The BBC have long refused to talk about immigration to the UK and its downsides……they now do talk about immigration….but usually immigration in other countries.….where they cherry pick what they like as ‘proof’ that immigration is beneficial…and ipso facto will be to the UK.
The BBC of course sets the limits on the debate.…what can be talked about and indeed the way the debate is set up.
‘There is a complicated system of illusions and self deception that are the given framework for most discussion and debate. And if you don’t happen to take part in this system of illusions and self-deception, what you say is incomprehensible.’
We had a discussion about immigration recently but it was Labour leader Ed Miliband’s guru, Prof Sandel, who was wheeled on to bang the drum for immigration….sorry, to have an open debate about it….and we have this as a classic example of the BBC ‘fixing’ the way we perceive immigration…..they bring on a Mexican family, parents and all three kids, who have lived illegally, …sorry, ‘undocumented’…in the US for 20 years.
Why do the BBC do this?….purely to make it all ‘personal’…..make an immigrant a ‘real person’ not just a statistic and the BBC think it’s going to be hard for someone to say they can’t come into the country….or if they do anyone listening to them will think they’re just plain old ‘nasty’ and ‘rightwing’…
‘Honest people will have to face the fact that they are morally responsible for the predictable human consequences of their acts.’
…..in other words the BBC is fixing the debate so that it is hard for anyone to say anything the BBC disapproves of….or if they do they have to qualify it so much that it makes their statement worthless.
An interesting comment by the BBC presenter was that she thought that the illegal, sorry, undocumented, immigrants would be ideal Republicans…..with family and religion being at the centre of their values.
So Democrats don’t rate the Family and Religion then? Which could account for a lot…..here in the UK as well.
The UK has obviously been enriched by unfettered immigration. Some of the benefits are shown here.
Hurray! Helpful link to a white supremacist website! Note particularly that site’s ‘information link’ to the charmingly named British Resistance website (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children”).
I’m sorry, I got it wrong. It’s not just a white supremacist site. It’s a eugenicist site. Here’s a taster:
I say that we White ones need to awaken and realize the reality of this gene war so that we live consciously, and actively work to expand our White genetic code by having as many White children as possible.
Link of the day!
Yes I know witch’s and heretics are every where we look!
But wait a minuet is not their case that ‘white Europeans’ are being made extinct by engineered Miscegenation? And by opposing that are they not counter-eugenicists?
Surely the eugenicists are those that feel that the world would be better off without white people
There are plenty of them about,Yasmin alibi brown or Dr Atila Nandi (the India economist behind the BBCs Mixed Britannia series and specialist on mixed race politics) are two relevant to the BBC
But there are plenty more,perhaps you you share that view that is your right.I personally am saddened by the thought am I to a witch?
Are you sure your not just looking for a chance to demonstrate how ‘right on’ you are?
If so fill your boots with this
BBC-NUJ politically back-pedals on Labour Party’s continuing support for mass immigration into the UK, even after its 13 years of open-door ‘policy’.
At the same time, BBC-NUJ refuse to acknowledge the real threat of mass immigration to the E.U. and to BRITAIN from e.g. the porous borders of e.g. Greece, Italy and Spain.
As Alan mentions, BBC-NUJ is disinclined to make such connections, instead acting like an immigrants’ NGO.
‘The BBC have long refused to talk about immigration to the UK and its downsides…’
Yesterday on Today at about 8:20, long discussion about Polish immigration, including its downsides ( although it’s difficult to see a downside to Polish migration/immigration).
‘( although it’s difficult to see a downside to Polish migration/immigration). ‘
Rather begging the question as to what prompted a long BBC discussion on this aspect vs. any others worthy of that famous BBC ‘analysis’?
Must be nice to oversee the pre-pro and control the edit suite.
‘…..in other words the BBC is fixing the debate’
The very idea.
This x 1000.
If the BBC reported on banking the way they report immigration, every time Labour proposed clamping down on bank regulation, the BBC would only ever interview guys who run local credit unions.
Try speaking to an English plumber who has lost business to Polish plumbers who undercut him on price and don’t offer any better quality of work. Yes, I have have second-hand experience of both sides of that point.
It is difficult to see a downside to Polish immigration, when you are a BBC clone who hates the UK, loves the EU and wants to see the hideously white UK destroyed as a nation., Eh Jim?
