Eric Pickles says that political correctness is allowing electoral fraud by immigrants to continue unchecked…

In Tower Hamlets, police and council staff failed to tackle intimidation – often in foreign languages – both inside and outside polling stations. Just as we have seen with child sexual exploitation in places such as Rochdale and Rotherham, institutionalised political correctness can lead to the state turning a blind eye to criminal conduct. But the law must be applied equally and fairly to everyone. Integration and good community relations are undermined by the failure to do so.

As a minister, I found within Whitehall a complete reluctance by officials to take action on the warnings from local councillors and journalists of systematic corruption in the Tower Hamlets mayoral administration. Yet when I subsequently sent forensic investigators into Tower Hamlets, they quickly found shocking financial irregularities. These were only the tip of the iceberg – further cases of alleged planning irregularities and financial misconduct couldn’t be followed up due to documents disappearing or written records not being kept.

Across the country, electors from abroad are not properly checked to ensure that they qualify to vote when they register. Fraudulent registration is frequently tied to illegal immigration, as illegal migrants sign up to make it easier to get credit or a mobile phone. Such illegality feeds through to further crimes, such as benefit and housing fraud.

Our nation has a proud heritage as the mother of Parliaments, yet the worrying and covert spread of electoral fraud threatens that reputation. While all politicians want high turnouts, we cannot sacrifice integrity and confidence in our democracy through misplaced political correctness or woolly concerns over “political engagement”. It is time to awake from our state of denial and take action against the electoral crooks who threaten our elections.

The Guardian at least reports Pickles’ statement but dodges around mentioning any link to immigration.  The BBC has so far completely ignored Pickles…..but then the BBC has always tried to downplay the events in Tower Hamlets, for a long time ignoring the revelations by Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph about Rahman and his associates.

An astonishing and very obvious pattern is apparent in the BBC’s recent coverage of any news report that has any link to immigration that reflects badly on the BBC’s own philosophy of immigration as a good thing.

A Pakistani background youth stabs a black teacher and the BBC covers up his ethnicity and encourages people to think this was a case of white racism.

Two people are murdered in Sweden by asylum seekers and the BBC hides their identity until they come up with a narrative to draw attention away from the immigrants….the real danger not being immigrants stabbing people but an alleged backlash against such murders by Swedes…..laughably those famous ‘Dark Forces’.

Then we had Phillip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, saying Europe will economically and socially implode under the weight of mass immigration…the BBC again avoided mentioning his words until, once again, they came up with a narrative that tried to counter what he said….the BBC resorting to in essence calling him a racist who was inflaming anti-immigrant hatred with his dangerous rhetoric..his ‘tone’.

And now they ignore a serious issue raised by Eric Pickles about electoral fraud, immigration and the threats to democracy.

Well, ignoring it for now….what narrative will they come up with when they do eventually report his words?  Will he be demonising immigrants for faults that are inherent in the system or using a ‘tone’ that incites anti-immigrant paranoia?  Probably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx3qLKDvO6A

The BBC censored the identity of the murderers of two Swedes at an Ikea store.  The BBC has now come up with a narrative that allows them to reveal the truth about who killed the Swedes whilst managing to paint the murderers as motiveless madmen and asylum seekers as the real victims of the murders.

The real big issue revealed by the murders?  Sinister Swedish ‘dark forces’ that are set to attack the asylum seekers. The BBC has no problem with asylum seekers attacking Swedes, members of the ‘Dark Forces’ or not.

Sweden Ikea knife attack: Security boosted at refugee centres

Police in central Sweden have increased security at refugee accommodation centres after two Eritrean asylum seekers were arrested on suspicion of murdering two people at an Ikea store.

Local officials feared a backlash from “dark forces” who wanted to exploit the case, police chief Per Agren said.

Only when they have set the scene of asylum seekers under attack do we get to hear about the dead...’A mother and son died in the knife attack which took place inside an Ikea store in Vasteras on Monday.‘…and that’s it…oh wait there’s more….the BBC has worked really hard to let us know something about them…they were… “ordinary shoppers” .

The murders were dismissed as ” an act of madness.”  No motive, no blame, no responsibility.  Not the immigrant’s fault.  As Mark Mardell might say we have a senseless tragedy perhaps devoid of deeper meaning.

Are Muslim Fundamentalists A Danger To Other Britons?

That’s not a question you will ever hear coming from the BBC.  In fact they work strenuously to put across the opposite idea…the well known phrase that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ is one we hear constantly spouted by BBC presenters.  The BBC in fact promotes the idea that Islamic fundamentalism is a good thing…Mark Easton infamously favourably comparing Muslim extremists to Ghandi, Churchill and Mandela.  This is the BBC that suggested that if Muslim fundamentalists wanted to take over schools, and if that is what some parents wanted, then we should let them do that.  The BBC has long supported the Muslim anti-war narrative that has fed and ‘jusitified’ the radicalisation of Muslims and been overly sympathetic to the ‘plight’ of Guantanamo Bay inmates.

So no, you won’t hear the BBC asking that question…despite a least one Muslim a day being arrested on terrorism related charges.

Which begs the question why they are happy to demonise Hindus in what seems like a campaign against them and their place in India?

Here is just the latest piece of anti-Hindu rhetoric from the BBC…

Are Hindu nationalists a danger to other Indians?

Why does the BBC selectively choose Hindus in India?  Muslims are just as likely to be the instigators of violence there…it was Muslim insistence on a Muslim state that led to the creation of the breakaway state of Pakistan and the subsequent million deaths and millions of people being ethnically cleansed….and such Muslim attempts to annex parts of India didn’t stop in 1947, they continue to this day, never mind Bangladesh and the millions dead there…however if you read the BBC report you will come away with the idea that violence started by Muslims  or started by a random incident was in fact a Hindu plot to attack Muslims.  Where is the BBC article asking are Muslims a threat to Christians in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Malaysia or the Maldives or Egypt, or the Sudan…..and so on and so on and so on?

The BBC has  along history of demonising some religions…notably it is those religions that are involved in conflict, often not by choice, with Muslims…inevitably the BBC presents Muslims as the victims…as in Burma where the fact that there has been a Muslim ‘Jihad’ going on since the 1940’s as they try to set up their own state in Burma is pretty much ignored or dismissed as fantasy by the BBC.  The BBC of course had no problem denouncing Buddhism as a violent religion just as they are happy to similarly picture Christianity in a negative light whilst conversely not only refusing to acknowledge the violence done in the name of Islam but  to actually work to deny that that is the case, that Islam is a violent religion….even the Islamist Tariq Ramadan has admitted that the Koran incites violence (24 mins) upon its readers….I paraphrase….

‘I wouldn’t say Islam is a religion of peace…..People are naturally violent and religion channels that violence to serve its purpose…to get peace…it’s the way towards peace but it’s not the peaceful reality’

He then tries to turn it on its head….the problem, he says, is not the book but the reader….but the reader is reading a text that accepts people are violent and encourages people to use violence….so the problem is the text…non?

Use violence to move towards peace…but what is peace in Islam?….the domination of Islam over all other religions….with Islam on top there is no need for war…..‘They create a desert and call it peace’.

Ramadan slips away from whether Islam is violent into describing peace as being ‘inner peace’ brought to you by knowledge gained through religion rather than the peace we get when there is no fighting.

Ramadan also states that we must understand the fundamentals of the religion to understand current events…..perhaps the BBC should take note….what exactly does the Koran and the Hadith say about violence?  Need to know that to understand what is happening now.

If the BBC is going to look so closely at Hindu, or Buddhist, or Christian extremism then the same close examination must be carried out on Islam.

And today we have yet another example of the BBC promoting a Muslim narrative…

How the Uighurs keep their culture alive in Pakistan

Ostensibly about Uighurs who migrated to Pakistan (where all is lovely) from China but is in fact just a vehicle to attack China and its ‘atrocities’ against innocent Muslims in China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k_5pytCy98

The BBC is having a few problems with consistency when it comes to knife attacks.

A teenager with a ‘Pakistani background’ stabs a black teacher in a racially motivated attack and the BBC covers up his race prefering to let people think this was ‘yet another’ racist attack by a white person…a version of events given ‘credence’ by the Today programme’s subsequent decision to then interview an Asian teacher who tells us that he has suffered racism thus suggesting it is a problem of white racism….the interview was clearly intended to be a counter to what the BBC knows are the critics of its failure to report on the truth about the Pakistani youth’s racist behaviour rather than a genuine look at racism.

A deadly knife attack in Sweden gets little BBC attention, or rather there is a big hole in the BBC’s reporting…just who were the attackers?

The Guardian reveals that the attackers were Eritrean asylum seekers……

The two people killed in the attack on Monday in the central town of Västerås were a 55-year-old woman and her 28-year-old son, police said on Tuesday.

