Biased BBC writer Daniel Pycock notes…

“The BBC reluctantly gives good coverage on UKIP, but cannot help itself…

I recently spotted a few things in a recent article about Nigel Farage saying the UK should take in refugees from the Syrian Civil War (

The first is that the BBC’s ‘political apparatchik’ correspondent said “Mr. Farage’s call was likely to surprise many”. If you look at UKIPs manifesto, or website, they say “UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations”. So not a surprise to anyone who had read UKIP’s policy in this area…

If one had only read about UKIP from the BBC, however, one might think that UKIP: are the equivalent to the Fascistic Golden Dawn in Greece*, did not field a candidate in the Norwich North By-Election** or the London Mayoral Elections*** and – especially in party conference season**** – are essentially “a weird party led by a joke figure, a party that a lot of people think is racist and sexist”, as implied by 60% of John Humphrys’ interview with Nigel Farage on Radio 4’s today programme. This is not to mention the stacked audiences with whom Mr. Farage or PPCs such as Diane James have to debate on Question Time.

If UKIP sticking with a policy is a “surprise” as Arif Ansari (the BBC political correspondent) suggests, I wonder why that would be the case. cough BBC cough.


** See:

*** See:

**** See:


P.S. Notice how the BBC slides the Labour Party’s policy of accepting 400-500 refugees in, despite the piece being about a UKIP policy? They must really know Labour policy inside-out since I can only find reference to it in The Independent*.

 * See:

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. AsISeeIt says:

    This case shows up exactly how the BBC have become the arbiter of all political discourse in this fast waning country.

    If the BBC likes what you say then you get a big leg up.

    Say something out of line and the BBC will either ignore you or come down on you like a ton of bricks.

    This is why David Cameron always wears a pink rubber charity-style wrist band that reads ‘What Would the BBC Think’

    Which is why we get BBC-friendly policy such as no strong policy on Europe and the Pantomime Marriage Act

    The State Broadcaster ought to reduce greatly the level of comment it makes on the news and current affairs.


    • chrisH says:

      Agreed AISI!
      The BBC is so self-righteous and bloated in its own goodness that it thinks that we now have permission to credit UKIP with something.
      And-though we may not yet vote for them-we could possibly put it on our adoption applications up north once again…as long as Nigel continues to follow the BBC arc of goodness, and keep the likes of Bloom as pantomine villains and fools off stage.
      Follow the usual rule-if the BBC approve of you, you are wrong, wrong and on the wrong side of history and events as they unfold. You just are.
      And-as I see it as well-if we`re talking Syrian Christians-then fine…clear out Belmarsh in return for our new assets, who actually ARE being persecuted..not synthesising it one one side of the Shia/Sunni divide to subvert the other.
      If they`re Muslim…well that the hell are the Green Crescent for…has Saudi not got enough money or oil to empty Syria of the Sunni and get them lashed to the Wahhabi wheel of history?
      Until we`ve purged the place of Somali drug lords and the likes of the Two Michaels of Woolwich…we`ll only be hastening the reckoning for ourselves.


    • Peter Grimes says:

      “If the BBC likes what you say then you get a big leg up.”
      No, no, you’ve got it all wrong!!
      We all know that Al JaBeeBa is always and only trying to leg us over!


  2. Thoughtful says:

    “If you look at UKIPs manifesto, or website, they say “UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations”. So not a surprise to anyone who had read UKIP’s policy in this area…”

    Yes it is a great surprise! unfortunately Farage knows nothing he is talking about, and it’s only thanks to the bias of the BBC on the matter that he hasn’t been made to look a complete idiot!

    Yesterday on the Friday thread I explained the definition of a refugee, and the conditions which needed to be met to engage a countries treaty obligations. There is nothing in the treaty about those fleeing from war caused either by external or internal aggression.

    What Farage is actually calling for is increased immigration to allow a number of Syrian people to enter the UK on a permanent basis.

