The BBC should be a necessary part of the fabric of our society providing impartial and balanced news and views that are accurate and truthful, a counter weight to the myriad of partisan broadcasters and publishers who offer just one side of any argument.
The existence of this site, and many like it, is evidence that all is not as it should be at the BBC.
Does it matter you ask if the BBC is biased, if it plays politics and favours one side or the other?
Greg Dyke, once BBC DG, quotes the Daily Telegraph in his autobiography which said:
‘A nation kept in ignorance is a nation easily led.’
If the BBC is not doing its job in providing accurate and impartial news the consequences can be severe.
The BBC more often than not actively campaigns on many fronts, either by commission or omission in what it broadcasts.
If the BBC does take an active part in politics, manipulating opinion or attempting to engage in social engineering rather than sticking to its remit of informing and educating the Public then the BBC has to take responsibility for the outcome of its interventions.
People need to start asking the BBC questions and getting answers.
‘Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.
In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.
He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.’
‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’
He said: ‘The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.’
When Labour encouraged new arrivals ‘we were almost … a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now.
‘We have to just realise… entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.
‘For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.’
So far the BBC’s website has ignored Mandelson’s ‘bombshell’ comments despite linking to the Telegraph’s comment on them:
-
Telegraph / NEW 1 hour ago
The BBC for a long time completely ignored Labour’s policy, but they didn’t just ignore Labour’s immigration policy…they deliberately buried it and the damaging effects of its consequences…firstly because they themselves approve of immigration and the end of the nation state, but also because they knew that if this story had caught light it would have been the end of Labour for a long time as it betrayed not just the country, and a class of people but in effect carried out a policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’….trying to dilute the ‘horrible whiteness’ of this country.
The BBC ignored Labour’s Andrew Neather when he revealed the true nature of Labour’s open border policy….one that should have been political dynamite if publicised…..
Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.
Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.
He said there was ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.
Not only were the working class betrayed and put on the scrap heap but Labour’s policy imported massive amounts of crime…just how many murders, attacks, rapes, thefts, drug crimes have been committed by people Labour allowed into this country?
Nearly a fifth of all suspected rapists and murderers arrested last year were immigrants
Just how many people would still be alive now had it not been for Labour and the BBC?
As I said the BBC’s own actions have severe consequences.
The BBC’s support for Labour’s immigration policy has condemned this country to a very different future to that which was likely in 1997 before Labour took power.
A future in which Miliband’s much vaunted ‘One Nation’ will become more and more segregated and divided with conflicts erupting with ever more frequency and seriousness.
The BBC has played its part in that. It has played its part in bringing serious and dangerous crime within our borders, it played its part in bringing terrorism to our shores, often excusing and ‘explaining’ it away, it has played its part in making the future a bleaker place for the working class who can’t get a job, or when they do they find the wages are so much lower, but it doesn’t matter because even if they could afford to rent or buy a house they find they are last on the list behind the immigrant family just off the plane whose human rights seem more important than the native Brits.
The BBC fully supported and actively promoted mass immigration.
It is one of the ’Guilty Men’ responsible for the bloodshed, the crime, the jobless, the homeless, the crowded schools and hospitals that comes with that mass immigration.
That’s not an exaggeration…think about it…that’s the uncomfortable truth.
All those people without jobs or forced onto low wages might like to ponder the fact that it is highly paid BBC employees, some getting paid £150,000 allowances to relocate to Salford, who are making decisions that destroy lives, not just lives but a culture, a nation…and yes even a ‘Race’.
Of course, while the BBC continues its oddly selective campaigns of ignoring and ignorance (a ‘unique’ version of information and education, perhaps?), those feeling ill-served by this dubious calibre of service are still required to fund it no matter what.
The only time they seem capable of po-faced ‘reporting’ is where simple facts cannot be ignored, and in certain areas the sheer volume of ‘reports’ of errant ‘men’, even without ‘analysis’, must surely be causing even the least professionally concerned BBC journalist some pangs of conscience in avoiding any questions other than vague ‘what is society coming to?’ attempts.
It is not in the BBC’s own interest to be impartial, and because of its size it does not need to be. Enders Analysis had the BBC supplying 47% of the news consumed in the UK. The only part where it is not dominant are newspapers. Though newspapers are in decline, the BBC still put in enormous effort attacking the newspaper industry through their coverage of the Leveson Inquiry. Leveson was also a great opportunity for them, to damage a Conservative led government.
The current BBC Charter and the freezing of the TV Licence fee ends in 2017. The internet is undermining some of the BBC’s control of UK media. More importantly it is starting to impact its revenue stream. People are stopping watching broadcast television and using internet delivered “on-demand” alternatives which do not require a BBC TV Licence. Not many people, but enough for the BBC to start experimenting with distributing some new programs by Iplayer before first broadcast.
Why distribute new content through a mechanism that is not covered by the TV Licence? Perhaps the BBC is aiming to replace the TV licence with an Internet one. The BBC knows that a Labour government will be more sympathetic to it during negotiation of a new Charter and Licence. It’s in the BBC’s own interest to be tyrannical with the news.
There was, within my (considerable) lifetime, when the Labour party had the respect of it’s political opponents.
We disagreed with them, they disagreed with us, and we both agreed to differ; there were genuine, heartfely and informed debates to be had about the direction that the country should take.
These were, in retrospect, the last hurrahs of a once great movement that spoke – not in my view correctly, too often – for the British working class, in defence of it’s interests as they were then perceived.
The decline of the honest Labour politician in many ways mirrors the decline of Britain. What was once a movement of working class people, led by working class people, and for the benefit of woking class people, has been usurped and is now commanded by second rate ex-lecturers from the old third rate polytechnics.
Such is their vitriolic hatred of all things British, in stark contrast to the old-fashioned, patriotic Labour party of my youth, that there seem to be no limits to the tactics that they are prepared to deploy in order to virtually obliterate every standard, every tradition, and everything that was once seen as good about our once-great country.
The BBC is their mouthpiece.
It’s sad.
It’s tragic.
And, actually, it’s social and political treason.
The simple fact that the BBC has not reported Mr. Mandelson’s amazing admission is an indication, should we actually need another one, that they are a corrupt and highly dangerous, malevolent and cancerous organism that is growing by means of a parasitical compulsory tax on the very society that they are seeking to obliterate.
I hope that they will not have the nerve to be surprised when the very same British working class realises that they have been had, big-time.
I fear the backlash, ands I fear that the BBC will be substantially responsible for causing it.
From “Can We Still Trust The BBC?” by Robin Aitken (new, updated edition of May 2013) in Chapter 13:
“During the locust years – 1997 to 2007 – the previous administration let public spending rip but it did so without serious challenge from the BBC. The Corporation’s journalists were blind to the spending bubble and its possible consequences (which, as we can now all see, were predictably awful). The largesse of the Blair/Brown years was treated by the BBC as an incontrovertible good ; in fact it derailed the public finances.”
Alan,
“The BBC for a long time completely ignored Labour’s policy…”
Complete garbage:
http://bbc.in/180FNx1
Andrew Neather said:
“The PIU’s reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled “RDS Occasional Paper no. 67”, “Migration: an economic and social analysis” focused heavily on the labour market case.
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.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.
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.”
That’s all OK then.
Odd – something changed before I clicked “post comment”.
‘The existence of this site, and many like it, is evidence that all is not as it should be at the BBC.’
There are quite a few sites about alien abduction as well. What does that prove?
It proves that the defenders of the BBC are not the only fantasists, and that maybe you really are a vegetable, Mr Legume.