Here’s a wonderful example of some BBC dissembling. Remember those deplorable summer riots? Guess who is “to blame”? That’s right – the Police!

A lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots in London in August led to further disturbances across England, a report has concluded. The Riots, Communities and Victims Panel found it had “encouraged people to test reactions in other areas”. The panel found there was no single cause of the riots but said it was shocked at the “collective pessimism” among the young people it spoke to.It warned that such riots would happen again unless action was taken.

Right then, so people were forced to “test reactions” in other areas of the UK because the Met held back? I see. Not only that but with all this pessimism about, how on Earth could anyone be expected to hold back from looting and arson? The Panel that has produced this nonsense is allowed to pontificate with NO voice of response on the BBC report.

Wake up Call

“Now for a party political broadcast on behalf of Islam.”
Not heard in so many words on the BBC, but the strategy of bringing Muslims and Islam into our lives with a series of “they’re just like us” programming has been hammering away at the audience with the intensity of one of Saatchi’s finest ad campaigns.

As well as programmes about Islam itself, programmes about Muslim family life, programmes about Islamic culture, dramas with Muslim heroes, plots where all things Islamic are depicted as virtuous, often contrasted with some indigenous British scroungers, scoundrels and amoral good-for-nothings just in case we haven’t already got the message that Islam is thoroughly and benignly British, there is the increasing role Islamic preachers are playing in mainstream religious broadcasting.

This would be all very well if they were willing and able to openly mention and examine the negative characteristics associated with Islam and Islamist practices, as honestly and readily as they obviously expect us to accept all the rest of it.
When such things inevitably feature in the news, overtly politically correct attempts to distance them from the ‘religion of peace’ prevents the connection from being openly and realistically acknowledged. Not only terrorism, but honour killings and forced marriages. When we hear scary tales about these, it’s made very clear that they’re not exclusively Muslim, but Asian. Similarly, there are ‘unmentionable’ aspects of the sexual grooming phenomenon that are worth mentioning. Apparently statistics say the perpetrators of sex crimes are predominantly white, but the figures don’t show whether there are behaviour patterns and attitudes within this broad grouping that are specific to Asian gangs. There is also the unasked and unanswered question of whether Muslims’ alleged moral superiority makes it all the more incongruous that any of them indulge in this crime in the first place. Or does repressed sexuality and a contemptuous attitude towards non Muslims constitute an explosive combination?
Additionally, there’s the question of whether the number of sex crimes, or criminality in general by Muslim offenders is relative and proportionate to the population as a whole.
Must we assume that the high number of Muslims in the prison population is because of Islamophobia in the justice system, or unfair targeting of Muslims by the institutionally racist police? Or is it for some other mysterious reason.
All over the papers yesterday, but, at the time of writing, absent from the BBC, was the incident involving a Christian worker at Heathrow airport who allegedly lost her job after being bullied by Muslim colleagues. Most concerning to many of the online commenters was the predominance of overtly Muslim employees at the UK’s largest and busiest airport. The gateway to the UK gives new arrivals the impression that they’ve landed in an Islamic state. Several people alluded to foxes guarding the henhouse.

This morning’s Start the Week discussed the Arab Spring, and various speakers assured us the new Islamist ideologies are moderate and tolerant. Someone told Andrew Marr that Erdogan is so popular with the Turkish people “because of his attitude towards Israel and Syria.” This went unchallenged. Not unusual, because Andrew Marr habitually lets this sort of thing pass without a murmur. Criticism of Israel, the assumption that it’s evil, lumping it together with Syria, etc. is an everyday occurrence on that programme.

But just moments earlier, Today put out a lengthy promotional piece about Alan Yentob’s upcoming radio 4 programme on the dwindling number of Jews in Iraq. The trail even featured the remarkable Canon Andrew White ‘the vicar of Baghdad’, who told us that the recent Wikileaks exposure of their names and addresses put the lives of the seven remaining Jews still living there in grave danger.

During this feature John Humphrys sounded sympathetic to their plight and that of the thousands of Jews who had been hounded out of Iraq. No doubt, had he been involved in that conversation, Andrew Marr too would have responded sympathetically, and gone ‘mmmm,’ as he is wont to do. But the cognitive dissonance displayed here, by which I mean the disconnect between the BBC’s sympathy with persecuted Jews, alongside their own simultaneous compliance with and participation in Israel’s vilification is staggering.

