Should you ever feel that your sense of moral self was being eroded by the distractions and temptations of everyday life the new priesthood of the BBC, and its acolytes at the Guardian, are here to stiffen the moral fibres and instil a bit of virtuous virtue into you godless, heathen, brutish infidels.

You may be morally lacking, backsliding in your duty to the global humanity as you prevaricate about letting in the odd million ‘refugees’ into your European Eden but wait, tune in and get with the righteous….open your hearts and your borders…show some compassion for your fellow humans in peril and the BBC is here to show you how and why.

The BBC has been shroud waving vigorously as immigrants die in their attempts to reach Europe by various means….the BBC’s latest trick to appeal to your humanity is to spend two days examining, trumpeting, the migrant’s dangerous journeys and asking why they make them in a sensationalist stream of  supposedly guilt inducing moral blackmail, but it is a moral blackmail on the BBC’s terms, they set the parameters and it is they who decide what is the ‘right thing’ to do, they are the moral arbiters passing judgement on you and your own feelings and decisions.

‘They’ being two-bit disc jockeys like the BBC’s Paddy O’Connell who today  launched into a patronising and contemptuous rant against those who dismiss migrants as, er, migrants.  The description apparently dehumanises the migrants…do you not understand that these are ‘humans’?  These are people?  They have feelings, hopes and dreams.  You need to recognise that and help them fulfill their dreams, they must be allowed into Europe and given a safe passage to do so.

Wonder where O’Connell got his hairshirt from?  Strangely in the Guardian today there were these two sanctimonious pieces…

Refugees are human. This simple fact seems to have been forgotten

We deride them as ‘migrants’. Why not call them people?

Just a coincidence I’m sure….Craig at ‘Is the BBC biased?  is obviously wrong as he says…‘No one will ever be able to say that the BBC is ‘the non-inky version of the Guardian’ ever again…’

Curiously I had absolutely no conception of migrants as people, or as human beings who may have suffered in the course of their lives…I always thought of them as cockroaches, parasites, swarms of marauding inhuman insects….thank God the BBC, and little Owen Jones, has enlightened me and shown me the correct path…I now encourage the millions, if not billions of the poorest and most destitute, the miserably oppressed, the victims of tyrants, dictators and brutal regimes worldwide to head to Europe where Owen Jones will feed, clothe, educate, nurse and house you at his own expense.

However, I am actually flattered that such a worthy grandee, such an eminent and renowned intellect as O’Connell should take the time out from his Radio 2 disc jockeying to lecture me on the ethical approach to the migrant, sorry, the human/people/swarm/marauders/victims/preferred term dependent on your political leanings, crisis.

And if you think he isn’t trying to influence, steer and change your mind, should you be opposed to mass immigration, you’d be wrong as he openly admits that the BBC is out to change your mind on the issue when you hear what the BBC has spun. (25 mins)

There was  great rejoicing at BBC Towers yesterday as the bodies of dead migrants were removed from the back of a lorry in Austria.  The timing was exquisite, perfection…what better example could there be to illustrate the start of the BBC’s two day exploration of the perilous journeys that desperate migrants take to break into Europe?…and to top that yet more migrants were found to have died on a boat off the Libyan coast…deep joy….the God’s really were shining on the BBC and their immigration promotional extravaganza!

A few deaths for the greater good, the necessary sacrifice of lives so that others may live…in Europe.  No death will be wasted, every body has a currency in the BBC’s mawkish media manipulation of people’s perceptions as the dead bodies are used as bargaining chips as the BBC tries to persuade a sceptical Public that mass immigration is a good thing, and failing that, to insinuate a mood of moral obligation to ‘do the right thing’…as the BBC sees it.

But who is really responsible for the deaths of these migrants?  The BBC looks to create an image of desperate refugees fleeing danger and embarking on perilous, risky journeys on their flight to safety as they try to get into Europe.  How many of them actually are fleeing such dangers is questionable….many who have fled wars will have been in refugee camps or safe countries already and have been ‘safe’ if not comfortable….and then they’ve looked around and decided the future isn’t bright and decided to become economic migrants and head for Europe, Germany, Sweden, the Uk in particular.

