Is the BBC completely out of control, more intent on promoting a left-wing social and political agenda than in actually just being a media organisation producing straight forward news and entertainment?
Who are the extremists when it comes to immigration? Is it UKIP and others who want a sensible, measured policy to control immigration or the likes of the BBC who promote mass, uncontrolled immigration without thought for the consequences?
Should the government ‘renationalise’ the BBC and take it out of the hands of these left-wing media extremists who seek to undermine British society?
The BBC’s highly irresponsible promotion and encouragement of illegal immigration continues apace with the Today programme on Saturday (08:35) once again trying to paint those who oppose open borders and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration as immoral and inhumane.
Today presented us with two immigrant tales that were intended to tug on the heart strings and dragoon us with moral blackmail into flinging open the borders, more so than they already are, and letting in all and sundry regardless of the consequences, the disastrous consequences which the BBC assiduously fails to point out, one of which will be the end of the beloved welfare state with the hallowed NHS, state education and those welfare handouts that the immigrants, ironically, so often come here in search of made unworkable and unaffordable.
Of course it is the BBC that is setting the parameters when it comes to deciding what that ‘morality’ is…if you don’t agree with the BBC you are by default then ‘immoral’. Nice when you can make the rules of the game up yourself to suit yourself.
First up we had a tale of a Pakistani ‘asylum seeker’. No explanation as to why he was seeking asylum…could it be that he was just an economic migrant seeking those ‘streets of gold’ that the UK is famously paved with?
He tried to leap onto a moving train and hit a concrete wall and subsequently died. We are supposed to think...’How desperate they must be to take such risks’...and then unlock our hearts and the border. Most people would have thought ‘That’s bad luck…but it was his own fault…why are we being held responsible by the BBC?’
What is this moral obligation that the BBC seeks to impose upon us just because some people have decided to make a dangerous journey to get here? As you’ll hear from the interviews they have come through eight countries, including Muslim Turkey, but none were to their taste…they want to come to Britain.
If they are so ‘desperate’ for sanctuary why do they not stop in Turkey where Islam is the national religion and claim it there from their fellow Muslims? Why camp under plastic sheets for weeks in France when they can claim asylum in France, or Greece, or Italy, or Germany that they have travelled through? What is it that they think they can get in the UK?
Makes you think the real reason has absolutely nothing to do with ‘asylum’ and all to do with the handouts they expect.
Immediately following the ‘harrowing’ tale of the death of an immigrant the BBC brought us another tale, this time of an Afghan who came here when he was 13 and who successfully got inside the system…but shows not a smidgeon of gratitude….Europe, apparently, is ‘uncivilised’ and the British public are wrong about immigration…misled by the Rightwing Press apparently…he’s really caught onto the scrounger/victim narrative hasn’t he? He’s going to write a book about his experiences…a guaranteed ‘Book of the Week’ on the BBC and a fabulously adoring write up in the Guardian and the Independent.
If Europe is so uncivilised perhaps he should try his luck back in Afghanistan. No? Thought not.
It takes not even seconds to realise that the premise of the BBC’s immigration narrative stands up to not even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Migrants make dangerous journeys to get here, therefore we must let them come to Britian and start paying for them….OK, and then what? When does that stop? Where is the line? There can be no line. If it was immoral, in the BBC’s eyes, to stop the first lot then the case remains exactly the same for the next lot. They have to be let in. And then what? Millions upon millions will turn up on our doorstep.
What of those who suffer some sort of persecution or harassment or oppression of varying degrees, or poverty or lack of opportunity? The BBC is always making the case that these should be let in. It must take the most optimistic and naive or stupid of people to think that such a policy could ever be made to work. Apart from the fact that you could go to many parts of Britain where the same case could be made for its inhabitants is the BBC really suggesting that we let in all those who are in poverty and bring them here? Really? Billions of people…from China, from India, from Brazil, from Africa, from ……almost everywhere. Billions.
The BBC’s continued attacks on those who oppose mass, uncontrolled immigration and its promotion of that immigration is dangerous and irresponsible. The results of such an enticing narrative can be seen in Calais and Libya where maybe a million people wait to swarm into Europe with many more millions moving up behind them.
If governments don’t take control others will eventually try to do so. The very thing that the BBC tries to engineer by its head in the sand approach, a huge conflict based upon race and or religion, is an ever closer likelihood ironically because of policies on immigration that the BBC itself has fostered.
The BBC’s charter says it is the job of the BBC to promote civil society and cohesion…if it is failing to do that then the government should step in and change the message. The BBC was given that obligation by government and therefore there is no reason government shouldn’t decide what message is in the best interests of the country. Why is such an important issue left in the hands of a small group of self-selected people who are clearly socially and politically antagonsitic to the national interest? Would we have left the BBC in the hands of Nazi sympathisers during the war just because of the BBC’s famed independence? No of course not…so why leave it in the hands of a cabal of simplistic, left-wing elitist liberals who act against the British national interest? The BBC is the ‘extremist’ in this debate not the supposed ‘far right’…ie anyone who wants to control immigration that the BBC brands ‘toxic’ and racist.