Deputy prosecutor general Eva Moren told reporters: “The two suspects are both from Eritrea. They have been living at an asylum centre,” she said, adding that the pair knew each other. “We know nothing about the motive yet, the investigation will have to determine that,” she said.

Why would the BBC not want to highlight the identity of asylum seeking murderers?

In contrast on the Greek island of Kos immigrants are flooding, swarming?, ashore at an unmanageable rate…the authorities warn of impending violence...the BBC concentrates on a police officer who slaps an immigrant whilst holding a knife…..doesn’t stab him, doesn’t even threaten to stab him or even wave the knife threateningly, and certainly doesn’t murder anyone……

Police officers used batons and sprayed fire extinguishers as they tried to impose order on the crowds.  It comes after an officer on Kos was suspended for slapping one man while brandishing a knife.  Authorities are struggling with a rapidly growing number of migrants who have arrived hoping for a better life.

The BBC has his picture…

And reports more on this serious incident…

A policeman on Kos was suspended on Monday after he was caught on camera striking a migrant.

The footage shows him roughly pushing back migrants outside a local authority building in Kos, slapping one man across the face as he shoves others, telling them to get back behind a line he has drawn on the pavement with the knife.

Why would the BBC hide the identity of asylum seeker knife murderers?  Why would the BBC hide the identity of a ‘Pakistani background’ racist knife attacker?  In contrast why would the BBC be more than happy to highlight a police officer holding a knife slapping an immigrant?

The BBC is clearly trying to manage the news and prevent people from seeing the truth, stopping them from making their own judgemnts about events that relate to  immigration and any downsides to it.

The BBC has a pro-immigration, pro-immigrant agenda that it seeks to impose whether that involves going to war with the government and smearing them by saying they are racists inflaming hatred towards immigrants or by faking the news in order to manipulate the Public’s perceptions and hence their opinions about immigration.

The BBC is getting itself into ever deeper waters by its politicisation of the news and its hijacking of its own services to use in its own interests.

When will the politicians genuinely wake up and take a long hard look at just how corrupt, overly powerful and dangerous the BBC now is?

Its not often that I am lucky enough to get the opportunity  to catch some of R4’s Woman’s Hour but today was one of those days when the chance came my way and I leapt at it.  As with every other occasion it seems I, by chance, managed to tune in just as they were talking about converts to Islam.  Usually it is about the joys of conversion and just how happy everyone seems.  The researchers must have got it wrong this time as the narrative went rapidly off line, the convert, in  a book under discussion, going from infidel, to Muslim convert, to suicide bomber.

However there was a rapid rebuttal of any thoughts that Islam might be the trigger for the convert’s terrorism, the author stating that it absolutely had nothing to do with Islam but was a result of the woman’s own psychological problems, Islam does not lead you into terrorism.

The presenter, Jane Garvey, told us that Muslims were sick to death of Islam and terrorism being linked together….it’s all the media’s fault…..Garvey said that ‘it’s so unfair’.

Except it’s not really is it?  Islam does have a link to terrorism….but there’s the rub, Muslim campaigners always claim that terrorism and violence are not linked to Islam however that’s not really the problem with Islam in the West.  The problem is the innate nature of Islam that is in opposition to everything that a democratic, secular, liberal, western civilisation stands for and it is that ‘extremism’ by comparison to the West’s values that is the problem which Muslims and the BBC don’t want to talk about and divert attention away from by talking of terrorism or violence as if they are the only issues….just look at how the BBC reported the Trojan Horse scandal…the BBC  essentially lied about what was going on, downplaying its significance, telling us that it was a hoax, that this was more about racism, Islamophobia and paranoia of non-Muslims than any real threat to society.

The author of the book, Meike Ziervogel, told us that she had considered converting to Islam herself, however it was not for spiritual reasons.   She said she found certain aspects of Islam highly attractive at the time, almost mesmerising….the rigid structure, the rituals, the praying 5 times a day, the rules that told you exactly how to live your life.  In the end she didn’t convert but as I listened I thought that Islam must be the ideal religion for those on the autistic spectrum needing that rigid structure to their lives in order to cope in a world so full of options.

Whilst fanatically rigid Islam is by far the most suitable for those needing an ‘institutionalised’ way of life many religions could offer similar solace and support almost like a drug to help treat them, taking away the need for free thought and decision making, all that confusing choice and personal responsibility.