But as I say who is really responsible for their deaths?  The BBC has a case to answer surely?

The BBC has been a powerful anti-Iraq war campaigner effectively helping to restrain fully effective military action to defeat the enemy comprehensively.  The BBC has also been a cheerleader for the Arab Spring, the Arab Spring, along with the premature evacuation of troops from Iraq led to the rise of ISIS especially when the BBC played its part in the vote against military action to force Syria’s Assad to the negotiating table…the result of which we see now as ISIS rampages throughout the Middle East, helped by Assad.  The wars resulting from the Arab Spring have created the immigrant crisis, combine that with the BBC’s normal pro-immigrant rhetoric inviting immigrants into Europe and you have the perfect storm.

The BBC is, in part, I suggest, responsible for the immigrant crisis, the wars in the Middle East and the rise of the Islamic State….and the 70 dead bodies in the back of a lorry in Austria.

Take  a bow Lord Hall.

From Harry’s Place:

The Iraq War: Not Illegal, Not Immoral, and Not Over

The BBC’s total lack of self-awareness is always amusing as it always manages to de-link itself from any reports it makes on ‘The Media’…the BBC not including itself as part of ‘The Media’ when it suits.

Today it asks:

Did French media put lives at risk?

How far can broadcast journalists go in live coverage of terrorist incidents when their reports might influence the course of events or even endanger lives?

In France, the question has particular relevance after two legal investigations were launched into media organisations over their handling of the January attacks in Paris.

This is in relation to the Muslim terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish supermarket.

The BBC seems to have forgotten its own little controversy at that time when Tim Wilcox seemed to suggest that Jews were legitimate targets because of the actions of Israel in Gaza….two problems with that of course…one why does he think there is a problem with anything Israel does and two, why should that impact upon Jews, not even Israelis, living anywhere in the world?

Tim Wilcox’s words could easily be seen as acceptance that Jews are legitimate targets and thus gives the green light to others who wish to attack them.

This is the same BBC that has hidden the Balen Report which may or may not reveal the extent to which biased BBC reporting against Israel demonizes that country and by default Jews, and results in growing anger and attacks against Jews.  Does BBC News kill Jews?  The BBC doesn’t want you to know something about its reporting…can’t be good can it?

Ironically whilst talking about reporters putting lives at risk in the hunt for a scoop only today we had a daft BBC presenter reporting on the funeral of a gangster in Salford where the police would be in attendance.  What did she ask a senior police officer? She’d heard that there would be undercover police at the funeral….so will there be any undercover police at the funeral?   Can’t get much dumber than that….guess their cover is blown no matter what the police had to say on that.

Well, Friday arrives and so does this new OPEN thread to see us off into the wide blue yonder of the weekend! Here is where you detail that latest and most egregious BIAS!

Remember the sneers and gloating from various parties when the first planes and buses from Bulgaria and Romania didn’t bring in swarms of migrants in a first mad rush?  Seems they were wrong…as most people knew they were…and Migration Watch, which predictied a probable 50,000 immigrants a year from these two countries was spot on, as always…

53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) citizens immigrated to the UK in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase and almost double the 28,000 in the previous 12 months.

We also hear that net migration is at a record high of 330,000…but that doesn’t tell the real story, it hides an uncomfortable truth…that the real foreign net migration into the UK is in fact 379,000 once the British citizen figures are removed form the statistics…..

Net migration of EU citizens showed a statistically significant increase to 183,000 (up 53,000 from YE March 2014). The increase in non-EU net migration to 196,000 (up 39,000) was also statistically significant.

In other words 379,000 foreigners came to live in the UK last year….the 330,000 figure, bad as that is, conveniently hides the reality.  Any wonder housing, schools, the NHS and the roads are all nearing crisis levels?  How can you maintain a cohesive society when the very fabric of that society is being ripped apart…the unity of the people, the common sense of being part of one nation, the common values and cultural references that make communication and relations easier, the trust and the willingness to accept the principles of the welfare state…all being eroded by a massive inflow of people who don’t respect British values, culture or history and come essentially for the money.