Yet Alan Yentob’s programme information has this.
“Nazism, Arab-nationalism and anti-Zionist feeling created a wave of anti-Semitism“
In black and white, the BBC has allowed a writer to link Nazism with Arab-nationalism. They’ve even gone so far as to connect the terms ‘created’ and ‘a wave of antisemitism’. Normally, antisemitism is regarded by them as something that just exists, out of nowhere, and persecution of Jews arises from nothing, and is not created by Nazism and Arab Nationalism, nor fueled by the antismitism inherent in Islam.

A recent From Our Own Correspondent featured one of the few Jews remaining in Macedonia, an 89 year-old holocaust survivor who remembers the deportation of Macedonia’s Jews. In the same section of From Our Own Correspondent, the reporter himself, Mark Lowen, recounted a moving tale about his own grandmother, a concert pianist who had been sent, with her sister, to the concentration camp that was immortalised in the film “Schindler’s List.” Furthermore these items were briefly featured and linked to on a main BBC news webpage, under the heading ‘Features and Analysis’ before being relegated to another section.

Is this a sea change somewhere in the bowels of the BBC, or is it just part of the same ‘old one step forward, two steps back’ progress we’re more used to. The BBC is still some way off from connecting the current waves of antisemitism with events in the present day Arab world. They seem uncannily eager to impress upon us that every newly, or about-to-be, democratically elected Islamist party is moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood, Ennahda, the moderate Islamist party that recently won the elections in Morocco, and last but not least our moderate friend Mahmoud Abbas. But it seems these moderates swiftly impose restrictions on the population as soon as they get the chance. Veils in universities, modest dress, polygamy and hatred of Jews, Israel and the West may seem moderate to some people, but surely not here in ‘Great’ Britain.

Programmes and items about the holocaust are not unusual. The BBC and the film industry have always been interested in depicting the holocaust. The pathos can sometimes appear self indulgent and gratuitous, but when people refer to “the holocaust industry” they don’t mean that. What they actually mean is that in their opinion the holocaust is being cynically and exploitatively used by Jews to shut down debate and act as a smokescreen to obscure the wrongdoings of Israel. This accusation works just the same in reverse, shutting down debate from the other side and unconvincingly masking the antisemitism that lies behind the accusation. Remembering the holocaust does more than beg for the universal sympathy vote. It reminds us how far things can escalate before they’re acknowledged, properly recognised and seen for what they really are. Hindsight shows how easily people can abandon reason, and should warn us to be vigilant lest history repeats. Be vigilant, BBC, and wake up.


A Biased BBC reader notes;

“A new article on the BBC website headlined CO2 climate sensitivity ‘overestimated’ By Jennifer Carpenter, starts off hopefully with the statement; “Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.”
Then we immediately get in the next paragraph; “The researchers said people should still expect to see “drastic changes” in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.” And as we near the end we get; “The results of this paper are the result of the analysis of [a] cold climate during the glacial maximum (the most recent ice age),” he told BBC News. “There is evidence the relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is likely to be different [during] very cold periods than warmer.” Scientists, he said, would therefore prefer to analyse periods of the Earth’s history that are much warmer than now when making their projections about future temperatures.”

This comes across to me as a blatant admission that they won’t look at data that won’t support their point of view.


Well just as the Occupy jamboree outside St Paul’s is disappearing off radar, up pops the BBC to tell us about the Occupy Leeds “camp.” Evan Davies takes a remarkably relaxed view of the “aims” of the rabble in Leeds doing his best to portray their support for Big Government, their hatred of the free market, their envy of those who actually work for a living and are successful, as “reasoned”.  He then gets a response from market town of Skipton to evaluate what support the protesters have from those who are not protesting,as the BBC carefully puts it. But since the anarcho-communist rabble have only the most convoluted of “ideas”, surely Davies is acting as more of a cheerleader for their alleged objectives.