    Almost all the EU countries (18 of them) have refused to accept Syrian migrants – and there’s a reason for that! When this conflict is finally over Syria will need it’s people to return and rebuild it, and they’re not going to do that if they’re here in the UK !

    Farage has made a complete ass of himself over this, compromised by the demands of politically correct fascists. Hopefully the government will maintain its position and keep things just the way they are!


    • BongoBongo says:

      Farage has not made a complete arse of himself, you are talking bollocks, you’re probably a bloody Tory sympathiser .He said we should honour the SPIRIT of the 1951 Declaration. He went on to talk about the moral obligation to help Christians fleeing civil war in Syria, to escape death and torture. In case you hadn’t noticed they are being slaughtered wholesale.
      It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when a nation cannot offer shelter to a relative few people (500), fleeing for their lives.
      AND to Deborah following your post, What has Muslim countries contributions got to do with Farages statement ?


      • Rob says:

        What is the point of taking in 500 refugees? It is pure NuLabor tokenism, a typical Blairesque “eye-catching initiative”. We would have to take in a quarter of a million even to make a dent in the numbers of displaced Syrians, and even that would only represent 10% of the total.


        • BongoBongo says:

          Germany are rumoured to be taking in 10,000. If every nation undertook their moral obligation to take in refugees, it would mean a considerable number of lives being saved. It has nothing to do with Labour or tokenism.
          Farage spoke of Christians, whose numbers I suspect are being reduced as I type.
          I know, lets do bugger all, and sit in our multi culti selfish hell hole known as the United Kingdom,
          and score cheap political points.


          • Rob says:

            Do you believe for one minute that Britain would only take in Christian refugees? There is no way we would be allowed to discriminate in that way. We would have to take in Sunni, Shia, Allawite etc, who all seem to hate each other. If you want the Syrian civil war to come to a street near you, that would seem like a great idea.


            • Stewart says:

              Would or could? If decided only to take Christian refugees , what would sanction be ,who would enforce it and how?


              • Rob says:

                It just would not happen, Can you imagine the furore? Seriously, it would not cross the mind of our political establishment to discriminate in this way. Britain is now officially a multi-cultural society, something they are extremely proud about. Anyway, if the British government did try it, I am sure Amnesty International or some similar NGO will have them up before the beak at the ECHR, and the British government would lose.


    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      Just heard Camoron pledging help to Putin for the bombings in Volgograd. Help? Advice?…….Putin should tell him to sod off in no uncertain terms, as Camoron and Labour and others have flooded Britain with several million muslims, all a potential threat to us and our cowardly appeasement of the bastards when they demand this and that of us. Only Christian Syrians should be allowed here, as recompense for the West ignoring their plight in the ME from murderous, foul muslims.


  3. Deborah says:

    I expect the most needy of the ‘refugees’ will be women and children (who would assess?) but before long that would entitle their fathers, brothers cousins and their uncles to join them. Before long 500 would become 3,000 and they would need to be housed, educated as well as fed and all in addition to the £500 million that I understand we are giving to the refugees. How much is being given by Muslim countries to help their coreligionists?


    • Thoughtful says:

      Well both Iran and Saudi Arabia appear to be heavily committed financially, but not necessarily in terms of humanitarian aid !


    • chrisH says:

      And of course the dozens of kinky Muslims who love to don a burka, as purloined from mummys wardrobe.
      No wonder women aren`t allowed to work at Victorias Secret or the Niqab Locker…can`t imagine Mo will be happy with all that.
      In short-women and children…but if they`re 6 feet tall, and fresh from Hatton Garden or Paddington Green, I`d send then to Von Rumpoys Palace for further debriefing…and if we find they`ve got their sisters undies on, that we`ll KNOW that Islam is a bit girlie…hence all those dyed beards, weird wigs and a propensity to blow up their gonads before any other part of themselves.
      If the Prison Service stopped offering free sex changes-we could reduce the Islamic hordes in one go through Belmarsh.
      Now can I be Guest Editor on the Toady Show please?