Maybe Islam should be available on the NHS.  Religion is the opium of the masses after all.

As religion strips away the need to think it puts the power into the hands of the leader’s of the religion which is what makes religion, with its unthinking, often fanatical, battalions on tap, so dangerous.  The Church of England had long been the source of much radicalism and terror until it was tamed and became the friendly parish priest doling out tea and sympathy linking the community together.  Religions need to be leavened, moderated, to control and rein in the fanaticism.

Islam on the other hand is nowhere near that stage of development, and looks increasingly like it never will flip to the peaceful side.  The BBC’s Giles Fraser for one is happy that this is so, and in fact wants the Church to go down a similar path of radicalisation and fundamentalism…presumably he wants a Christian Isis…a Chrisis?

He tells us that…

The Church of England is the longest-running prevent strategy in history. If not from its inception, then certainly from the end of the English civil war, the big idea of the C of E was to prevent radicalisation – precisely the sort of radicalisation that led to religious people butchering each other throughout the 1630s and 40s. Its strategy was to discourage two things: big expansive politically minded theology – the sort of theology that has ambitions to change the world – and religious passion (or “enthusiasm” as it was dismissively described).

And then along comes Islam – and, thankfully, it disrupts this absurd game and refuses to play by the rules. Its practitioners want to talk about God, sex and politics rather than mortgages, school places and the latest Boden catalogue. And good for them.

Yes, good for them….that’s precisley what we need…more radicalisation… ‘the sort of radicalisation that led to religious people butchering each other throughout the 1630s and 40s.’  Good for them.

Fraser likes ‘non-violent extremism’ and doesn’t appreciate Cameron’s approach to it….

Attacking it is simply an attack on thinking big, thinking differently and arguing passionately. It comes from a now defunct C of E mindset (now defunct even within the C of E, thank God) that assumes it’s the job of religious people to be pastorally nice, softly spoken and uncontroversial. But that’s not Jesus. And like him, I believe in pulling the mighty from their thrones and lifting up the lowly. And I believe there is an authority greater than yours – one I would obey before I would obey the laws of this land. And if that makes me a dangerous extremist, Mr Cameron, then you probably ought to come over to south London and arrest me now.

Trouble is ‘non-violent extremism’ is the source of the ideology that spawns the violence that is intended to impose that ‘non-violent’ extremist ideology on those who don’t agree with it….as he admits….

Of course, the reason the authorities are often nervous of religious anarchy is precisely because of the enormous power that it can evoke, for good and ill. Hence the need for our episcopal prefects to behave as the state’s health and safety officers in matters of religion.

And here’s where Giles disagrees with himself..declaring that diverse and turbulent religions need tanks on the streets and state control of religion, ala Cameron?, to keep the peace between the communities…..who’d have thought?….direct from Kazakhstan and Giles Fraser’s brain…

There’s also an increasing anxiety that a less repressive approach to religion might open the door to radicalisation. So only state-authorised religions are allowed here. Missionaries are regulated. Religious political parties are banned. And the president of Kazakhstan, an old-style ex-Soviet politician – who received a comedy 97.75% of the vote at his re-re-re-election back in April – presides over this gathering of well-meaning religious flannel.

And maybe they are right to do all this. For Kazakhstan has, within its own set limits, developed a properly deserved reputation for religious toleration. …..his is a place of genuine diversity, where different faiths rub along remarkably well. Despite all the off-putting pomposity of the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, it’s not a totally unrealistic reflection of how things are here. Maybe there is something for that tank to protect.

 

Great that the BBC employs a wannabe religious extremist who wants to turn the Church fundamentalist and radicalise it by injecting some ‘anarchic religious energy’ into it.  Just what we need, yet another set of religious fanatics, this time presumably wanting to live by their fundamentalist religious beliefs and presumably also therefore opposing those other religions that attack and undermine Christianity…such as Islam….a recipe for disaster and religious wars on a grander scale than we have already?

Christianity…the new Religion of Peace?

A black teacher is stabbed by a teenager of Pakistani background who shouts ‘nigger’ and ‘black bastard’ as he does so.  It’s a ‘racially motivated’ attack.

It is well known that there is a level of racial tension between the two communities.

