BBC in full blown “accept unlimited immigration” mode, exploiting the situation across Europe for all it is worth. A reader has pointed out that here the BBC seeks to compare those who properly seek to identify illegal immigrants with Nazis! As each day progresses, the BBC are playing loose and easy with the terms “refugees” “asylum seekers” and “migrants”. The suggestion is that the swarm is virtually 100% asylum seekers but then every now and again they cover themselves by admitting that, for example, most Afghan immigrants want into Europe for the money!
LOVING THE ALIEN…
Bookmark the permalink.
BBC have stopped using “migrants” now and seem to only be using “refugees”. One Afghan claimed he left because the Taliban wanted to kill him. No further questioning by the Beeboid. Meanwhile the 3000 Afghans who risked their lives as translators for the British in Afghanistan are being refused asylum the UK.
BBC TV reporter outside the Budapest Railway Station this evening :
‘The migrants and refugees are most sympathetic toward us [ie BBC reporting team] because we are telling their story’
And there you have it in a nutshell.
What a gaffe by the Beeboid ! He should have said ” we are telling their story without questioning it “.
“We are passing on their lies without any investigation or questions whatsoever. We blindly believe them.”
I notice that whenever those doctors, engineers and other assorted very highly skilled “refugees” are interviewed, the reporter never thinks to ask them any questions relating to their alleged field of expertise. Y’know, just to check.
Geyza, I was just about to post that. The problem is that most reporters are too ignorant to know whether the answer is right or wrong.
True. What whas I thinking. BBC journalists are incredibly ignorant of anything outside of their NUJ brainwashing. Hence why they allow Emma Thompson pontificate endlessly about climate change, despite the fact that she is NOT a climate scientist and is utterly unqualified to comment… However, she pushes the official left wing BBC narritive on climate change so she is allowed to pass off disproven rubbish without challenge, whereas serious, qualified climate scientists who do not support the same political agenda are blacklisted.
Geyza, I bet you could count the number of politicians, journalists and Beeboids with a science background on the fingers of one hand.
What annoys me, is that when it comes to “climate science” is that the heart of the CAGW hypothesis, the ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) to CO2, which is a figure for which there is no consensus whatsoever, which exposes the “97% consensus” lie, yet this is NEVER mentioned on the BBC. Additionally, the heart of the science, which is the scientic method, is utterly redundant. Applying the “scientific method” to the CAGW hypothesis, instantly falsifies that hypothesis because all accurate, honest and pre-adjusted empirical measurements of the climate all disprove CAGW taking place in the way that the climate models predicted, therefore the predictions from the climate models are wrong, therefore the underlying assumptions coded within the models is wrong and those underlying assumptions are literally the CAGW hypothesis… So, according to the rigours of the scientific method, the CAGW hypothesis is falsified.
If Emma Thompson has a degree in E. Lit, then in the eyes of the BBC, she is emimently qualified to make comments on Climate Change, Global Warming, non-linear stochastic processes in layered atmospheres , etc etc.
Additionally on the same theme… If any of those migrants told the army of BBC reporters propagandising for them, that they were climate scientists who only want to come to Britain to help the CRU at East Anglia University research solutions to climate change, then the BBC numbskulls would propably arrange a police escort to and through the border.
But only if they also had a degree in E. Lit.
So, less of a challenging random vox pop, and more of a client briefing?
Propaganda and censorship over information and education.
How very vital. And unique.
Jeremy Vine even found two Germans to lecture us on our ‘moral’ obligations while at the same time telling us that Germany was doing ten times more than us.
They trotted out the ‘aging population’ line, which apparently is a greater ‘problem’ in Germany. Two ‘obvious’ unasked questions:
1. Don’t the ‘migrants’ get old and need replacement?
2. If it is so vital to Germany can’t they have our ‘share’ too?
Something else that never gets asked is that it is one thing boosting a country’s population with returning ex-pats, children, cousins etc. but making up the numbers with people that don’t share the heritage of the natives is cultural suicide. It is funny how the BBC is concerned about that in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and anywhere else in the world except England and Europe generally. Can’t wait to hear about the success of the All Blacks from Aotearoa any day soon.