‘Nationalise’ the BBC and take it out of the hands of the extremist, elitist, media royalty who have hijacked the People’s broadcaster.
Crossing Continents tonight on R4 was just as bad.
Dishonest in fact and verging on propaganda.
Why does the BBC do it? Because it is part of a decadent and self absorbed liberal governing class ( a key part ) that has no answers to the problems our Western civilisation faces and will do anything to signal it’s moral virtue rather than actually cope with events.
In Crossing Continents the heart strings were well tugged .Personable would be migrants whom only the hard hearted would have refused. By personalizing a tiny number of individual cases it becomes much easier to portray them all as deserving cases. That was the keynote of the programme.
What was clear was that smugglers are organizing it and enriching themselves.
Now they are in Libya. There is no law in Libya. It is literally an outlaw state. It would not be that hard to find and destroy the smuggler networks. All it would take is the will to do it and the balls to ignore the wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth.
That done the sea would be clear of these leaking boats and their exploited cargoes.
The problems of the failed states in Africa are for the Africans to solve. They are not children to be indulged by a paternalistic Europe.
A few weeks ago I heard a R4 programme on Ethiopia and how it was growing and prospering. .
Not that you would know it listening to recent BBC and the rest.
The last words compared the Africans attempting to enter Europe with the Europeans going to North America .
Deeply dishonest and historically wrong.
The Europeans went in large numbers with superior technology and organisation. The Indians resisted and went down to defeat. They were overwhelmed. No indigenous people willingly give up their land.
The virtuous liberal will never grasp this until it is literally too late.
Better still, let AliBaba TV fund itself by subscription.
Simples!
Absolutely agree, that the failed states in Africa are for the Africans to to solve not us-having workled a little in West Africa I can imagine that it will be difficult tom overcome the utter corruption that invests all those states. But as said these so called immigrants are seeking sanctuary in the UK for the obvious reasons we all know of. Neverhteless there is a very sinister & dangerous resolve by these followers of Islam-quote from Muhammad Mahdi Akef, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood 2004-10 “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.”
“The jihad will lead to smashing Western civilization and replacing it with Islam which will dominate the world … .”
Anjem Choudary in London, from Norwegian State Television NRK documentary, “British Sharia Courts” 2011-“Our campaign … will be – Rotten Britain, and destroying the foundations of Western civilization. So … be part of the project of forbidding man-made law … and calling for the Sharia.” “We are going to take England – the Muslims are coming.”
“Now we are taking over Birmingham and populating it … These people are like a tsunami going across Europe.” 2013-think that says enough don’t you.
If they hate this country and our ways then revoke their citizenship and tell them to push off.Or words to that effect.This country is a laughing stock along with the BBC and the government.Until the people rise up and say enough is enough nothing will happen.
Close down the tunnel, Europe exports more to the UK. They will soon sort the illegal immigrants out.
Better still, get out of the EU.
This total sorry business of ever allowing such followers of that despotic religious ideology into Europe is done to none other than the European Union & is daft dangerous policies, now coming home to haunt it-helped in no small part by the British Media.
For the answer this question just read the Public Purposes in the 2006 BBC Charter. It mentions civil society and values, but doesn’t actually mention making programmes.
Whatever their intentions in promoting cohesion, or cohesiveness (which is a different thing, being an affinity for cohesion, or unanimity) – whatever their intentions are, or were, they are plainly now promoting the opposite, since a large proportion of the population obviously don’t agree with them.
To continue to promote a clearly disputed set of opinions and attitudes above all others is now to promote division in the country. And who else would wish to divide a country against itself, but its opponents?
The BBC now represents interests other than Britain’s. It is not a question of how to fund it – it needs to be dismantled, limb from treacherous limb, and public service broadcasting rebuilt on new foundations, with safeguards against betrayal of the national interest. I think this is becoming really rather urgent.
I’m going to think like a leftiod/BBC for a bit .
Good people should be allowed into the UK
Now I think as a normal human being ;
But 97% of the world are good people
Leftiod thinking ; that’s nice I can’t wait to patronise….sorry meet them .
Normal human ; that’s billions of people !
Leftiod; we’ve plenty of space , I saw a farmer’s field in Essex and a hill in Wales
Normal Human ; where do these immigrants actually go to , will they drive cars , eat food , use the sewage system want a house , school etc etc ?
Leftiod; they will increase our GDP
Normal Human ; looks good for the Foreign Office and Dave grandstanding on the world stage , but what about the Ordinary Joe ?
Leftiod ; Your concerns are inhuman and will not be expressed by the BBC
Normal Human; don’t I know it .