Monthly Archives: June 2012

Daphne Anson in the ‘Open Thread’ has brought this to our attention and reminds us of the highly selective narrative that the BBC adopts in relation to the Israeli struggle for survival….no doubt made all the harder with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood member as President of Egypt…who claims he will protect Christians and women (from whom?) but no mention of the Jewish neighbours.

The BBC “got it wrong” by not giving prominence to the massacre of the Fogel family by Palestinians in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, the outgoing director-general has admitted.

Mark Thompson was quizzed by Conservative MP Louise Mensch, who made various complaints to the BBC about the coverage, at a Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee hearing on Tuesday. Mrs Mensch said the BBC’s decision not to include the story as part of its rolling news coverage generated “the most reaction I have ever had in all my time in politics.”

“News editors were under a lot of pressure,”

‘

Israel Today agrees with Mr. Edelstein and the Fogel family that it is time for the world to see just how brutal is the threat that the Jews of Israel face, and to then realize which side is truly under siege.’

And this…..perhaps if the Jewish community had had the services of ‘38 Degrees’ they might have got some results…..

BBC head of north-west programming Aziz Rashid has apologised for snubbing Jewish leaders with a standardised reply to their complaint over the scrapping of the Jewish programme on Radio Manchester.

Mr Baigel had written to request a meeting “at which I am sure some understanding could be reached”. He complained that despite BBC consultation over its shake-up of local programming, at “no time was there any contact between Radio Manchester and any official of the Jewish community”.

Quite a few comments recently on the ‘Fast and Furious’ debacle in the US. I haven’t been following the BBC’s coverage of it too closely but having had a quick look here are some thoughts.

The BBC as a whole has reported the story, the latest being on the 20th June, both unattributed as to the author:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18524414

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18528798

However as noted in the comments the BBC’s U.S correspondents seem unusually quiet on the subject despite Mardell’s banner headline on his blog:

Come here for America in all its glory – my take on the twist and turns of the presidency, electoral races and life beyond Washington

Looking back a couple of months and there is still nothing.

Ironically when I googled ‘Mark Mardell Fast and Furious’ the latest result came from..yes..Biased BBC!

Here are the latest stories of note apparently: 

@BBCMarkMardell via TwitterRomney fails to answer his own question about illegal immigration

(Nothing on Obama failing to reveal documents on gun running to drug cartels) 

@BBCMarkMardell via TwitterThe Real Story Of Barack Obama http://t.co/js5ccLbl 

@BBCMarkMardell via TwitterAll the President’s women – fantastic piece on four women caught up in Watergate, in their own words http://t.co/11d9IACr

 And Katty Kay doesn’t do any better looking at football and women’s issues:

@KattyKayBBC via TwitterThe best bit of ESPN’s #Euro2012 coverage of the #GER #GRE game is when they switch to the shot of Merkel watching.

Astonishing really when you consider not only the highly sensitive nature of the subject with the U.S arming the highly violent and murderous Mexican drug cartels however ‘inadvertently but also the possible political fall out…and all with an election coming.

Not on the scale of the ‘Iran-Contra’ scandal but along similar lines….and the American Press seem to think the story merits some attention…calling it the next ‘Watergate’.

Perhaps Mardell is too busy polishing the Liberal Progressive narrative of Obama…. 

Obama supports same-sex marriage

President Barack Obama has been forced out of the closet. Few doubted that he was in favour of gay marriage but “don’t ask, don’t tell” had worked well enough up until now.

The media didn’t ask him. And he certainly wasn’t going to tell

One thing looks certain Mardell isn’t going to ask and Obama doesn’t want to tell.　

This is interesting though…a link that Mardell puts on his blog…presumably he only read the headline…It isn’t too flattering for Obama revealing him to be a man who invented his background in order to polish his credentials as a victim of the ‘Establishment’ and racism to pull in votes….

The Real Story Of Barack Obama

A new biography finally challenges Obama’s famous memoir.And the truth might not be quite as interesting as the president, and his enemies, have imagined.