  4. Guest Who says:

    ‘…a “surprise” as Arif Ansari (the BBC political correspondent) suggests..”
    It would need a Craig I’d guess, but given the now frequent lack of report accuracy erring on agenda, given the burgeoning cubicle flower beds of BBC ‘correspondents’ (and/or editors, reporters or whatever fancy titles they seem able to spin up) it would be interesting with story categories to a) tie various names to not having a clue on the subject and//or b) having every clue on the subject but for some reason seeing merit in not mentioning certain things at all to playing them up or flat out enhancing to the point of fiction as possible personal or tribal tastes dictate.


    • Albaman says:

      A gem of incomprehensibility!!


      • Guest Who says:

        Made you look, though:)
        Welcome back, Albaman.
        Nice to see your contributions are to their usual productive standard.
        And the other five cubicles are fully in support.


  5. Albaman says:

    Not like GeorgeR to miss posting a DM story here.

    I can only assume that this one does not support his bias!!!

    “Have voters fallen out of love with Nigel Farage? Collapse in ratings for UKIP leader who is seen as ‘more style than substance'”


    • Guest Who says:

      I’ll write this slowly as comprehension is not your admitted strong point, but what in your post has anything to do with BBC bias, as opposed to the ongoing irrelevancies that you seek to accord other posters?
      If you are going to take all on your ‘Don’t tell ‘im, Pike!’ norty list to task on them not posting every story that suits your tribal interests, it is going to be a looong 2014.


      • Albaman says:

        My comprehension is fine. It is your composition that is often lacking – as your final “sentence” above evidences.

        Now, if it is good enough for Mr Vance to cite the DM in his lead piece surely it is good enough for others to do so as well.


        • Guest Who says:

          ‘My comprehension is fine’
          As someone once said: ‘If you say so’.
          It’s always a possibility, but unless you really are a deranged contrarian with zero else to do in life, one has to presume your presence here is in defence of the BBC’s output.

          It’s hard to see how this is achieved given your current performance. The rest has clearly invigorated you on quantity, but not quality.

          If correction on BBC-related fact or even as counter reasonable opinion it would serve, but since your triumphant return this afternoon you have so far managed about eight (and counting; possibly a couple more being drafted) posts.

          Of these, 2 have been simply grammar nazidom.

          1 has been a pompous nanny finger wave.

          1 a pure strawman.

          2 false equivalences.

          1 the first ‘me-me’ whinge of the day.

          And just one a possibly reasonable request for clarification.

          Not bad in the space of 3 hours to avoid so much around the actual topics.

          I pity your neighbourhood as you go first foot in it, blundering around uninvited, picking fights and then running back home to phone your favourite quango to make some ‘ism accusations when you get cold-shouldered or dismissed before throwing a brick through the window when you think no one is looking.


          • Albaman says:

            Good to see that I am keeping you “gainfully” employed.

            Before commenting on the quantity and quality of my posts perhaps you should run a critical eye over your own endevours.

            “Unless you really are a deranged contrarian with zero else to do in life, one has to presume your presence here”, which significantly exceeds mine, makes you feel worthwhile in some way or another.


            • Guest Who says:

              ‘…run a critical eye over your own endeavours.’
              Thanks for that, Albaman. I really didn’t think you’d be tempted to reply to that one to so perfectly frame your perceptions and role.
              A bit like a few other differences that escape those of a BBCphilic hue you seem to have missed something critical.
              I like this site. I find it interesting. Most posts are relevant and well considered and the points made apposite. I like to read them and I like to comment on some and I do like to contribute too.
              Now it is true that on occasion I get sidetracked OT by irritating drive-by merchants who do presume to comment on others’ posts (Keep December 30, 2013 at 1:58 pm in mind as the time you here rather screwed the pooch in precedent for yourself and others in future, and taking folk to task on use of English can also tempt karma), but on the whole my body of work is on-topic and often backed by substantiation in the form of URLs and quotes.
              And as a free site seeking such input, as one willing to offer it, I’d hazard I’d be welcome to do so all day if I chose.
              It’s my time to invest as I wish.
              You, however, are dedicated to damage, dismissal, obfuscation, diversion and and denial. And often appear more than exhausted by the effort of maintaining such a heavy workload meeting these aims. It is hard to imagine you feel much pleasure being here unless masochism can be added to an ignoble list of traits.
              Time will tell who has invested their free (at least, in my case) time in the more worthwhile manner.
              Heck of a return, Alabman. Truly. Awesome.