Last time I looked Poles seemed white to me. At least the Poles and other Europeans do work ,pay tax , don’t tell us that they hate us and don’t try to blow us up, unlike others I could mention.
A bit of immigration does enrich a society but too much destroys it. In the UK we have had far too much of it and we are seeing our society and culture being slowly destroyed.
The BBC is the cheer leader for ever more immigration. But of course they much prefer non European immigrants with their totally alien life styles and cultures.
My only purpose in life is to destroy the UK as a white nation. Once it is reduced to rubble, I will move to my beloved EU and eat continental breakfasts, snails and pickled cabbage.
They wont have you there > The EU is a white supremicist project as it is .
“The peoples of EUrope , EUropean values ” etc .
The problem with being a useful idiot is, once you stop being useful, all you are left with is the idiot.
What happened to the contributor to this blog called Heads On Poles ? I think he had the future prospects of the useful idiots well map out.
That’s not Earls Court personating again, is it?
The usual disingenuous stuff from JD.
Poles are almost the only immigrants the BBC will discuss with a critical voice. Poles being white and, predominantly, Roman Catholic, the BBC can do so without troubling its dwindling herds Guardian readers to get out the ‘racist!’ rubber stamp complaints.
No downside in the UK? Well that might be the official BBC view – cheap nannies, plumbers and gardeners. What’s not to like?
In the real world people have different experiences.
The building trades have been destroyed as a viable career in this country by unfettered immigration.
Try asking residents of Boston Lincs how they feel about how their sleepy Little town has been transformed by drunken European immigrants fighting and urinating in the Street 24 hours a day.
Ask a woman in labour on a packed maternity ward, desperately trying to get help from a midwife run off her feet by a huge influx of pregnant foreigners. 25% of births in the UK are to foreign-born mothers. Our maternity services cannot cope.
Try asking someone who cannot afford to buy a house, and can barely afford to rent because of the massive increase in the demand for houses – all due to immigration.
The only “downside” that the BBC looked at, was the effect migration had on Poland. They were not interested in examining any negative impact on the UK.
A typical disgusting one sided Today report.
Jim dandy – shame on you “liking” your own posts.
On my list of shame, that comes after picking my nose and before watching Strictly.
Did you get those disgusting habits from “enrichment and diversity “
Does he now?
How pathetic. Says it all.
Try telling that to Mrs. Duffy. You must agree with Gordon Brown about her, then.
Can’t blame the Poles for coming here and doing the jobs Brits think are beneath them, or are too much like hard work.
Trouble is, Jim, it keeps our unemployment rate high.
So… if you think the Poles who come here put enough into the economy to pay for their health, education, council services etc etc, as well as the benefits of the aforementioned unemployed whilst still sending money back to Poland, I can only assume they are getting a ‘living wage’ circa £100 an hour.
Oh, and what a coincidence the BBC choose the Poles – echoing the sleight-of-hand of Miliband – to mask the bigger problem of immigration from Africa and the Indian sub-continent.
As far as I remember the little chat on Today was about Canada wanting to encourage Poles in UK to go to work in Canada…..and how much we’ll miss them.
In fact pretty much what I said in the post…..the BBC uses examples of immigration abroad to say how great immigrants are and what a benefit to the UK they are.
So yes, you’re right, nail on head, as usual Jim.
What could be more dishonest than passing of a blunder (underestimating the numbers who would come by a factor of umpteen) in immigration control as a glowing success story. The Labor administration only got away with it because the incomers concerned were young, hard-working and often skilled workers most of whom were not particularly interested in permanent settlement, let alone bringing over their cousins, sisters in law, dependent uncles and the family cat. It was also a plus that they did not adhere to a belief system that believed most Brits were the vilest of created beings, all destined for hell and living by man made laws instead of those mandated by god. The trickery is patent when somebody says: “Today we will talk about whether concerns over immigration are justified, using the Poles as an example.”
They didnt underestimate about the amount of immigrants that would come here (13 000 ) . They just lied about it .
Andrew Marr on Sunday morning TV contrasted east European workers with the ‘longer settled’ British – the only people in the world without a culture or homeland.
Our homeland is now ‘Greerland’, after the celebrated anthropologist, Bonnie Greer, who has discovered that the Brits have no claim to be indigenous. We have been reduced from a people to a mere population: exact size conveniently unknown. You have to go Tesco’s to get closer to the truth, as their analysis of the indices of consumption put the figure well over 70 million. She should try making a similar claim about the peoples of Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Maybe not. 24/7 security doesn’t come cheap.
I should think it’s pretty easy to qualify an anti immigration argument by using their own ‘green’ arguments against them. i.e. resources and infrastructure. In the UK particularly, with it’s relatively tiny landmass and cool climate, WTF are TPTB busy importing millions of people from warm countries where there’s no need for heating, to our cold climate at a time when they’re busy reducing our carbon emissions – pure idiocy.
And if immigration is the answer to economic growth then surely African/Asian countries need more diversity of their own instead of the ‘hideous’ homogeneity they currently have.
It’s really not that difficult to smash their arguments to pieces.
It is the innate ability of leftists to hold and believe two (or more) mutually contradictory beliefs simultaneously irrespective of logic or evidence – classic Orwellian “double think”.
For example, how often have we been lectured on Greenism by a leftoid with three or more offspring? Remember those trips to a pub when you are faced with the self righteous ‘modern parents’ with their vile brood that can do no wrong who will scream at you/attack you if you ask “Vespasian” to stop pissing into the fishpond. i.e all right for them to impose a huge ‘carbon burden’ on the planet in the form of [in my opinion badly behaved self important new Guardian readers] whilst berating me for taking an easy jet flight to Malaga.
Ever wonder why we had the wettest drought ever in the South East this this year with promises of rationing – Global Warming apparently and nothing to do with several million extra people living in London drinking washing and using the toilets on infrastructure designed for 8 million. Similarly have you wondered why you cannot get a seat on a train – despite massive capacity growth. WE must be traveling more and ‘inappropriately’ (a favorite word for these new pharisees)- this has to be stamped out as we are being greedy and not ‘green’. Again this has nothing whatsoever to do with millions of extra people living on the British Isles. And don’t bother trying to get maternity care in the UK – underfunded by the evil Tories of course and nothing to do with the vast boom in “new arrivals.”
The UK faces a huge crisis as in 10 years the population will be knocking on 80 million with no preparation or planning – rationing and discord guaranteed.
None of the above will see any comment from the BBC and the real fact of the matter is that the environmental argument is with most issues held dear by the left a canard – it is an excuse to impose societal change to culturally engineer the population. Left wing immigration policy (cheer led by the BBC) has exactly the same objectives. The immigrants get what they want in the form of a better life (at the expense to the settled population of high taxation, diminishing cohesion [Crime and racism], living standards and quality of life) and the leftists get to exercise yet more control. They are all about social[ist] engineering. God knows why, as every time they have really got on with it it has literally ended in mega-death situations.
Do not expect to win any argument on immigration using logic. It is here to stay at approx 750,000 per year + natural growth in the ‘new British’ population.
Because even the BBC know carbon emissions are a load of old bollocks. Global warming is just a means to a political end.
“Why do the BBC do this?….purely to make it all ‘personal’…..make an immigrant a ‘real person’ not just a statistic ”
That’s what ALL journalists do. You make a story live by referring to real people.
Who on earth would want the type of dull Soviet era news you want with pointless stats and no empathy.
And that’s the key word utterly missing from this blog. Empathy.
Prole – you say that hardly anyone reads this website. So why do you waste your time here?
Possibly because he’s been ordered to by his BBC bosses (there’s something synchronised about the vultures’ postings on here).
Anyway, if that’s true, the BBC obviously don’t think this site is enough of a threat to warrant their D-team’s attention just yet.
The BBC did not show much empathy for the American Ambassador on Question Time just after 9/11. Empathy only for your favourites.
I would prefer my leaders to display competence, intelligence, selflessness and an appreciation of reality. Oh and a degree of cynicism about human nature. Empathy is way down the list.
Why do the BBC always use a stereotype Good immigrant and never the more usual crooks , chancers and idlers that we are concerned with ?
As I`ve said before…
no supplicant for immigration or for Income Support/JSA/DDA ought to be given a penny or a passport until a BBC reporter has interviewed them.
Why so?…because I have yet to see or hear of anybody who is not a genuine hard case, by the time they get presented to us as victims of injustice or nasty Tory policies.
Presumably the babyfathers, the travelling thieves, the paedos, druggies, crooks, welfare swindlers and sex traffickers…as well as our own slew of home grown scum who rape. fiddle and burgle/murder…don`t make themselves known to the BBC etc.
Surprising really, given that they represent a major segment of the DWP/Home Office “client base”….yet you`d never know that, because they NEVER get to “make their voice heard”.
Why so BBC?…bit scared to meet them outside the Salford “creative pods”?, maybe?
Oh-one exception-that Wrexham lout and his many kids who got his White Stripe/Lightning and Sky subscription paid by us, as the Beeb listed his “poverty, coming what with the new Toricutz”.
Funnily enough, once we all twigged it, the BBC pulled that story of “deprivation”…from the web and from our consciousness, please Sir Jimmy!
The BBCs intercessor of choice in heaven, our Jimmy!
BBC-NUJ’s routine political propaganda:
‘humanise’ the immigrants, ‘dehumanise’ the indigenous people.
……. and demonise anyone who asks questions
‘Empathy’ – n. A mysterious quality possessed only by socialists, which enables them to pick other people’s pockets to ease their sense of all-pervading guilt.
“Who on earth would want the type of dull Soviet era news”
Yes, if the USSR taught us anything, socialist propaganda needs to be made more interesting. How about live coverage of Ann Widdecombe getting beaten to death?
“the key word utterly missing from this blog. Empathy.”
Only the Left have empathy. Just look at their history.
‘Personalise’ the immigrants’ narrative, means, in practice, a political ‘left’ (inc BBC-NUJ) campaign for open-door, mass immigration into Europe, and into U.S.
Milliband and the labour party are being dishonest because it was they that deliberately engineered mass immigration when last in power with the intent of altering the country forever , by diluting the opposition, a nice bonus being that many immigrants tend to be labour voters.
The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222977/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-outrageous-truth-slips-Labour-cynically-plotted-transform-entire-make-Britain-telling-us.html
“So Labour now says it’s NOT racist to debate immigration.
“What sick hypocrisy.”
By STEPHEN GLOVER (June, 2012).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2163445/Ed-Miliband-So-Labour-says-NOT-racist-debate-immigration-What-sick-hypocrisy.html
Careful, you’ll have a self-appointed hall monitor along reading you the riot act… make that editorial guidelines, on what folk who never come here expect to find so they can say it doesn’t make any difference, or something.
Let’s take this (to me) interesting link as more of a starting point.
When Labour came up with this wheeze, as an impartial, professional media monopoly with a remit to serve the people of the UK, what was, has been and is the national broadcaster’s near consistent stance throughout?
It’s not racist, just “Little-Englander”.
I don’t particularly care if Labour think it’s ok to debate immigration or not. We have suffered thirteen long and dreadful years of Labour mis-rule where I saw my familiar homeland being transformed, before my very eyes, like some ghastly cultural conjuring trick. Any mention of discontent at the vile third world slum that south London was becoming was met by accusations of “racism.” Areas that were once peaceful and civilised are now “vibrant” crime infested ghettoes. Parts of our capital city no longer resemble England at all. I feel like an alien walking streets I have been familiar with since childhood.
I’m so pleased that Ed Milliband has given his permission that we mortals can pass an opinion on the enrichment we have come to appreciate.
Cheers Ed.
One of the BBCs many gobshites in the “swing states” out on the US campaign trail, rather gave the game away.
Nevada used to be a “swing state”, but the Democrats seem confident now that so many Hispanics, immigrants etc have gone there to seek work….wasn`t this gerrymandering when the Ulster Protestants did that in Belfast Council elections then?
The Andrew Neather defence for skewering the election is to be welcomed in Nevada, much is it is in Bradford West.
Chris H ….. You obviously have no idea what `Gerrymandering` actually is/was … it had nothing to do with migrant workers. At the time when Gerrymandering was in practice the electoral rules stated one vote per household as most of the actual households were properties let to Catholic families by Protestant landlords the catholic tenants did not recieve the right to actually vote as thier landlords used thier votes instead. Also even in staunchly Catholic areas where the housing was owned by Catholics these houses were overcrowded and even if there was more than one adult of voting age the household still only recieved one vote meaning that the Catholics were at a disadvantage. Nothing to do with immigration and certainly nothing to connect it with the concept of a swing state election result. Kindly research the points you are trying to make in future as I find your view on the Political history of the six counties of N.Ireland offensive to the memory of those people who marched for equal rights during the early seventies. BTW myself and my family are of N.Irish Catholic background, so I think I should know what Gerrymandering actually is and how it worked at the time it was in use.
“Elbridge Gerry + salamander; from the shape of an election district formed during Gerry’s governorship of Massachusetts
First Known Use: 1812” (Merriam-Webster)
It started in America. It just means messing about with electoral boundaries to gain an advantage by either splitting opposing voters into different areas where they are outnumbered or concentrating them so that they only win a few constituencies. I’m sure using it figuratively for jiggery pokery in setting up the demographics of a place in anticipation of some future election, is permissible.
Thanks for this, wgi!
Never knew any of this-and had wondered, independently of Mr Caseys angst….Robert Robinson would be proud!
Pity the BBC didn’t show the nail-bombing and acid-bombing of troops on Bloody Sunday by alleged “civil rights” protesters.
Or mention what MacGuinness was doing with a sub-machine gun that day, when soldiers fired back at the “protesters” in self-defence.
Distorted coverage makes terrorists bolder, and the more it is aired the more readily ordinary people will believe it. This is the awful result of BBC bias.
We now have media-scared governments rigging an inquiry and threatening to try those soldiers for murder.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286990/Bloody-Sunday-Inquiry-Martin-McGuinness-WAS-armed-machine-gun-Bloody-Sunday.html
I never said that it WAS anything to do with immigration!
I used it as codespeak for fiddling the elctoral register…I need no lesssons from you about what it meant by way of specifics.
Call it Shirley Portering for all I care , if that helps you -that it was a way of skewering wards for permanent political hegemony.
You should know what gerrymandering is …all I`m saying is that it ensured political management of minorities, by ward allocations etc…probably not unlike what is currently going on in Bradford, Birmingham, Las Vegas etc, with no sectarian-specific aims in mind.Just a perpetual wasp in a jar, looking for a fight over nothing but semantics and competing for grievance brownie points from a pitying and ever-generous state.
Hope that helps-the word is neither Biblical or anything but “political fixing” to me…sorry if you reckon only yourself is able to allow its usage.
Lots of Latinos and Hispanics loading Nevada, so it stays Democratic….being seduced to go there as it`s near the border, and claim a job and a citizenship.with hopes from the Democrats that they register to vote for them…social engineering?..gerrymandering?…I don`t know, but it`s hardly a problem…we know what I mean…so I don`t need to research anything about N.Ireland before commenting on Nevada…OK?
You make the link if you like-as an Irish Catholic, I`m probably far more conscious of things than you`d care to know about!
Another carbon-copy example.
How UK immigration laws are splitting families apart.
The report starts with a grandmother from Russia, then goes on to an NHS radiologist from India.
No mention of the hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis, Somalis, Bangladeshis etc.
I’ve just read that , I was stunned with what the bBC is promoting . Regards that Russian Grandmother who has to leave:
“But in January her visitor visa will expire and she will have to return to Russia with no guarantee that she will be allowed back. John and his wife Yana, both British citizens, had hoped that Nadya would be able to live with them but under the government’s new immigration rules, introduced in July, that will no longer be possible.The home secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament in June that it has been “too easy for elderly dependent relatives to join their migrant children here and then potentially become a burden on the taxpayer.”
But John takes issue with this.
“We as sponsors would sign a document guaranteeing that Nadya would not take benefits for at least five years.
And:
Dr Avinash Kanodia has to make the same difficult choice. Recruited by the Department of Health from India in 2003 because of doctor shortages in the NHS, he works as a consultant radiologist in Perth. He, his wife and two children are now British citizens.
An only child, he checked before committing to move to the UK that his mother would be allowed to join them if her health deteriorated.Under the new rules she would not be granted a visa because Dr Kanodia can afford to pay for nursing care in India. “The rules are morally wrong. I don’t want to leave my mother in the care of a stranger thousands of miles away. I was lured here with the promise of citizenship.
Isn’t it great how the bBC only see foreigners as the rightful recipients of British tax payers money.
The issue of aged parents is problematic but limited. Few people have more than two. It’s the uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, cousins and further that are in issue. Add to this the possibility that the aged parents will want to bring in additional sons, daughters and grandchildren with spouses and their extended family. And don’t get me started on polygamy.
At some point the Government needs to say ‘no’. I wonder when the BBC sees that point has been reached.
Do we expect to go to other peoples countries , even if invited for work , settle then bring over dependants saying they wont be on that country`s welfare for a specified time ?