The two strands of falsehood run together, in that they often serve the same narrative goal: To tell a familiar, simple, and ultimately optimistic story about race and identity in the 20th Century. The false notes in Obama’s family lore include his mother’s claimed experience of racism in Kansas, and incidents of colonial brutality toward his Kenyan grandfather and Indonesian step-grandfather. Obama’s deliberate distortions more clearly serve a single narrative: Race. Obama presents himself through the book as “blacker and more disaffected” than he really was, Maraniss writes, and the narrative “accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white.”

His memoir evokes an angry, misspent youth; a deep and lifelong obsession with race; foreign and strongly Muslim heritage; and roots in the 20th Century’s self-consciously leftist anti-colonial struggle.

The New York Times’s Serge Kovaleski reported dryly in February of 2008, speculating that Obama had “added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.”

Race, central to Obama’s later thought and included in the subtitle of his memoir, wasn’t a central factor in his Hawaii youth or the existential struggles of his young adulthood. And he concludes that attempts, which Obama encouraged in his memoir, to view him through the prism of race “can lead to a misinterpretation” of the sense of “outsiderness” that Maraniss puts at the core of Obama’s identity and ambition.

Across the ocean, the family story that Hussein Onyango, Obama’s paternal grandfather, had been whipped and tortured by the British is “unlikely”: “five people who had close connections to Hussein Onyango said they doubted the story or were certain that it did not happen,” Maraniss writes. The memory that the father of his Indonesian stepfather, Soewarno Martodihardjo, was killed by Dutch soldiers in the fight for independence is “a concocted myth in almost all respects.” In fact, Martodihardjo “fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes, presumable suffering a heart attack.”

Dick Opar, a distant Obama relative who served as a senior Kenyan police official, and who was among the sources dismissing legends of anti-colonial heroism, put it more bluntly.

“People make up stories,” he told Maraniss.

I imagine that Mardell thought that the piece would draw the sting from the Obama critics if it was revealed Obama was an entirely unremarkable person in his youth….however it is what he has grown up into that most are interested in…and part of him is quite prepared to rewrite history for political gain…..’Hope and Change’?  He hoped you wouldn’t notice the changes to his life story!

A new Open Thread for a new week….same old subject!

When Richard Black or Roger Harrabin deride climate sceptics as ignorant non-scientists ask yourself exactly what qualifications do they have for the job as chief environmental journalists at the BBC?

Roger Harrabin  might find a little difficulty when formulating an answer……but interesting that he had already developed a dislike for fox hunters and right wing politics….so that’s a couple of ticks in the box at the BBC job interview….the final requirement might be an ability to ignore tricky questions…and it looks like he can do that too….

I enjoyed reading English, particularly in my first summer term, which was spent reading Shakespeare and punting. What class of degree did I get? I’ve just told my wife I would ignore that question.

I didn’t go to lectures after my first term as I thought you would get more credit for thinking for yourself than for being told what to  think. I worked for three hours in the mornings and that was it.

I was more interested in student politics on a college than a university level and was elected President of the JCR. Previously the Junior Common Room had appeared to be captured by factions interested in supporting Nicaragua or promoting foxhunting.

If you could have a non-partisan, technocratic JCR, you would do much more to support the lot of ordinary undergraduates. We were incredibly privileged but some unpleasantnesses could have been ironed out.

I started a college magazine which I edited for a time.  I realized then what you could do with the printed word.

We did exert a very substantial pressure.

But of course Harrabin does not need to know anything because he has a, em, guiding hand when draughting his reports..…Jo Abbess

False theories about climate change abound. Most people get their views from the mainstream media, and the problem of poor public communications on science and technology will not be resolved any time soon – because journalists and commentators often lack basic science training. Their views don’t count – but they are unaware of that. Their balanced assessments are often worthless. They cannot be the arbiters of truth, for they know not where to pitch their fulcrum. 

Climate Change policy is decided by people who are similarly often lacking scientific and engineering backgrounds. How can they be expected to make the best decisions when they cannot separate in their minds industrial lobbying spin from fact ? They cannot know how ridiculous their pronouncements on energy and climate change sound to those who are genuine experts.

Discussing environmental journalism with some green friends, the name Roger Harrabin is mentioned, and views about whether he is “on side” or not.

Opinions are voiced that journalists are trained to be too relativist in their outlook and so cannot be trusted to be accurate about science.

I come to peace. I encounter God amongst the houseplants in the corner of the Meeting Room at the Quaker House in Square Ambiorix in Brussels, Belgium.

Emails are “leaked” and I become villified and scorned around the world for questioning Roger Harrabin about the framing and headline of an article he has written.

The new zero-carbon, zero-propaganda, zero-warfare, economy needs to flourish.

It is time to take back intellectual rigour and integrity and tell the truth about climate change and global warming.

This is a call to activism. Whatever peaceful means and methods you can employ to further the truth, I believe you should consider whether you feel the imperative to do so.

I am Public Friend Number One, but that doesn’t stop me being the target of a stream of vicious invective.

I am only rarely paranoid – after all, I know exactly who and what I’m opposing – inaccuracies as pernicious as racism, and as embedded as violence against women and minors.

I did not choose this role, but I have been obliged by circumstance to conduct a “war on error”.

Three eyecatching items from the Sunday Times (pay ‘apartheid’ wall in place).

First Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic extremist relates how Islam is developing in this country…and it may surprise those in the BBC Bubble who like to say the fundamentalists are a fringe minority…..all other Muslims are moderates.

‘At one time all south Asians – Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus – used to go to each other’s weddings, but in recent years even Muslim-only weddings have changed. They were great cultural extravaganzas but the norm now is that music is non-existent, there’s no dance, there’s often a curtain separating men from women, sometimes even bodyguards policing the segregation…..the trickle down impact of Islamic radicalism on moderate Muslim communities has come as a shocking intrusion.’

Nawaz now tours various venues such as mosques and universities, around the world trying to defuse radicalism and turn potential recruits away from that path. He has been all around the world visiting likely danger ‘hotspots’ such as Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan…whilst wearing a flak jacket.

But…there is only one university that he has been unable to speak at…in Birmingham, UK, where security advised that they had had serious threats against him and so his lecture was cancelled.

As he says…’That tells you something.’

But only if you are listening.

The second Sunday Times nugget is that Justin Webb, along with other well known people took an 11 plus exam.

Justin Webb, the ‘razor sharp’ Today journalist attained a modest score of 58%….coming last.

That tells you something.

The third Sunday Times drubbing for Lefties was a review by A.A Gill in which he sheds light on a subject many people have often wondered about…that of Left wing dominance of the airwaves……

‘I asked an audience at a documentary festival why is documentary-making such a left wing occupation? A documentarian pointed out rather curtly that, obviously, it was because the rest of television was right wing: reality shows, popular entertainment, gameshows…..an interesting assumption that any pap for the masses without a ‘message’ is the product of the conservative status quo.’

He goes on…‘I asked David Hare why all plays are were left wing. He looked askance at me and said: ‘What about all the musicals that fill the theatres?’

‘I asked if the National Front should be allowed to broadcast a documentary? To which one woman replied: ‘Never! I devoted my whole academic life to keeping those scum off the streets!’

The trouble with the left is that Lefties only want to be exposed to things that confirm their politics. Even looking at the Daily Mail is to condone global warming, forced repatriation and breast implants; we should only view the websites and blogs of fellow travellers. This means the Left’s conversation is a selection of mutually agreed received opinions that become ever narrower, and the subjects documentaries tackle become more repetitive: films on global warming and the Middle East….and people trafficking.’

What was he reviewing…the BBC’s ‘The Men Who Made Us Fat’……‘presenting an argument that was simplistic to the point of idiocy…a show trial on selective evidence and a pre written judgement…as with so many left leaning documentaries. This series is badly made, barely researched and boringly presented.’

A fair comment I think and accurate portrayal of the Left wing dominance of TV and their thought processes.

Ed Miliband made his speech on immigration and said nothing that would commit him to anything at all, and the apology was a touch insincere as he had no problem with the numbers of immigrants ‘flocking’ here.

The BBC was naturally delighted…Labour coming out fighting in a passive aggressive way defending mass immigration whilst at the same time apologising for it…..A fair chunk of air time was given over to this exercise in smoke and mirrors.

However, of course, despite Mark Thompson’s admittance of BBC failure to handle the topic of immigration in a balanced and comprehensive manner old habits die hard in the bunkers of Broadcasting House.

We had the Today programme, Victoria Derbyshire and then Sheila Fogarty not so much poking a stick into the dangerous viper’s nest of immigration but gently prodding it with a hesitant toe reluctant to delve into the realities of what the vast majority of people in this country consider one of their major concerns.

Sheila Fogarty I thought was going to make a brave attempt to break out of the rhetoric and abuse and implied suggestions of racism towards anyone that wants a curb on immigration but she almost instantly fell back into the BBC comfort zone of denial and accusation even before Government immigration minister, Damian Green, had opened his mouth.

At around 41 minutes she picks out an email to read to Green…now I would suggest the BBC has received thousands of emails on this subject on that morning, most of them perhaps reasoned and ‘mildly’ expressed disapproval of mass immigration. Which one do you think she read out as an opening gambit to Green?

She chose ‘Rich the Sparky’s’ email which said…he would like ‘a blanket ban on anyone coming to the UK who was unskilled…most of my mates are pretty racist and I think people are broadly tribal and like people similar to themselves…I don’t think there are any positives to a multicultural society.’

Tone of voice was all when Fogarty then asked Green for ‘Your thoughts on that’.

It could be reasonably argued that that choice of email out of the thousands they received sums up succinctly the BBC attitude to the subject. Firstly they believe that all those not in favour of mass immigration are by definition racist in an evil, nasty sense, second that the Tories are similarly racist and are dancing to the Rightwing fanatics racist tune by acting to limit immigration.

This little game that Fogarty played was pure politics attempting to ‘smear’ Green, the Tories and any curb on immigration with the racist tag by association….we all remember that game from the Breivik case where ‘rightwing’ journalist and bloggers were all branded racists and the ultimate inciters of Breivik’s murderous actions.

However it seems when that game is played with them the Left don’t like it….after Miliband’s speech…..‘Mischievous messages of support came from Ukip’s Nigel Farage and even the BNP’s Nick Griffin, the latter gleefully retweeted by Miliband’s critics on the left, as if to suggest that the leader had taken the first step on the grimy slope towards fascism. But such guilt-by-association is not really defensible. Ed Miliband cannot stay off awkward topics just because a thug like Griffin will try to exploit it if he does.’

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84 22 Jun‘This has been tweeted by BNP’s Nick Griffin: “Miliband joins ranks of BNP recruiting sergeants. Legitimation of our message by party . . .”‘

　However is the BBC correct in denouncing people who express ‘racist’ views?…is ‘Rich the Sparky’ not right in reality? Is it not a fact of life that any ‘stranger’ regardless of colour, is likely to be met with suspicion and dislike especially if he doesn’t conform to the standards of the community he has moved into?

What does the semi God of the ‘Climate Change’ debate, James Lovelock, have to say on the subject?….

‘Our political system works because they tend to self-correct each other. What you’ve got to avoid at all costs is ideologues.

The problem with ideologues from Marx onwards is that they tend to imagine that human nature is very different from what it actually is. We’re still animals and we behave like animals and it doesn’t take much to knock our “civilisation” away. People are very, very sensitive about territory and if you move a new lot of people into their territory, they don’t like it one bit. Politicians are very stupid if they think they can get away with that sort of thing.

