter says that many French people are seeing this as evidence of a “more assertive” Muslim attitude.  You can tell this is not a story about Britian or the US, because there’s no ominous suggestion of violence, and no national flag is presented as a racist symbol.  Nor are any politicians villified, as they would be if they were British.

        The other bit of bias is the matter-of-fact presentation of a French kid’s explanation for why these halal outlets are not good (starting at 1:23).  He says that it’s “dangerous” to have separate establishments for kosher and halal foods, and that everyone should live together without these divisions and not impose outside customs on everyone.  He says that all three kinds of food should be offered in the same places to everyone.

        This is totally ignorant.  Anyone who strictly observes either kosher or halal dietary laws cannot eat it in a place that serves anything else.  So it’s literally impossible.  The BBC doesn’t want to openly criticize this viewpoint.  As it’s not being made by a BNP or Tory spokesman, there’s no political gain to be had.  Why don’t they get an older man or woman to express their views?  Or a less bohemian-looking youngster, for that matter?  They most likely would be more offensive, and the BBC isn’t interested in that.  Even so, this kid says halal-only outlets are “dangerous”.  That’s just as bad as anything said in the UK, but because there’s no benefit to Labour in criticizing, the Beeboids leave it alone.


  6. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC toady machine at work this AM on the subject of immigration.

    The narrative is clear, immigration is great and those who oppose it are reactionary bigots, the sole voice of reason in the from of migration watch was given a clipped down 20 odd seconds to put his point of view(how generous) and the rest of the airtime went to pro immigration views and opinions.
    Notice how the BBC mindest works, they start by asking themselves the questions how can we give the illusion of impartial reporting while still being able to peddle the narrative? and how can we decieve the listener into thinking that the narrative is the consensus and those opposed to the narrative are a tiny minority?
    Notice how the views of those who want us to believe that the tidal wave of immigration has brought only benefits are given near unlimited airtime and those who simply want more funding from central government to cope with the influx are given almost the same airtime.
    Notice the overarching narrative at work here? Immigration is good and if only more funding became available to the regions affected to provide more services like education and health services all would be well.
    These immigrants only come here to work, the narrative tells us in rosy terms how all these immigrants come to work and contribute by way of taxes etc yet nothing is said of those who have no intention of working or are even capable of working, nothing is said about how much immigrants take in terms of social benefits,housing stocks,healthcare put side by side with how much they contribute in taxes.
    Third world immigrants and immigrants from poor eastern EU nations see in the UK a veritable smorgasboard of free cash available from the lavish state and they are intent on taking as much as they can. Those from poor EU nations fully realise that they only have to find poorly paid jobs for a few months and then the whole benefit system is opened up to them forever and unsurprisingly they take full advantage of it.
    Third and second world immigrants are experts in shaking the money tree and now account for a massive and growing burden on the ordinary people of the UK who have to fund this lavish money tree and it is ordinary people who have been forced to move aside as the newcomers take limited state services.
    The toady show so eager to present immigrants as contributers to the UK ignore the real costs, if these real costs are added up there is simply a massive financial disparity that grows by the week.
    The fantasy that immigration on a scale not seen since the Saxon migrations is a benefit is one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against the people of the UK, this enforced migration is caused by lavish state funding, take that funding away and the migration tsunami would cease.
    The government may as well hang a giant sign at our ports saying ‘FREE MONEY HERE COME AND GRAB IT’.


    • Cassandra King says:

      Just a further thought on the above post regarding the influx of immigrants from eastern europe.
      No mention on the toady of the tax credit scam where those immigrant workers actually get back much more in tax credits than they pay on their low wages, that alone puts them in the contribution red zone.
      The tax credit scam alone makes working for the gang masters now controling the farm working sector more than worthwhile and this is seperate from the added costs of healthcare,benefits,housing and schools.
      The truth is that immigrants take more than they give, they cost more than they contribute, they take jobs from those British people who could work. In effect the tax credit scam alone makes the immigrants trip over to the UK profitable and all paid for by a dwindling number of net tax contributers.


      • dave s says:

        Everything you say is correct. Now that we have become a 50/50 state- actually a 53/47 state- it becomes unsustainable. When any state takes this much of the GDP for itself it enters the realm of lunacy or communism- much the same as we have seen  in Europe- and is inevitably doomed to economic meltdown. Around October this year is my bet.
        Immigration has exacerbated this drift to a 50/50 state whilst being presented as of economic benefit.
        We now know the real reason for it courtesy of Andrew Neather and I suspect we will discover that the real reason for the creation of the current 53/47 state is the same. The destruction of the English middle and working class for the benefit of who?
        Sometimes I really wonder who , if anyone , is pulling the strings.
        To be ruled by those who despise us is becoming intolerable


        • John Anderson says:

          Thatcher had the public sector proportion of the economy down to 42%.

          Brown’s entire time since 1997 has been spent ratcheting up the public sector.


  7. Will says:

    Cassandra King “No mention on the toady of the tax credit scam where those immigrant workers actually get back much more in tax credits than they pay on their low wages

    No mention almost anywhere, I would suggest.

    A worker with 2 children earning about £23,000 pa pays no net income tax or NI. So that family’s contribution to the cost of public services that it receives is limited to the indirect taxes paid. Low paid immigrants (along with an unemployed population)  must be net cost to the UK.


  8. freddo41 says:

    There was a classic exchange in the immigration piece between the reporter and Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch. Sir Andrew was explaining how unlimited immigration   was leading to a change in the population of London and a change in the nature of the whole city.
    Reporter: What does it matter?
    Sir Andrew: Only the BBC would ask that question.



  9. Dave says:


    That was indeed a classic.