Here, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday does a very creditable job for the second week running in teasing out the BBC’s cosy links to the eco fanatics at the University of East Anglia. I particularly like that he has spotted that one of the Cilmategate 2 emails was from the producer of an Alan Titchmarsh series, underlining the extent to which ecomania has seeped into the DNA of almost everyone at the BBC. Most of this info, of course, has been already revealed on this and other websites such as Bishop Hill. But finally, parts of the MSM seem to be waking up to the climate change scam and the BBC’s role as propagandist-in-chief. Yet the BBC ploughs on regardless – perhaps the most disturbing element of the David Rose article is that despite all the shenanigans that have surfaced in the emails, the BBC still blithely insists that it is “impartial”.

Meanwhile, Richard Black, the principal propagandist for the “impartial” corporation, continues to file alarmist garbage with wearisome predictability. Here, he is lamenting that the Durban climate change boondoggle possibly won’t result in an agreement, and acting as His Master’s Voice for the ludicrous (we have ways of making you freeze) Chris Huhne.

Left Wing Hackette’s Shoddy Reporting Forces “Guardian” To Apologise To “The Sun” But BBC Doesn’t Notice It..

Obviously the BBC has not made much of this story…..I wonder why?

Britain’s Guardian newspaper was forced to apologise to Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun today for falsely alleging that the tabloid’s reporters doorstepped a lawyer at the phone-hacking enquiry.
In an unwelcome twist for the left-leaning paper which has led efforts to expose hacking at Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World weekly tabloid, the Guardian admitted in court that its front-page claim was wrong.

Oxford educated left wing Guardian hackette Marina Hyde (“one of the funniest and most admired journalists in the UK”) might be getting the smallest Oxfam charity Christmas card this year from her editor Alan Rusbridger who had to endure the humiliation of seeing his face spread over The Sun as the tabloid helpfully pointed out

Her piece was published by editor Alan Rusbridger without any checks or calls made to The Sun. Hyde’s false accusations were sent around the world on Twitter.

The much hyped Ms Hyde, the daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams, 2nd Baronet, blends in perfectly with the well born radical chic crowd at The Guardian burnishing their NW1 dinner party credentials by bashing the “rich” and the Tories. But it’s perfectly clear that this was a story that fitted so neatly into the Guardian’s Murdoch manic obsession she didn’t even bother to check it out.

Epic fail.

But her career will not suffer. Socialist hacks live in a risk free environment when it comes to peddling untruths because the golden rule of left wing journalism is that truth = what ought to be true rather than what is true. There will be no explosion of indignation from media colleagues for this shoddy piece of gimcrack “journalism”. No thundering broadsides from the BBC for it is now open season on Murdoch, not because of the hacking and blagging that anyway was probably par for the course for all tabloids, including the left wing Mirror – but because Murdoch and The Sun switched their support from Labour to the Conservatives in the final months of Gordon Brown’s tenure at No. 10 – and the many years of Murdoch supporting Labour were immediately conveniently airbrushed out of history.

Hence the lack of BBC interest in this story.

But imagine the outburst from the BBC if it had been a Sun reporter inventing stuff up about The Guardian. …..

Aaaaahhhhh….the sweet sense of liberal left hypocrisy in the morning…..


Did you see that the BBC has apologised for it’s biased coverage of the Dale Farm fiasco on the excreable The One Show? Well, sort of!

The popular early evening show had been accused of unbalanced journalism over its February report about the proposed site’s pending clearance.After the five minute piece was broadcast, council officials complained to the public broadcaster, accusing the show of being ”inaccurate, misleading and biased in favour of the travellers”. On Thursday, the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee (ESC) published its finding on the five-minute report following a lengthy investigation. 

The investigation concluded the show had been ”duly accurate” and ”had not knowingly and materially misled its audiences”. But it found the BBC One programme had ”failed to clarify that the site had been developed on green belt land”

The BBC Trust will now offer an apology to the local authority. But it is understood The One Show will not have to make an on-air apology. As a result of its finding, editorial procedures have been “reviewed” and “strengthened” at the show, the BBC said. The report also said it had been ”unfair” to the council in allowing a traveller to allege the local authority was ”throwing us out on the road” with ”nowhere to go” without giving it a right of reply.

So, that’s OK then….?


Biased BBC has been contacted by a student atthe University of St. Andrews Conservative & Unionist Society.