I don’t need any lectures from bloody Germans on “moral obligations “.
Very well put. However, are we not supposed to forget the war now? Somehow, I just cannot. It is real, it happened and hundreds of thousands of Brits died to protect OUR sovereign democracy, as well as save Europe from totalitarian dictatorship. One might thing the Germans would be grateful.
And it happened twice in the same century started by the same people. The BBC also seem to have airbrushed Japan’s atrocities out of their version of history. They had a piece on TV news last night about the end of the war and liberation of China. Much about European decadence in Shanghai and starving Chinese turning to cannabilism. Nothing about the Rape of Nanking and the millions of Chinese massacred by the Japs even before WW2 started. The BBC disgust me more every day, if that is possible.
As one wit put, Merckel is yet another German who is going to cause a lot of problems for Europe. This one is going to be an Islamic one.
The BBC blog by Rob Cameron you have linked to is disgusting. How writing a number in felt tip can be equated to the Nazi’s tattooing Jews destined for the gas chambers I don’t know; a truly appalling piece of journalism. Shame on you BBC.
Of course no-one else tries to establish the identity of people or control their entry, do they?
Again the metaphor of BBC security vs. the security of those the BBC comments upon is brought to the fore, as happened recently when Left Charlie Church decided to take on the black suits at Shell.
Simple questions: why is there security at W1A and why can’t just anyone stroll in without needing some kind of vetting?
At least it reminds people of the Germans’ Nazi past.
Mark “pants” Easton, the BBC’s appeaser in chief has been on again.
This is the question never asked by our quatari-controlled media:
Why aren’t the oil-rich Arab countries taking in their fellow Arabs in their time of need?
Because what the BBC does not want to admit, is that it is not a “war” problem but an Islam problem. Just like WWII was not a “war” problem but a Nazi problem.
The refugees are feeing Islam, even thoiugh the refugees themselves wont admit it.
….because this is state organised invasion of Europe facilitated by the appeasers in the bbc on the look out for a bung from the quataris, I mean a well paid job at Al Jazeera .
That BBC blog is dreadful and personally insulting to anyone of Jewish descent. The whole tenor of the piece is flawed and so obvious. Even the skinhead at the end is placed for maximum effect. This man knows how they really feel in Eastern Europe and is trying to manage the reality.
The entire EU establishment is panicking. Their stupidity and greed and refusal to face up to things puts us all in peril .
SO far this country is only affected at the entry points on the Channel. If the EU forces us to take thousands then this is going to be a real political crisis. Forget our useless media. It is leugenpress at it’s worst.
Phil Williams (the worst ever BBC radio presenter!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b067w74v#play
[47:00 MINS]
“The chief executive of Save the Children tells 5 Live that the photo of a dead toddler on many of the UK front pages should ‘concentrate the minds of EU leaders to tackle the refugee crisis facing Europe’.”
Actually, he also praises David Cameron, the people of Britain, and our generous foreign aid budget. “We (Britain) are one of the biggest aid providers in the world” he says, and that we should be proud of that.
I’m sure the producer didn’t see that coming! However, like Bugs Bunny kissing Elmer Fudd and telling him he loves him, I get the whiff of an ulterior motive from the executive of Save the Children. Big-up the Brits, and then watch the donations flood in!
Wow, the BBC really are out of control:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34135679
The BBC are on an all out propaganda assault!
Not sure it is working too well.
Wheeling out luvvie celebs from their circle of virtue safety zones to pontificate tends not to go down too well who rely on their own lying eyes.
This morning’s BBC News on Facebook was incredible. Alternating with facile stories were endless servings of pure propaganda, cherry picking attractive examples of human tragedy with a story to tell. Seems the entire BBC cubicle garden is dreaming of a Pulitzer in emoting at the moment. Actual balanced reporting… not so much.