It’s not that people are racist per se. We’re naturally racist, you can’t get away from it. We try to curb it and be sensible. People are very rarely individually racist, but they don’t want a large culture dumped on them. I don’t know anyone personally who would be nasty to someone because of their colour or because they come from a different country. It’s not in our style in these islands.’

The BBC and its employees should take a less utopian view of the world and human nature and realise that what they call racism is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is an essential part of developing and sustaining any culture and society…it has serious downsides if taken to extremes but they need to recognise it is part of us…all of us, Black, White, Scousers and Mancs, and yes, even BBC employees.

Any doubts?  Take note of the below presumably posted by a ‘Scouser’, a rather downbeat description of a ‘Manc’…..

The BBC’s very own Mark Easton has made the big time, his habit of trashing anything Tory whilst putting up a stiff defence of anything Labour has been noticed by the MSM….

Labour’s latest star performer

The Labour Party is a bit short of top-rank performers to wheel on to the Today programme, so it must be relieved to have found someone expert at skewering Coalition policies. Last week, in a three-way conversation with Tory housing minister Grant Shapps and John Humphrys, the new star poured scorn on government plans to build affordable housing. He was also withering about the Conservatives’ failure to implement the Dilnot proposals for adult social care. Plus, his blog highlights European criticism of British cuts. I’d suggest that Ed Miliband gives him a job, but I suspect Mark Easton is perfectly happy in his post as home affairs editor of the BBC.

Here’s an interesting question says the interesting Evan Davis to Vincent Tchenguiz who was arrested for fraud but released later  as innocent….

‘Let’s suppose you were a white, English born, public school educated, er, toff with a Sir in front of your first name…do you think the Serious Fraud Office would have had any interest in your case?’

Vincent shoots down Davis saying that race or class had no impact on the way the case was conducted.

But nice to know that Davis is promulgating class stereotypes and plays along with the Labour game to whip up class warfare…because you know Cameron and Osborne are Toffs.

Wonder if Davis would be upset if I asked if he just got his job on the Today programme because he is gay…filling the diversity quota?  Because the more I hear him the less impressed I become with his work.

5Live’s Nicky Campbell also came up with another fine example of casual stereotyping…‘What you’re saying is that women’s football wasn’t good enough 10 years ago to attract the attention of the likes of Murdoch who always smells where the money is?’

Keep on battering away…they’ll get him in the end.

However that small comment does beg the question…. where were the BBC then in covering such a sport and helping to develop its presence and profile with the viewers?  Isn’t that precisely what a publicly funded broadcast organisation is set up to do…the subjects that commercial companies can’t afford to cover?

Today on the BBC David Goodheart, Director of Demos, said this:

‘Labour’s immigration policy was ‘easily the most significant aspect of labour’s period in power.’

Despite the overwhelming significance of that immigration policy thanks to the BBC this policy went entirely unremarked and without challenge for a decade denying the British Public a voice in one of the most controversial and contentious issues this country has had to face.

I’ll qualify that comment….not ‘unremarked’ but rather given the full and weighty support of the BBC whose employees were fully convinced of the benefits of the Labour immigration project…and ensured that that was the narrative we, the Public, received.

This is how Mark Thompson explained the BBC’s position….Sensitive or ‘taboo’ subjects such as immigration were avoided by the BBC for fear of being too right-wing.

Mark Thompson conceded that the broadcaster had been ‘anxious’ in the past about playing into what it may have perceived to be a Right-wing political agenda…but he claimed it had now changed its position and was responsible for raising the topic of immigration during the 2010 general election….claiming that ‘We’ve got a duty, even if issues are sensitive and difficult to get right, to confront what the public want. I don’t like the idea of topics that are taboo.’

Fine words but they were not backed by any serious intentions to reform the BBC machine.

The BBC has continued promoting the virtues and benefits of immigration whilst smearing critics of the policy as racist.