But what does the BBC do, apart from ignore the race of the attacker?  It interviews an Asian teacher about the racism in schools (08:10) he has suffered as a teacher.  Sue at Is the BBC biased? also noticed the disconnect between events on the ground and the BBC’s reaction as the major issue that arises from the case is not racism towards teachers, I imagine most people already recognise that there is some of that going on ( why is the BBC committing its prime-time slot at 08:10 to already established truths?), but that it highlights the racism that almost endemic between the two communities.

The BBC has looked at the subject before in this 2006 report Rise of UK’s ‘inter-ethnic conflicts’  so you might ask why they are being so circumspect about it now, trying to divert attention away from the real issues and onto some almost abstract notion of racism in general in schools.  The answer is almost certainly to do with the heightened tensions and controversies around Islam, immigration and asylum seekers today.  The BBC does not want to put a spotlight on the problems that having ever increasingly diverse and separate communities results in when it is spending so much time banging the drum for immigration and multi-culturalism.

Just at a time when such issues really need to be openly debated in a rational manner the BBC instead attempts to play down and cover up the problems and dangers that come from such vast numbers of immigrants suddenly turning up in a community.  Not only that but in order to silence them or scare anyone else into silence or risk being publicly ‘shamed’ as a racist, the BBC also resorts to alarmist and threatening scaremongering denouncing those who oppose open borders as racists or as people who are inciting racial tensions by inflammatory language…the BBC of course deciding what is and what is not inflammatory.

The real hilarity in the interview began when Laura Pidcock, education manager at Show Racism the Red Card, came on and said that we shouldn’t condemn or judge pupils who were being racist, in fact we should allow them to be racist (I’m pretty sure that’s what she was suggesting!).  You could hear Jim Naughtie starting to huff and puff.  She said the pupils should have a safe place to express themselves and we must not criminalise them for their racism but understand it and the events in their lives that led them to think and behave like this.

Of course what could the BBC find to object to in that approach, after all that is the approach they take to dealing with Muslim extremism, radicalisation and terrorism?…..understand, explain away, don’t condemn, in fact allow it to continue so that Muslims don’t feel alienated and besieged.

Later in a different segment of the programme (08:50) we heard the BBC interviewer raising the suggestion that we shouldn’t over-react to ‘controversial’ subjects, in this case a book about the Holocaust, because by over-reacting there is a danger that we close down debate and don’t explore the the issues properly.

Does he mean such as the way the BBC over-reacts to anyone who even hints that it might just be sensible to limit immigration, or at least have a debate about it, by calling them a Nazi and accusing them of recklessly inflamming anti-immigrant feeling?

• BBC Radio 4 Today ‏@BBCr4today Aug 8

  ‘The size of the lie was so great’ – Martin Amis on Robert Conquest and Stalin’s ‘utopia’ http://bbc.in/1MXQC9a 

We looked at the BBC’s refusal to report the words of the Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, about immigration and its potential to have hugely damaging economic and social effects in Europe and give them the import they required.  The BBC totally ignored his comments until this morning when the subject finally came up.  Did the BBC want to investigate the extremely serious issues that Hammond raised?  Did they think that a warning that the economy will suffer and that society may break down due to uncontrolled mass immigration was something that needed to be part of the public discussion about immigration?

No.

The BBC instead went to war against Hammond and Cameron declaring that they had got the ‘tone’ wrong when speaking about immigration in the manner that they had.  What we have is a BBC, supposedly a news organisation, that instead of examining the issues coolly and rationally, deliberately seeks to ratchet up the extremist pro-immigration rhetoric by trying to silence all voices critical of mass immigration, and that even includes the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, labelling them either racists or people who are using inflammatory language that incites racism and hostility towards immigrants….which pre-supposes that all people who have an opinion which leans towards less immigration are doing so because they are racist or led by the nose by rabble rousing politicians….this is the same BBC that itself exploits highly emotive language and images to manipulate the audience’s perceptions and opinions on immigration and is quite happy to metaphorically and in reality to dangle dead bodies of immigrants in front of us, continually hyping up the ‘desperation’ of the migrants and the dangers they faced in their journeys to get here…all intended to play with your emotions…..so whose ‘tone’ is inflammatory and exploitative?

The BBC has decided that it will sit in moral judgement and that it is the final arbiter of what our immigration policy should be.  It is vastly overstepping the mark when it comes to its role in society believing it has the right to not only decide government policy but also to publicly denounce and vilify government ministers who don’t toe the BBC line.