The BBC is indulging itself with a two day examination of why immigrants want to come here….what an utter waste of time….we know why they want to come here…but then the BBC knows this and has deliberately chosen this line of discussion in order to push the more emotive narrative of immigrants fleeing some horror in their own country and the ‘fact’ that they all want to work and will benefit the UK.  The real question that should be asked is should they be allowed to come here and what are the effects, not just on businesses but upon the whole of society…and that includes cultural, social, legal, political values and beliefs as well as the pressure on the infrastructure. The BBC likes to avoid such discussions as the effects of migration are more often than not negative despite the BBC’s gleeful assertion that Britain’s favourite food is the curry….we like curry, therefore immigration must be good.

The BBC has been spinning the immigration figures today and added in various narratives to the mix that reinforce the BBC’s own preferred line of being pro-immigration and anti-Tory…..and if you want to hear a classic sneer from a BBC reporter listen to Ross Clark when he is talking about migrants (09:43) who are ‘trying to get into ‘our country’ if you like’.(09:44:40)  ‘Our country’ said in a tone suggesting there is no such thing as ‘our country’ and it is rather baffling that anyone should think of it in that way…it should be open to all to come and go as they please and take all the benefits they please.

The BBC has been attacking Cameron and Co for their abject failure to reduce immigration, curiously I don’t remember the BBC being similarly aggressive when Labour flung open the borders and the migrants started swarming in, far, far more than the 13,000 figure Labour lied to us about.

R4 going for an “immigration controls are too strong” line at the top of the news. Bizarre call.

Another attack line is that businesses are demanding more immigration…apparently Cameron is ‘punishing business’ with his limits on immigration….not sure how they get that when immigration is at a record high.  They claim that the alleged block on immigration means they just can’t increase productivity.  A limit on skilled migration is clearly only imposed upon non-EU citizens….are these businesses seriously suggesting that they can’t get these people from inside the whole of Europe or upskill their own workforce?

Is a reduction in immigration really a block on productivity?   The BBC’s favourite meme since 2010 has been that the ever increasing employment numbers have been a ‘puzzle’…well it wasn’t a puzzle…it was the result of businesses being able to employ more people due to low wages and cheap imported labour.  Then the BBC switched its line of attack to the ‘productivity puzzle’….remarkably at the same time it became a Labour Party concern.  The BBC just couldn’t work out why productivity was so low.  Of course that is also the result of low wages and the mass importation of that cheap labour….all of which makes it a bit of a cheek for these businesses to now claim that reducing immigration will reduce productivity when it is their own use of cheap, immigrant labour that has held down productivity per worker.  The BBC fails to raise that anomaly or the point that perhaps the businesses should get off their arses and train their workers, invest in better machinery, become more efficient and sell more if they want to improve productivity…not by importing more cheap labour.  Maybe their defintion of productivity is somewhat different to everyone elses.

We also hear that migrants aren’t coming for the benefits….they come to work…

Meanwhile, Jamil Dhanji an immigration barrister told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme migrants were not coming to the UK to claim benefits.

“Migrants I see are not coming to this country for that reason,” he said.

They do come to work, or most of them do…but of course they know that they will also receive in-work benefits…not to mention a free health service, an education for their kids and all the stability, security and infrastructure that a country like the UK can provide….in other words they get an awful lot of benefits, not all of them coming in the form of cash payments.

No society can sustain the massive levels of immigration that are being forced upon the UK….even if they were all people who loved fish and chips, played soccer and drank warm beer, the figures still wouldn’t be viable…..but add into the mix huge numbers of people who have no interest in maintaining British society, and many who in fact intend to take no part in it at all and will seek to undermine that society, and you can guess that the future is not bright.  The BBC did a survey of Indians who wanted to come here a few years back and the result showed that the majority had no intention to integrate…naturally the BBC didn’t publicise that part of the survey.

The BBC is supposed to be helping to maintain civil society and citizenship…as far as I can see they are doing the precise opposite campaigning for open borders which will result in the break down of the fabric of society and the end of the welfare state with all that that entails.