Today the BBC indulged in an exercise in news management, fixing the facts to support Miliband’s claims over Labour’s immigration policy.

Neither Mark Thompson’s nor Miliband’s statements are of any consequence. Neither one is intended to engender any subsequent action to remedy the perceived faults but are rather intended to deceive the listener…. for the BBC they wish you to believe that they recognise their failure to cover the subject of immigration in a fair and adequate manner and that this has been rectified, and for Labour to impress upon a credulous public that the Labour Party also recognises its ‘mistakes’ and now seeks to re-establish its working class credentials and work to win the blue collar vote.

Both narratives are clearly based on a false assumption…that any of that is true.

The BBC has been actively involved in a huge public deception instigated by the Labour Party around the subject of immigration giving us a highly dishonest and distorted portrayal of Labour’s actions and the subsequent consequences of mass immigration.

The Today programme team and others are involved in the corrupting and political compromise of a BBC that should be the standard bearer leading the world when it comes to clear and honest reporting that upholds the values once so famously instilled in it by Lord Reith. Now the BBC has been reduced to an institution that would be worthy of any Communist State so thoroughly shot through is it with the values and practises of news manipulation and propaganda in the service of political masters.

This is an organisation that is no longer ‘fit for purpose’ under the cynical leadership of Mark Thompson….allowing the most serious breaches of the BBC charter that amount to a betrayal not only of the BBC and its reputation for impartial news but of the viewer, listener or reader who look to the BBC as the one honest guiding light in the troubling and dangerous times we live in.

Thompson has allowed a culture to flourish in which it is acceptable to bully and demean those who have different views to those deemed appropriate by the BBC…a culture in which it is Ok to deride the white working class and conversely the ‘privileged’ upper classes along with Tories, UKIP, Christians, Climate change sceptics, any one who works for Murdoch or reads the Daily Mail and of course Israelis and Jews.

Far from embodying an ‘all inclusive’ society the BBC has become the cheer leader for multicultural division, class, ethnic and religious conflict.

The conclusion is that “If at all relevant times, Mark Thompson did not take steps to become fully informed about how his Corporation reported immigration, that he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his Corporation and publications and failed to fully control, oversee and moderate what was being said on the subject of immigration in his organisation then this culture of untrammelled pro-immigration cheer leading and derision of critics can be considered to have permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at the BBC.

One could conclude therefore that Mark Thompson is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international news organisation and that there have been huge failings of corporate governance and, throughout, it has been the BBC’s instinct to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and bring to account the perpetrators of political corruption and abuse of power.”

That failure to govern the BBC properly is still continuing.

.

Today Ed Miliband pronounced, to great fanfare, his and the Labour Party’s ‘mea culpa’ over immigration….and there was a great deal of coverage of the speech but as for indepth analysis of what Miliband really meant or an examination of Labour’s real intentions when they opened the borders to mass immigration there was no discussion.

The most egregious and obvious omission was the voice of Andrew Neather, the Labour Party advisor who openly admitted that Labour’s intentions were to swamp this country with immigrants and force multiculturalism upon Britain, to ‘rub the Right’s nose’ in it. He also revealed explosively that labour knew that the effect of this immigration was that the working class in this country would suffer from competition for jobs and housing but that they, the Labour Party, did not care.

‘It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural..

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.

This shone through even in the published report: the “social outcomes” it talks about are solely those for immigrants.

Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.’

It is clear why the BBC are afraid to report that…it is a bombshell that when originally published would have destroyed Labour…and so even now, years later, the BBC refuse to tell the Public the real reasons and that Labour knew that the working class would be the people to suffer the most……a class of people that the Labour Party was originally set up to protect and support but who have now been abandoned by the sharp suited, metropolitan elitists of New Labour.

When you read Neather’s words you realise that Miliband’s claim that this was all a ‘mistake’ is an outright lie…Labour knew exactly what it was doing and knew the consequences of it. The suggestion that they only believed 13,000 immigrants a year would come to Britain is another pure falsehood…they clearly expected and wanted far more.

What it also reveals is that Labour politicians engaged in a campaign of deception and subterfuge, one that was maintained by a friendly BBC covering up for them and broadcasting to the public that immigration was necessary for a successful economy and would create a vibrant, diverse and cosmopolitan nation.　

Listening to the radio this morning starting with the Today programme there were no voices to be heard other than Labour Party ones pushing their own Party line. It took until 12.39 pm when the Coalition immigration minister, Damian Green, came onto 5live to give his thoughts on the matter, that we heard any voice that wasn’t in some way connected to Labour or pro immigration.

Towards the end of the Today programme we had two Labour Party voices…

Matthew Taylor, who worked with Tony Blair in number 10, and Labour MP John McDonnell to discuss Labour’s immigration policies….both of whom support immigration and claimed that numbers were not an issue…the problem was more to do with coping with the influx, the transitional measures adopted to manage it…to get immigrants housed and into work without seeming to be displacing the locals. The BBC’s Evan Davis, who has an immigrant French partner, as usual promoted immigration as a good thing…central to our economy and culture.

Laughably and lamentably unopposed by Evans was the assertion that Mrs Thatcher was to blame for the problems that Labour’s immigration policy resulted in…selling off council homes and restricting the Union power which meant Unions couldn’t fight for higher wages….which meant immigrants could come here and undercut the locals in labour costs.

Also claimed unchallenged was that Britons were completely unconcerned about immigration and rather were only concerned about jobs, housing and wages….they were not bothered about quality of life or the destruction of their own culture and society.

There was very little effort to ensure that there was a measured, informative and truthful debate about immigration.

The BBC’s coverage of Ed Miliband’s speech in which he purported to apologise for Labour’s failure to control immigration has shown that nothing has changed at the BBC….there is still a culture where immigration is a taboo subject and that people who want controls and limits on immigration are still subtly labelled racist.

Miliband has conducted a most cynical political repositioning…an apparent u-turn of oil tanker proportions…or you might think so….but in fact he is not saying what most people expect him to say…that immigration is too high….it is a charade and not the ‘brave recognition’ as Labour’s Hazel Blears called it of Labour’s failure to address the public’s concerns.

And yet there were no sceptical voices at the BBC….Where were the BBC questions demanding an explanation of why labour deliberately and knowingly implemented this policy of opening the borders. What were the intentions and intended consequences?

Also unmentioned was the ‘coincidence’ that Miliband’s speech came at the same time that the UN’s chief of immigration made this statement:

‘EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief’

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said….Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.’

Call me cynical but is it possible that a half hearted, disingenuous and politically convenient admission of guilt by Miliband was intended to be ‘offset’ by a statement that endorsed immigration from the respected and august body of the UN.

The BBC programmes looking at Miliband’s speech were shallow and superficial….they gave the impression of intense scrutiny but yielded little enlightenment. The seeming intention was to support Miliband in his repositioning without too much in the way of difficult questions whilst still suggesting that immigration is vital to the country’s interests.

Consider that today is also the day that Anders Breivik’s trial came to an end. For the first part of Victoria Derbyshire’s show she ‘discussed’ Miliband’s speech and then went on to look at the Breivik trial. There was no suggestion at all that there might be some link between the two stories.

Breivik killed Norwegian Labour Party members because mass immigration was changing his country…and no one had asked the Norwegians if they wanted that…they had no voice. Breivik’s actions were the direct result of politicians refusing to allow the Public a say in their own future and imposing unwanted policies upon them….precisely the same scenario that we have here in Britain.

The BBC deliberately chose to ignore the connection between the two stories…it refuses to admit the cause and effect, the consequences of ‘multiculturalism’ imposed without consultation by an out of touch political and social ‘elite’.

Why does the BBC refuse to openly discuss the true consequences of immigration?…it is happy to claim immigration brings great benefits but is reluctant to look at the darker, less palatable outcomes that mass, uncontrolled immigration brings with it.

The BBC editorial policy is guided by two premises…firstly that immigration is of benefit and desirable to our society, secondly that any talk of the harmful consequences of immigration will lead to demonisation of immigrants and attacks upon them.

Naturally this leads to a very one sided discussion and a completely false and dishonest portrayal of the real effects of immigration upon a society. The negative effects are easy to see and have enormous impact upon many segments of society.

Housing, welfare costs, access to the NHS and schools, availability of jobs and the downward spiral of wages are all obvious negative consequences…but there is also the great unspoken one…that of crime.

When Labour opened up the borders it allowed in literally millions of people, unknown and uncontrolled. With them naturally came a number of criminally intentioned people….our prisons now bulge with an extra 12% consisting of foreign prisoners. Murders, rapes, car theft, crime gangs, drug farms, prostitution, fraud , industrial scale shop lifting and pickpocketing were imported into this country by Labour. It is pertinent to ask just how many people have been killed, raped or mugged or otherwise criminally disadvantaged as a result of Labour’s reckless gamble to impose multiculturalism upon us.

The BBC do not ask such questions.

Labour’s immigration policy was intended to be a strange kind of ethnic cleansing of a Britain that was, in the words of Greg Dykes, too ‘hideously white’. The natives were not to be driven out but to be genetically ‘re-engineered’, their ethnic makeup diluted by the introduction of non -white genes into the ‘breeding’ pool…at the very least the enforced mixing of different races and cultures was supposed to engender a new attitude of tolerance and possibly celebration of diversity….failing even that the natives would just have to ‘lump it’. Labour was intent on destroying the national identity of this nation and even its very own biological identity regardless of the cost and suffering.

Such a policy amounts to a ‘coup’, a revolutionary act by a small clique of people who have ignored the democratic process and the rights of the people, instigating a process that involved the demonisation and smearing of critics as racists and the deliberate closing down of debate so that the policies could be enforced without opposition.　

The BBC were complicit in all of this, colluding in the deception and the silencing of opposing voices.

The other political parties and indeed media were all cowed by the onslaught of the pro immigration lobby and lived in fear of being labelled ‘racist’. This is why the independence and complete impartiality and honesty of a public news organisation is vital in order to challenge the vested interests and to support those whose voices are otherwise suppressed….remember what Thompson himself said…”We’ve got a duty, even if issues are sensitive and difficult to get right, to confront what the public want. I don’t like the idea of topics that are taboo.”

It is the BBC’s duty to deal with difficult and contentious subjects…it is an organisation that has enormous respect and weight in society that should be used to say things and investigate otherwise ‘taboo’ subjects in a measured, coherent and intelligent manner that neither inflames nor crushes debate.

Labour should not be able to shrug its shoulders and just say ‘sorry’ we made a mistake when their actions were the result of deliberate and malign intentions and were conducted under cover of a BBC whose ‘wilful blindness’ allowed one of the most destabilising and dangerous policies this country has had to suffer  to be introduced without challenge.

Both the BBC and the Labour Party should be subject to a judicial inquiry that examines their role and intentions in the implementation of Labour’s immigration policy and which has the power to sanction both parties on the likely conclusion that they were both knowing and deliberate actors in actions which could be construed as not only a failure to conduct themselves according to their stated corporate values but who have acted in ways that are a literal betrayal of the trust that is bestowed upon them by virtue of their position in society and the Establishment.

Someone really needs to be in jail.

Another Open Thread…but I’ve started it off for you…..

I haven’t had time to take a longer look at this but it pretty much speaks for itself…and you know the BBC reaction…this will be one of those ‘benchmark’ quotes that will now be kept in a high state of readiness to blow away anyone who dare suggest  that perhaps mass immigration and a ‘nation’ of strangers is not conducive to peaceful co-existence….and note no sign of any opposing views in the piece.

EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief

By Brian Wheeler Political reporter, BBC News

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.