They managed to bully and intimidate Andrew Mitchell on the Today programme (08:10)  demanding to know what he thought about Cameron’s use of the word ‘swarming’ and Hammond’s words…Mitchell shamefully backed down in front of their bullying and refused to back them instead repeating the approved BBC mantra that all migrants are humans and need to be treated with digntity and respect or some such happy clappy sentiments.

Hmmm….from 2003….did they get the ‘tone’ right?…..

A report by the influential House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published earlier this month said the large number of asylum-seekers was threatening “social unrest” and had to be curbed.

 

Later on(about 08:43) we had someone on from Oxfam.  He was asked how he would sell the public the idea that we must allow in more migrants…..not a leading question at all is it?, one that pre-supposes we should let them in….once again the BBC not reportng but campaigning.

His answer was that Britain has to accept more asylum seekers… he’d sell the idea by ‘describing the misery of the lives of people in Syria and the desperation of those who are crossing the ocean with terrible risk to their lives and terrible suffering….when you get that sense of personal connectivity you recognise that these are not just people who are looking for a sunnier tomorrow, they are people who are living in fear and in poverty.’

Curiously that is exactly how the BBC goes about ‘reporting’ the issues already.  In other words they are ‘selling us the idea’ of more migrants being allowed in to Britain….wherever they come from and for whatever reason.

Later on on 5Live (around 12:20) we had Le Crackpot, the UN’s Francois Crépeau, who thinks anyone who  opposes mass immigration is racist and that the borders should be flung wide open …..to allow people to come and go…trouble is there won’t be much ‘going’ will there?

To give you an idea of how mass immigration would be handled but with no ideas on how the welfare system, the NHS, schools, housing would survive…no ideas on how they would be managed…but here’s some fine grandstanding by him with some thoughts that demonstrate just how out of touch he really is with the world…look at how complicated and impossibly involved his solutions are…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5_rZK5emog

Having heard the BBC reporting all day that a teenager had been convicted of stabbing a black teacher in a ‘racially motivated’ attack I, possibly along with most people, assumed that the attacker was white.

Not so.  What the BBC fails to mention is that he was of Pakistani background…as the Guardian, the Mirror and Sky point out.  The court has ordered that the boy’s name not be released but that doesn’t stop his ethnic origins being mentioned…and they are relevant to the report….as Sky reports he ‘could not handle being disciplined by a black man.’ 

Of course I should have known better, for if he had of been white the BBC would almost certainly have said so.

The BBC isn’t so shy when it comes to making allegations and naming names of white police officers as it continues with its Ferguson reporting and keeps up the narrative of innocent black youths gunned down by racist white cops  The consequences of that type of inflammatory and inaccurate reporting such as using the Michael Brown case as the prime example of police racism when we know that wasn’t at all true,  can be seen on the streets of Ferguson right now as yet more disturbances break out and police are shot at and respond by shooting the attacker.

Is the BBC ‘maintaining civic society and citizenship’ or helping to stir up inter-communal conflict?

The BBC has been wallowing in the first anniversary of the shooting of Black thug Michael Brown by police in Ferguson.

Shots have been fired in Ferguson, Missouri, at a protest to mark the first anniversary of the killing of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown. St Louis County police said an officer was “involved in a shooting after coming under heavy gunfire” and that “two unmarked cars took shots”. Eyewitnesses reported seeing at least one injured person lying on the ground. The shooting of the 18-year-old by white police officer Darren Wilson sparked demonstrations across America.

BBC desperate to a/Sanctify Michael Brown and b/Make this all about race.

They like to use this sort of image when discussing Michael Brown.

Not this one…

The loss of any young life is to be deeply regretted but it really does not help things when the media, in this case the BBC, race bait the case and then keep reinforcing it.

There was a curious item on BBC Today this morning at 6.55am. . Mattia Toaldo, a policy fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, was brought on to advance the agenda that the UK has an obligation to “do more” to stabilise Syria.

Now you can argue that to’s and fro’s of that for all you want but what I found strange was that he stated that the number of migrants moving through Syria has increased from 40-50,000 to around 200,000 in recent times. How does he know? Who is documenting this information in the rubble of the Libyan State? Why does the BBC allow these figures to go unchallenged? We were also told that around 60% of migrants hitting the shores of Europe are “asylum seekers” apparently. No mention of why so many of these “asylum seekers” feel a need to escape France for Britain, of course.

Strikes me the BBC is out to create the narrative that since “we” created instability in Africa, “we” have an obligation to absorb the swarm.