Time the government took a good look at the BBC’s politics and did something about it.  Fraser Nelson at the Telegraph suggests Cameron is too complacent, too idle, to do so.  I think he’s right.

Once upon-a-time, we are assured, there was a young lad in Spain, of Moroccan descent, hardworking, nice, never violent and never spoke of politics. He travelled to France to work but having found a job was ‘let go’ after two months.  All alone and jobless in a strange foreign country what’s a boy to do?

Apparently what you do is get yourself an assault rifle, a pistol, a knife and some petrol and plan to slaughter as many passengers on a train as possible.

The BBC thinks this is a reasonable narratve to spin for us. (41 mins 30 secs)  A freelance reporter (unsaid if commissioned by the BBC) headed straight for the parents of the train terrorist so that we could ‘find out about the man himself’.

We hear that the father is a humble man, a broken man, bemused by his son’s actions…he has no idea what could have happened to turn that lovely lad into a potential mass murderer…well, actually he did have an idea…it was all the fault of that French company that let his son go.

We hear that there was never any talk of politics in the house….but we are told the terrorist was very religious…as was his brother…who held a post at a mosque…which Spanish police said was a hotbed of radicalism…and yet no politics was ever mentioned at home.

Kind of reminds me of the BBC’s reporting from the West Bank when a suicide bomb goes off and they head straight for the suicide bomber’s family to get his side of the story…just what did drive him to do such a terrible act?  Those damned Israelis!!!  Oh yes…and never mind the families of the victims of the bomber.

Or indeed after 7/7 in this country when the BBC rushed to find excuses for the bombers asking ‘Just what did drive these young British Muslims to do this?’….suggesting of course that it was the fault of British society…the racism, the Islamophobia, the discrimination….only to have to wind their necks in as they realised this line was highly inappropriate and unpopular….but it could wait.

And wait they did until finally they commissioned a film to be made examining the background to the bombings and the motivations of the bombers.

The film was to be called ‘The London Bombers’.

It was never made.  Shelved by the BBC.  The findings did not align with the BBC’s own preconceived narrative of why these ‘young British Muslims’ were driven to do what they did.  The film, in telling the truth, was ‘islamophobic’…..as Nick Cohen in Standpoint relates….

The London Bombers, one of the most thoroughly researched and politically important drama-documentaries commissioned by British television. A team of journalists, at least one of whom was a British Muslim, reported to Terry Cafolla, a fine writer who won many awards for his dramatisation of the religious hatred which engulfed the Holy Cross school in Belfast.

Unusually for journalists working within BBC groupthink, they didn’t find that the “root cause” of murderous rage was justifiable anger at the “humiliation” America, Israel, Britain and Denmark and her tactless cartoonists had inflicted on Muslims. They inadvertently confirmed the ideas of Ernest Gellner, the late and unjustly neglected professor of anthropology at Cambridge. In Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (1992), Gellner asked why a puritanical version of Islam was in the ascendant when godlessness was flourishing everywhere else. His answer was that Wahhabism and its ever more zealous theocratic variants could appear as modern as secular humanism. They represented the pure religion of scholars and the city, which would free Muslims from their peasant parents’ embarrassingly superstitious faith. Accepting fanaticism was a mark of superiority: a visible sign of upward mobility from rural idiocy to urban sophistication.

And so it proved in Leeds.

So psychologically convincing is the portrayal of macho loyalty and lure of barbarism that viewers can understand how these men turn into mass murderers.

Except that they can’t and won’t understand, because the BBC will not give them the opportunity to understand. This is a review of a drama that was never made.

The reporters convinced the families of three of the four bombers to cooperate. By the end, they agreed that the BBC’s account of their sons and brothers’ lives and deaths was accurate. Cafolla submitted five versions of the script. He was working up to a final draft when the BBC abandoned the project.

The official reason is that the drama didn’t make the grade. The script is circulating in Samizdat form, which is how it reached Standpoint, and every writer and director who has read it disagrees. The journalists, however, say that BBC managers told them they were stopping because it was “Islamophobic”.