“If youhaven’t been aware recently, the BBC have done an absolute assassination onthis organisation over the past few days. You can see here for more details: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15847986Here is the side of the story the BBC avoids giving

“Now, every year, the Conservative Society here holds a tongue-in-cheek”heretic burning”. This usually involves someone from the left-wing,that we think has contributed most to irritating us. It’s usually on 5thNovember, because it’s essentially updating the Guy Fawkes tradition. It hasbeen run, without ‘scandal’ or obsessive media coverage for the past sixtyyears.

The idea of ‘Heretic Burning’ is to be infantile and to let our hair down. Weusually have fireworks, mulled-wine, light-hearted debate, marshmallows andbanter. During the year we burnt the Rt. Hon Ed Milliband, the left-wingsocieties collaborated to respond by burning David Cameron. This was on thesame beach, and everyone treated it as a good laugh.

If you’d listened to the BBC coverage, however, you’d have thought we hadperformed a modern-day lynching. There were lies galore – such as the notionthat we’d wrapped him in an EU Flag [that appeared on the BBC for at least 36hours] (this was to be done separately; however our president forgot to bringthe EU flag in question). Another lie was parroted from our Student President,Patrick O’Hare, that we could’ve chosen Gaddafi. He wasn’t nominated at anystage, and thus wasn’t considered or burnt. The candidates were – as far as Iremember – Obama, Balls, Cooper, Cable and Clegg (and maybe one or two more).


Thereasons we chose Obama were numerous. We’ve disliked his disrespect towardsWinston Churchill, and his silence over the inalienable right of BritishSovereignty to the Falkland Islands. We also dislike his socialist domesticpolicies (i.e. pork-barrel spending funded by equally ruinous quantitativeeasing), which are threatening the UK’s Economic Recovery.

Moreover, we have many republican members from the USA. Being an open andtolerant society, we accept people with a wide-range of views. They voted forObama for obvious reasons. This was done at an EGM (and not at a committeevote, as the BBC also initially reported, before deleting it).

If you’d listened to the BBC, however, the word “racist” appearedcountless times. The accusation was – without the BBC saying it publicly – thatwe were somehow racist for burning an effigy of the US’ first mixed-racepresident. Apparently, Obama isn’t a politician in his own right, to be judgedlike anyone else would be – Obama must be disliked only because people areracist and stupid and right-wing.

Look, I’m not saying that what we did was big or clever, and if we’d have knownthat it would have caused such offence – we wouldn’t have even contemplated it.However, the way that it’s been reported by the Liberal media, led by the BBC, is completelyinaccurate and wrong.” 

Mud Sticks

You can’t do much about your reputation. A bad reputation can follow you like a shadow and place you at a considerable disadvantage in all your future endeavours.
Some movements, philosophies or ideologies are deemed so despicable that no affiliate or former member can ever dissociate themselves from the body’s loathsome reputation. But inexplicably, others with an equally ignominious record do it with ease.
Double standards exist. Some people can’t do a thing right, while others, apparently not for want of trying, just can’t put a foot wrong.

Take Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, representing the sunny-side of Islam. The commissioning editors of the BBC happily disregard all negative factors associated with the religion of peace, and give Shaykh Mogra a platform on radio 4 to preach to us every morning for a whole week, as though certain unmentionable issues had never raised their ugly heads. For instance Islam’s approach to women, to sex and to the non-believer; not to mention, literally, the antics of a certain publicity-seeking band of poppy-burning beardies, the Muslim Council of Britain’s duplicitous record, Islam’s inherent antisemitism, oh, and Islamic-inspired terrorism.

Ibriham Mogra can shayke off (sorry) all association with that nasty stuff and quote passages from the Koran as though butter wouldn’t melt in his beard. He evidently believes these unfortunate things are ‘nothing to do with me, guv.’
In stark contrast, certain other ideologies or movements are deemed ‘beyond the pale’. An individual associated with any of these despised bodies is automatically pushed into purgatory. Take the Nazi. Can there be a benign Nazi? At one end of the spectrum we have Goebbels and co., and at the milder end, the ‘gullible victim of propaganda’ and the ‘only following orders’ brand of Nazi. All are permanently regarded as personae non gratae, with the exception of one reformed Nazi who has made a convincing case by publicly denouncing his former incarnation and reinventing himself as the Pope. According to Wiki, Joseph Alois Ratzinger was “an unenthusiastic member” of the Hitler Youth all along, so that’s okay.