    • Deborah says:

      But it is in the BBC’s interests to promote Ukip as they perceive it diluting the Tory vote.


      • Albaman says:

        Strange then that we have so many comments on this blog asserting that the BBC are biased by not “promoting” UKIP.


    • George R says:

      Just like Beeboid apologist, Albaman, to miss posting a story on ‘Daily Mail’ here:-

      “Daily Mail lifts veil of secrecy judge threw over trial of two Muslim lawyers on trial for perverting the course of justice ‘for cultural reasons'”

      Read more:

      “Daily Mail convinces judge to lift reporting gag on Muslim solicitors”


      • Albaman says:

        I await (but not for long as I have more important things to do) Guest Who’s “what in your post has anything to do with BBC bias” intervention.


        • George R says:

          Beeboid apologist concedes his lost cause.


        • Guest Who says:

          Cripes, Albaman, I don’t know where you were marshalling your forces for yesterday’s car-crash post-hols interventions, but the notion of not digging deeper was clearly not on the seminar schedule.
          Grabbing a pre-lunch moment to read the post histories in order (as you do), I was actually going to chip in and point out to George that you’d be along soon with the phrase you have pioneered, albeit irony-free, to such great precedent-busting if hypocritical effect in the past.
          Yet by apparently being on station you beat me to it, and still dragged me in on top. Homage and honour indeed.
          So in addition to your tarnished bolt, by also shooting yourself in both feet yesterday with Mr. Anderson on facts and me on logic, you have today now added yet another attempted daft distraction to the ‘it’s only OK if I do it’ whingefest.
          If it is your plan to keep this up in 2014 it’s going to be a hoot.
          Love the attempt at poisoning the well, BTW. Won’t work. I am happy to admit to wanting to be here, and beyond on-topic matters of BBC failure your intrusions offer good sport; however you seem to have mixed reasons for never quite being able to resist… despite all those ‘important things’ you do.
          Careful if, how and when you respond, or you may end up looking silly.
          I’ve even made this several paras long, which I know you find hard to avoid sniping at. Go on, you know you want to…


          • You What!! says:

            Wow – has your cage been rattled or what!!!
            Do you have an alarm system set up to alert you to any comment by Albaman or do you really read everything posted here?
            If it is the latter then it appears that you are very selective in attacking those who you deem to be off topic – or do you really mean off message.


            • Guest Who says:

              Welcome Mr/s. What!! A new friend I see. Though that ‘cage’ reference… there may be an ‘ism afoot right there. But I am sure just a colloquialism and you would not wish to see me locked up for having an opinion.
              To answer your question, yes, if one selects it, an email alert lets you know.
              If it’s about an interest I share (like me – you did notice the post reply that started this sub-thread, yes?), I tend to respond, often promptly if online at the time.
              What’s your excuse?
              I also note you have a friend already within seconds of posting. Which is nice. Making two of you now, taking first crack at little old me. Not really thinking this through, are you?
              Almost like some can see responding in person may not work out too well and so the breach was filled by other loyalists of the Flokking Forlorn Hope. Strength in numbers and all that.
              Also yes, I do tend to read most on this blog. As I have said, it interests me. But what, or who, I choose to respond to, or not, is pretty much my affair, so if it troubles you that you can’t influence this in ways that suit you I can only sympathise.
              I actually find many of the off topics of value too. It’s just certain ones, like yours to be honest, seem to contribute little to sensible discussion of BBC inaccuracy, lack or objectivity or impartiality or integrity, and I can be moved to chip in and point this out. That is, to repeat, in response.
              Totally skewed I freely concede, but then I’m not a £4Bpa monopoly via compelled funding that does the exact same thing, only whilst claiming trust and transparency and impartiality via the medium of ‘belief’.
              Or its dedicated supporters.
              Thanks for asking.