Cohen concludes…

It makes no sense until you understand the moral contortions of the postmodern liberal establishment. In the past few years, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the West Midlands Police, the liberal press, the Liberal Democrats, the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all either supported ultra-reactionary doctrines or made libellous accusations against the critics of radical Islam. All have sought to prove their liberal tolerance by supporting the most illiberal and intolerant wing of British Islam, and by blocking out the voices of its Muslim and non-Muslim critics as they do it.

As the sorry history of The London Bombers shows, they have left us a country that cannot tell its own stories; a land so debilitated by anxiety and stupefied by relativism that it dare not meet the eyes of the face that stares back at it from the mirror.

The BBC knows exactly why these ‘young Muslims’ of whatever origin go on to commit these acts, the BBC just doesn’t want to admit it as to do so would raise an awful lot of uncomfortable questions about Islam, the sensibleness of continuing to promote Islam unchecked and the wisdom of allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries into Europe when it is clearly going to be the cause of much controversy and conflict.

 

“As for Dylann Roof? You —-! You want a race war —-? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE —-!!!”

The BBC is getting into its stride..it’s now found an angle to twist the narrative on the killing of two unarmed white TV reporters by a black man….he was angry about the Dylann Roof murder of nine black people in Charleston earlier this year….the BBC now seem to think, in this updated report, that it is safe to mention race as he is now officially a ‘victim’…however indirectly….

Police said his utterances on social media the previous evening suggested the attack was pre-planned.

ABC News has meanwhile revealed that it received a 23-page fax, apparently sent by Flanagan on Wednesday morning, in which he claimed his anger had been “building steadily”.

The fax said the attack was intended to avenge the Charleston shootings earlier this year – a suspected hate crime in which a white gunman killed nine parishioners at an African-American church.

The rambling fax also complained of racial discrimination, harassment and bullying in the workplace, and professed admiration for the perpetrators of gun massacres at a US school and university.

The question is though…is Bryce Williams, aka Flanagan, a terrorist?  The BBC was quick to ask such questions about Roof…..

Americans ask if Charleston suspect ‘terrorist’ or ‘crazy’?

Is the suspect in the attack which killed nine people at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina being treated differently because he is white?

That’s what many argued online. After the arrest of 21-year-old Dylann Roof, several images went viral comparing the way the case has been talked about – and how the suspect was treated by police – to other incidents involving black people accused of much less serious crimes. Here are some of the most shared.

The Telegraph reports, the BBC doesn’t,  what the ‘manifesto’ to ABC News from Williams actually said:

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15,” he wrote in what he described a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family”.

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” he wrote. “And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

“As for Dylann Roof? You —-! You want a race war —-? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE —-!!!”

Bryce wants a race war and he presumably killed these two white people as his own little part in that.  He’s a terrorist just as Roof was.

I’m guessing the BBC will come down on the ‘crazy’ verdict for this one…or we’ll find out Williams is actually white…just like George Zimmerman is…not…..and the two white victims are actually black…just like blond, white skinned Rachel Dolezal.

Corbyn increasingly likely Labor winner. Seems only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong.

An endorsement of Corbyn by that Australian Devil incarnate, Rupert Murdoch…..Just as he supported New Labour is he now coming out for New Old Labour?

An evil mindf**k for the Lefties!

The question is why such a senior BBC figure as Alan Yentob was engaging in such OVERT politicking whilst feigning neutrality in his day job?

Alan Yentob warned ministers that parts of Britain would ‘descend into savagery’ unless they gave Kids Company £3million, it was claimed last night. An email he allegedly signed also said there was a ‘high risk of arson attacks’ on government buildings if the grant was not approved. The message was sent to the Cabinet Office as the troubled charity – set up to help ..coughs …the vulnerable..”

Somebody on my Twitter line suggested that “revert” might be more apt than “descend”…

‘

Stop the presses!’   The BBC would love to do that wouldn’t they?  Perhaps they should hold their own Frontpage instead of stuffing it full of self-promotional guff from TV-land luvvies.

Anyway…frontpage news on the BBC…is the BBC…..

Armando Iannucci: Britain needs strong TV industry

Comedy writer Armando Iannucci has called for an industry-wide defence of the BBC and British programme-makers.

However it does seem that Iannucci considers himself one of the BBC’s people…

Iannucci suggested one way of easing the strain on the licence fee was “by pushing ourselves more commercially abroad”.

“Be more aggressive in selling our shows, through advertising, through proper international subscription channels, freeing up BBC Worldwide to be fully commercial, whatever it takes.

Iannucci also spins an old falsehood that the charter review process will not have any ‘creatives’ in it…

In July, the government issued a green paper setting out issues that will be explored during negotiations over the future of the BBC, including the broadcaster’s size, its funding and governance.

UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale appointed a panel of eight people to advise on the charter renewal, including former Channel 5 boss Dawn Airey and journalism professor Stewart Purvis, a former editor-in-chief of ITN.

Iannucci bemoaned the lack of “creatives” involved in the discussions.

That’s simply not true…the panel itself includes many ffom the TV industry and the BBC and the BBC Trust will have major roles to play in the review.  Not only that but many experts and interested parties will be called upon to give evidence and their opinion on the review.  So hardly the bean counters in charge, not the hit squad of ‘gravediggers’ for the BBC that we are led to believe.…

Firstly is the Panel the sole source of information and reference for the government?  No.  The BBC itself, through Hall and his executives and via the BBC Trust, will be having a huge say in what goes on and the Trust will be gathering information and data to support whatever case it decides to proffer….

One of the creations of the last Charter was the BBC Trust – set up to represent the licence fee payer. The Trust will, in thisrole, also be consulting on proposals for the future of the BBC. We will take full account of the Trust’s work and work with them on a range of public and industry events to explore in detail the important issues in the coming months.

The Public and whoever else is interested and concerned are also invited to contribute their views and opinions…

Reviewing the BBC’s Royal Charter is not just a case of publishing a consultation. We want to engage with the public and with industry to make sure that all views are given proper consideration. This is why we are engaging with people across the UK in a number of ways to make it easy for everyone to respond.

Not only that but other experts will be engaged to provide comment and relevant expertise…

There are also some areas where studies, reviews and research are needed – to add technical expertise or independence from Government. We will be commissioning these in the coming months.

Not only that but as well as the eight people on the review Panel other people or groups will be asked to join the panel as when the situation requires it.

Hardly the cosy little stitch up by a government in hock to the Murdoch empire as excitedly claimed by Fowler, Patten and Lee & Co as they paint a doomsday scenario for the BBC.

Sky has a slightly different take on what Iannucci said about ‘creatives’…no link to the BBC and charter review…

“If Britain is at the top of its game in TV creativity, I think it is because we have the best audience in the world.

“It takes the difficult, and the idiosyncratic, and makes it popular. That’s why we in television should feel lucky to be born in this country.”

He added that the future success of British television will depend on broadcasters’ willingness to trust the “creatives” who know how to make good programs.

The BBC’s Director General is also involved, as usual, in scaremongering, stating…

…that further cuts to the corporation’s funding and remit could result in more than 30,000 job losses across the TV industry.

“New research shows that, because of the boost the BBC provides, if you cut the licence fee by 25% you’d lose about 32,000 jobs across the whole economy,” said Hall. “These aren’t just jobs at the BBC, but across the TV industry – at independent producers, suppliers and studios up and down the country.”

“A strong BBC also contributes to a strong UK economy. A strong BBC will help deliver a strong Britain”.

---

This [H/T  Craig at Is the BBC biased?…no, apparently not] is also highly relevant…and somewhat not unexpected from the cowardly Tories:

The BBC’s ‘nemesis’ John Whittingdale has been speaking at the Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival.

Here are some of the things he said, as quoted by the Independent and the Guardian:

This idea that there is an ideological drive to destroy the BBC is just extraordinary, the people rushing to defend the BBC are tilting at windmills, they are trying to have an argument that has never been started, certainly not by me. 

Britain’s image abroad is enormously strengthened by the success of the BBC. 

Do I think there is general bias towards the left? No. 

For the moment, the licence fee or something like it is the best option.