There’s little prospect of exoneration for Israel however. As far as the BBC is concerned Israel’s pariah status is set in stone. It is unremittingly portrayed as ‘beyond the pale’, and is seen by the BBC as indomitably fiendish, even though most of the evil-doing the BBC finds so unforgivable is a construct of their very own.

Organisations like the BNP can’t rehabilitate themselves. No matter how plausible he tries to be, Nick Griffin was caught on camera being racist and antisemitic, and his denials and ostensible changes of heart aren’t fooling anyone.
Similarly, Tommy Robinson has a lot of work to do on the EDL’s image before he’ll be able to distance himself from its reputation for thuggery and racism.
Incidentally, when the BBC set attack-dog Paxman onto ‘Tommy Robinson’, I doubt Paxo suspected he was in for a profound pasting. But that’s what he ended up with. The BBC was so confident that Robinson’s guilt-by-association was enough to crush him, that they didn’t bother to do any pre-interview research. In the event Paxo stabbed wildly and spuriously in all directions, and had to resort to making those faces. It probably wasn’t that particular humiliating fiasco of an interview that deterred the BBC from putting the good Shaykh up for a similar grilling before setting him up with a week’s worth of Prayers for the Day. But surely, if all things really were equal, they’d give Tommy a regular spot on the radio and send the Shaykh in for a couple of rounds with Paxo.

The BBC can brush aside the evil-doings of his religious compatriots, such as terrorism, wife beating, honour killing and gay-bashing, but can’t overlook alleged skinhead thuggery.
Every morning, for seven glorious days, Shayhk Mogra has been quoting some incomprehensible passages straight from the Koran for our edification.
On two occasions he assumed our fond familiarity with the Hajj, and an episode entitled “Kick Racism Out” contained the following:

“Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “O people, indeed your Lord and Sustainer is One and your ancestor is one. All of you descend from Adam and Adam was made of earth. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab nor for a non-Arab over an Arab; neither for a white person over a black person nor a black person over a white person except the superiority gained through righteousness. Indeed the noblest of you to God is the one who is most conscious of God.”

I wondered momentarily if the above-mentioned exception does subtly bestow superiority upon very ‘righteous’ Muslims, which by sleight of hand exempts me and the other kafir from being considered their equal. But I was all wrong, because he continued:

“Dear God, cleanse our hearts and give us the strength to be more righteous. Enable us to respect all human beings as equals and as members of Your family, amin.”

(‘Amin’ is Muslim for ‘Amen’)

Somehow Shaykh Mogra feels able to pick and choose which bits of the holy Koran he condones, and which bits he rejects. One of the latter is the death penalty for apostasy, which he says is outdated and old fashioned. But, would you adam an’ eve it, he’s sticking with the literal interpretation of the creation? “ All of you descend from Adam and Adam was made of earth.

His Pollyanna version of the ROP doesn’t mention the Jihad. But he’s not your typical Islamic cleric. Hizb ut-Tahrir calls him a ‘government linked sellout’ and, on apostasy: “Even the kafir reporter knows more on Islam sharia then[sic] Mogra!”

I’m afraid today’s prayer really takes the biscuit. It’s called Caring for Women.

If the BBC can pretend that Islam’s record of caring for women bears any relation to this sermon, I’d like to know how.
The next passage has something of the literary style of Enid Blyton about it:

“He who supports three daughters or sisters by educating them and being merciful to them until they become self sufficient, God will make Paradise compulsory for him.” A man then asked, “What about two daughters or sisters, will the same apply to two?” Another asked, “What about one daughter or sister?” Muhammad said, “The same applies to one daughter or sister.”

(I don’t know how respectfully Noddy and Big Ears treated women, but they had a very unPC reputation with regard to golliwogs.)
He continues:

“He who has a daughter and looks after her and does not disgrace her, nor does he prefer his sons over her, God will admit him to Paradise.”

Disgrace her? How? Oh never mind. Next week’s Prayers for the Day are by Alison Twaddle.