  6. David Brims says:

    Nigel Farage wants to let in Syrian Christian refugees . While the BBC likes little brown and black people, they don’t like Christianity, thus putting them in a a bit of a dilemma.


  7. stuart says:

    nigel farage has made the biggest politacal blunder in his life with this dangerous proposal of his to let in god knows how many syrians from that shia v sunni civil war,this is a vote loser for ukip and if the torys are clever enough they will reject his proposal as a dangerous move that could see jihadis posing as refugees coming into this country who could of been involved in war crimes against innocent christian civilians in syria including beheadings that is there most favorite commen form of murdering the innocent men ,women and children of syria,no wonder why the bbc and the far left are all of a sudden farages new best freind because this is a total u turn by ukip on immigration,the trouble with ukip on immigration is that they sound good on paper but in reality they are all over the place,if you nigel farage and your left wing new mates want a big influx of syrians into england lets settle them in the middle class and the upper class leafy surburbs where you lot live,we dont want are overcrowded citys and towns swamped with people who will bring there islamic cultural baggage and hatreds from that region that could be a security threat to us further down the line,we have enough problems as it is in england dealing with the islamists and terrorists who have brought murder and mayhem to are streets since the terrorist attacks in london on 7/7,get it nigel fafage.


  8. bob says:

    mr farage is going to regret getting into bed with the leftists at the bbc and others who want a open door policy on asylum seekers coming to the uk.i agree with stuart that this is a big vote loser for ukip and good news for the conservative party


  9. deception says:

    Maybe now the Bbc can now have Lord Monckton to defeat/debate , the global warming cartel.. err! i mean the climate change collectivists,…err sorry, the green zealots. Or do they still fear Lord Monckton’s logical and more scientific views?

    Lord Monckton – “The Greenies are to YELLOW, to be RED”


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Never mind Monckton. The BBC should have on actual professionals with science qualifications like Anthony Watts or Jo Nova or, more locally, Roger “Tallbloke” Tattersall. I’m sure there are plenty of other people available as well. But they never do, preferring to instead present armchair experts with no qualifications, like Delingpole, as the only voice against climate scientists with academic credentials.

      It never ceases to amaze me how media organizations like the BBC treat serious topics which require serious minds and thinking with so much less respect than they do sports. What I mean is, imagine the BBC having instead of professional athletes and coaches giving commentary and expert opinion, bringing in a couple of guys who talk loudest at the tv in bars when the game is on. I’m not suggesting the latter would be less articulate, mind, and they’d probably be better informed on stats, but you’d never see it because they’re not experienced experts in the field, so to speak. But the BBC does it often on other issues, especially climate change.


  10. Dave s says:

    Farage was never going to be the leader England needs. I am sure he knows this full well.
    He or she will be of a different stamp. Perhaps not to our complete liking either.
    We will have to wait upon events .Meanwhile vote UKIP if nothing else it really does seem to upset the liberal ascendancy.


  11. frk says:

    if it is syrian christians fleeing al qaeda i would accept them,but not muslim refugees,they spell big trouble


  12. chris says:

    It’s strategic. They think it will affect the Conservative vote and help labour.
    It wont. It will attack Labour just as bad, if not worse. Just look at Rotherham.


  13. joed says:

    Farage is talking about Christian syrians, and clarified his position the following day. I thought he meant Christians in the first place anyway.