But looking at the comments, the actual public are not buying. On all these efforts the highest rated feedback is calling them out on realities, terminology misuse and who and what they are studiously ignoring.
And that’s in face of the barrage of one-liner breast beaters either flinging accusations Godwin would be proud of, or pointlessly wailing how awful ‘we’ all are.
Trouble is, to a shallow PR knee jerk like Cameron, what the bubble luvvies shout about is what he hears, as the majority public view is a problem only come next election.
Having policy set by Emma Thompson and Ian Katz is a dire way to run a country.
OK, so FaceBook is not really working out.
At least the safe ground of twitter can be relied upon to rally to the cause, surely…
Oh, dear.
And not a single sob-story told by so-called desperate refugees has actually been verified. Vox pops have been very limited because the BBC are finding it very difficult to find anyone who supports allowing more in to this country. The reporter on the news last night only fleetingly referred to polls on the subject by only saying that “there has been very little polling done on this subject, so politicians are going on instinct” The reporter, therefore, neatly avoided telling us what any of the polling actually says. The answer to that is that this country overwhelmingly rejects accepting anymore of those immigrants.
We would take the “refugees” if they were white Says Emma Thompson from her leafy,white Hampstead/Primrose Hill home.She should try living in Newham where most of any newcomers eventually head for.
Why are they interviewing Emma Thompson on a subject she clearly knows nothing about? 3000 in Calais she whines repeatedly, but are any of these 3000 from Syria, Emma?
Emma is thick as 2 short planks. HMG refused to take many white Zimbabweans over the years .Why are most luvvies so ignorant ?
Emma Thompson is highly intellectual. That is different from intelligent. She is not a rational analytical logical person. Her University education was in an Arts field. She is creative, expressive, imaginative. In other words, she has great difficulty in establishing the difference between reality and fantasy. Hence her delusional left wing beliefs.
Mr Dreaming above asks “why are we interviewing Emma Thompson” on Newsnight?
Same reason as they ask Rufus Hound(no, me neither) re his views on the NHS…Charlotte Church on the economy/austerity.
To be fair ro their favourite Messiah-Brand-he at least has “written some booky-wookies”…so he`s at the Stephen Fry level of cleverness to the fuckwitz at the Beeb.
Basically-like their love of Sean Penns and Kevin Spaceys-people who delude, create illusion and dissemble for a living as actors and “creatives”.
Who better to “Imagine” a nicer world for us all from Highgate Cemetery?…Jeremy Corbyns “feem toon”.
Maybe Yoko could “sing “it at the upcoming coronation.
Emma Thompson is a posh Big Oil “face”…who happens to have adopted like Mia Farrow (er, best not ask) and Madonna(er, best not mention Sean or Guy this week eh?).
One distended dysfunctional cast of weirdos who depend on Channel Liberal for their book/tune puffs…and the BBC reflects it all right back at them-then wonder why the rest of us want them gone.
Yup-BBC in full EU suckup mode over migrants-hence the likes of Guy Verhofstad, Evan Harris and Martin Schulz being given oodles of time to shaft UKIP, the pound and crave the Islamic flip flop on its open neck.
Liberal masochists-might as well buy up the orange jumpsuits so IS won`t have to “invest too much” in we kaffir.
Orange is the new black-same as the old black.
chrisH, Great post. You are more entertaining than the luvvies you mention, although I haven’t heard of some of them. What are you on ?
Terrific stuff ChrisH
Geysa,
Emma Thompson is indeed a well-educated fool, and I have very little respect for her views, but to categorise anyone with an arts background as incapable of logical thought is simply wrong. I have seen this view expressed a number of times on this site and it displays a deep lack of understanding. Imagination and creativity are a vital component of what most people would describe as intelligence and are not mutually exclusive with logic. I suspect that there are quite a few well-educated fools with science backgrounds.
oldartist, possibly, but I don’t remember the BBC ever interviewing scientists about their views on the arts.
I do take your point. In science, creativity is an essential element in formulating hypothesis, and effective ways to test those hypothesis. However, it is the ability to determine the difference between a creative idea, and reality, that defines the rational over the creative. Emma Thompson, obviously, has difficulty distinguishing the difference between fantasy and reality.
And , in any case, why are luvvies’ views on anything outside their own field of expertise any more valid than anyone chosen at random ?
Grant, may I venture a cynical response to your rhetorical question: “Because the expression of their sincerity is more convincing to support the BBC narrative.” Acting is what ‘luvvies’ do. Logic isn’t necessarily their failing. Their inductive and deductive capacities are regularly found wanting though. Sir Patrick Stewart is one who tries, but even he almost always comes up short.
As an aside, for anyone who has a spare 20minutes, here’s a link to an excellent presentation by Patrick Moore. A knowledgeable man.
BBC Radio Devon this morning had Simon Bates in full emotive, we must do more mode on the migrant situation. A caller who said it was all the fault of Angela Merkel for giving them the green light was asked to call again and explain himself as Bates did not ‘get it’. Our local Conservative MP, one Johnny Mercer, late of the military and shower gel adverts, one who had managed to win a rock solid Labour seat was concerned that we were not doing enough and we all had to learn the distinction between economic migrant and genuine refugee. He was going to petition the Prime Minister, our Prime Minister by the way who Bates of the Beeb announced was ‘in denial’. The same Mr. Bates who is full of admiration for the wonderfully diverse and vibrant communities we have in Britain but who has now secreted himself away somewhere in the middle of Exmoor. These people live off the public purse, would it be too much to ask they put their own country first?
We should definitely do more on the migrant situation. I would suggest building machine gun nests every few hundred yards along our borders.
‘Mr Bates who is full of admiration for the wonderfully diverse and vibrant communities we have in Britain but has now secreted himself way somewhere in the middle of Exmoor.’
Our radio presenters up here (Mike Sweeney, Andy Crane et al) in Manchester ‘secrete’ themselves to the sticks (the nice bit of Oldham in the hills, the Peak District etc) and then pontificate about how wonderful it is to live in a multi-cultural society while ensconced in a white British community approaching 100%. Hmm, not Rusholme, not Hulme, not Moss Side, not Glodwick? Come on, establish your multi-culti credentials and put yourselves in harms way, like you expect US to do.
I’m still waiting for someone to call them out on it. It can’t be long now especially since they’ve been shilling like mad for immigrants the last few weeks.
See today’s Daily Mail article by James Slack:
“Nobody disputes that, currently, Germany is accepting larger numbers of applications. But, crucially, the political situation in the two countries could hardly be more different.
As Migrationwatch chairman Lord Green of Deddington argues, based on last year’s rate of 330,000 net migration, our total population would grow by three million every five years.
To ask the public to accept tens of thousands of refugees on top of this – at a time when concern about immigration has never been higher – would be a very difficult ‘sell’ indeed for David Cameron.
In Germany, by contrast, the low birth rate means that its population would fall by 25 per cent by mid-century if it had no net migration.
England is also nearly twice as crowded as Germany and has more migrants per population.
According to a report published by the House of Commons library yesterday, 12.5 per cent of the population was born overseas. The figure for Germany is 12.5 per cent. ”
If only the Bleeding Hearts at the BBC and Channel 4 would present a more balanced view like this.
Once the BBC’s sainted “refugees” arrive on these shores and are housed for free, they’ll be faced with paying the BBC’s draconian licence fee, which of course they wont….Hence they’ll be hauled through the courts and sent to prison where paradoxically enough they’ll be able to watch hours of BBC “top telly” for absolutely free…
Funny old world huh?
I’m sorry to keep pressing this point, Grant – particularly as it’s completely off topic. But why not? A lot of scientists are artists. They would probably be a lot more interesting than most of the so-called critics and self-appointed arbiters of taste the BBC inflict on us.