  14. chrisH says:

    A depressingly familiar take on the “Making of the Modern Arab World” on Radio 4 this morning(9a.m 31/12/13).
    It was by no means a bad programme, but anybody needs to look at what our Egyptian guide chose to omit from his analysis of events since 2000.
    1. USS Cole attack from Yemen which emboldened Al Queda to do what they did a year later in New York.
    2. 19/21 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals, and many well-educated by the so called hostile “West”..Hamburg etc.
    3. Yet hardly any mention of 9/11 as a causal factor in the Wests response to Wahibbism or any other sects of Islamofascism we now see resurgent today.
    4, The usual excuses for Muslim terrorism being due to Cast Lead 2008, to Lebanon strikes of 2006, of Iraq 2003 and the like…and not a peep about how Saudi Arabia and Iran choose to stir, foment and create/maintain the perpetual crises in the Middle East and out to Pakisatan etc.
    5. In short, that Arab splits are due to Sunni/Shia funding and they can only agree on a lazy narrative that still blames Balfour for all its ills, Sykes/Picot for all its Jew hating,west despising leeching off our benefits, out technology, our “tolerance”.
    The Egyptian narrator had some good points-but it`s the same old BBC trusties that get interviewed from Oxbridge/FCO/LSE…the Iranian Green Revolution of 2009 was dismissed in a sentence, the Grand Mosque of 1979 ignored.
    My major lesson was that is Saudi Arabia and Iran are not factored in as major sources of the evil out there..their conflicts, their undercover dirty wars(whilst professing umma love as Muslims under their “taqqiya opt-outs on morality) not mentioned…then all the BBC and its Egyptian speaker has left to say is that Nasser was a disaster and a false god of faux unity, and that Saudi Arabia is its own Great Satan…and who there at the BBC would ever be brave enough to say that before Friday prayers at Regents Park then?
    Sharia is incompatible with democratic change.
    Terror and fear are their male dominated ways of ensuring compliance when up against any reasoned critique-the tribe permits nothing else, the sect demands blood and treasure.
    There is no unity in Islam save for scapegoating those they deem weaker or a threat to them(that`ll be everybody but them, then).
    Michael Adebowale(Woolwich imam of the year 2013) gave the only street sermon you`re going to need re Islam and its plans…let Lucy , Ed and Giles find out the hard way what Al Tawba(Sura 8) actually means in its practice.


  15. Beness says:

    The BBC thinks all immigration is good until were accused of brain drain from other countries. Dont forget “we”, the British, robboed the commonwealth of all their minerals. In a few years they’ll be asking why us dirty Britishers robbed all these counmtries of their best people.

    What i dont quite get is why the Romanian and Bulgarian governments want all these people to leave their shores. Nothing to do with the amount of money they will send back i suppose.

    Oh but they will pay tax. Hmm they will send money out of our economy that should be circulating. Doubt they’ll have a TV licence either.


    • chrisH says:

      TWATO were in full flow over this one (31.12.13/1.30 pm/Radio4).
      Carol-singing moppets from Timisoira singing home mummy and daddy(if known) as they face down the racist Italian bosses and exploitative German hedge-fund managers…you know, that kind of thing!
      Thank God for the BBC eh?…sweets for the kids, jumpers for goalposts and a free ride home in the BBC van…Jimmy Savile definitely did NOT use that one at least.
      Anyhoo…think the BBC told them all that Britain would be better-well worth the trip and a free license at the end of it.
      They`ve tried Perugia and failed…come on Peterborough, this is Jeus sans Frontieres and Stuart Hall could do with a laff!
      Bad Wutterburg?…pah, maybe good Godalming will bring more festive cheer to those loveable Roma scamps.
      The BBC suggest nothing of course-but there is a shortage of Bulgar wheat organically sourced for Hampsteads finest…so come on Easter Europe…bring us your cheap staff and chav stabbers for Sheffield eh?


    • Observation says:

      ukip have always recognised the moral obligation to give sanctuary to genuine refugees.

      The Daily Mail is just trying to stir up controversy to support the establishment’s anti ukip campaign.

      Remember Amy Rutland, paid Labour activist on QT urging people to vote for the “three main parties”.
      Here it is in case you missed it Link: