• 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.

I am sure you will be delighted to know that BBC Radio 4 is to start up a new series of “The Reunion”. In the first thrilling episode …

“Sue MacGregor speaks to former detainees and the head of the guard force at Guantanamo Bay.

In 2002, a detention camp was hastily built in a remote corner of Cub, to house the men captured in America’s “war on terror”. Thirteen years later, it is still there. And in the intervening time, Guantanamo Bay has become a byword for controversy, a place Amnesty International called “the gulag of our time”.

As ever, the BBC presents the Islamists behind Gitmo bars as victims and represents the place of their captivity using the hyperbole from Amnesty. No mention of the fact that many of those released from the “gulag” have gone on to kill in the name of Jihad and no mention of the fact that there was good reason to keep them behind bars in the first place.

Through the prism of the BBC, people like Moazzam Beggs are true heroes, noble warriors for justice and equality and this programme will be one more propaganda tool for the Islamist scum that have been rightly incarcerated in such terrible conditions that they have all put on weight. Just like the Gulags, right Amnesty?

On time and awaiting your attention. A New OPEN thread to detail the bias!

The ‘Pyrenean Shack’?

Stewart Lee has been worried.  He’s been away. On holiday.  In the Pyrenees.  In a Pyrenean ‘shack’ no less.   Anyway, he’s been worried.  Worried that without his acid wit raining down on Cameron’s parade, without him mustering the Twitterati against the marauding Middle Class Daily Mail readers, and without him manning the BBC barricades that defend that august and generous institution from the predations of the ‘Vested Interests’, the country will fall apart.  Have to say, not so far.   No need to hurry back Stew!

Lee, cut off from the world, had two choices, one the Daily Mail, the other a copy of the Guardian.  Naturally like all good Lefties he chose the Mail as we know they all do.  Well, the Guardian was left ‘abandoned in a campsite lavatory’.…I knew there had to be a use for it…though that old joke comes to mind.

Of course reading the Mail was only in the interest of work, researching the enemy.  He found plenty to tickle his fancy and to reinvigorate his bile duct, in particular a Quentin Letts article…he’s very popular in the Guardian at the moment.

Lee informs us that  ‘on page 14, the demonstrably inaccurate writer Quentin Letts rubbished institutionalised attempts to encourage social mobility in an incoherent column that included the genuine sentence: “Middle-class parents are middle class because they have learned what it takes to succeed.”

For some reason that sentence just doesn’t get Lee’s approval.  Why not?  It’s perfectly clear and understandable to any normal person of even passing intelligence.  But then again if you’re looking out from the Bubble still pretending to be working class as you send instagram postcards from your Pyrenean gite all the world must be a mystery especially that concept of the hated Middle Class and that other mystery to the Left…getting things on merit.  The comrades say no, it doesn’t compute.

Lee explains his concerns…..

‘The sentence, of course, does not bear a moment’s analysis, attempting to assuage readers’ guilt by assuring them their privilege is deserved. But it seemed so bizarre to me that such a sentence could actually be written without shame, only 12 days after I had left the country, only two and half months after the Conservative victory, that I wondered what was really going on at home.’

No, he’s right, no need to spend even a moment having to analyse the sentence, it’s clear as day what it means.  Good of Lee to spell out his hackneyed old trot-like antipathy to the Middle Class…but should they really feel guilty at being Middle Class?  Why?  Of course, I know what it is, they got to be Middle Class achievers coz they’re Masons, the dodgy handshake and Pythonesque leg wiggle…the route to success.  That’s right, the cardiac surgeon in the hospital, the lawyer, the dentist, the successful small businessman, the highly qualified nurse, the school teacher….yep none of them deserve to  have what they have.  They didn’t earn one bit of they’re place in society, it was all handed to them on a plate.   Yep, they should really be ashamed of themselves for studying hard for years on end, for focussing on improving their lives, for improving society and providing all those essential services that keep the place running.  Yep, yep, yep, don’t need them, bloody parasites, what we really need is more comedians whose sole qualification is a chip on their shoulder, oh and an amenable and generous benefactor like the BBC or the Guardian to keep the pay cheques rolling in.  Who needs merit when you hit the goldmine of lefty paydirt.

The BBC’s College of Journalism will have to buck up its ideas.  Just what have they been teaching the BBC’s finest and brightest?

I had always thought that the point of an interview was not only to ask questions and to get some answers to those questions but ultimately to publish those responses for public consumption.  Apparently I was wrong, the idea is to write up only those responses you wanted to get in order to ‘prove’ whatever point you are trying to make and then quietly shelve the rest of the interview if it tells awkward or  inconvenient truths that undermine your wonderful and powerfully made narrative.

The BBC interviewed a very important man today, the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, and then went on to bury the interview.

Look as I could I couldn’t see this interview on the website…surely an interview with the Foreign Secretary about a highly controversial subject as the immigration farce at Calais in which he makes somewhat ‘bombshell’ statements would be headline news.

But no.  I found the ‘report’ eventually, such as it was, tucked quietly away on the sidebar under the anodyne heading ‘More can be done on channel security’.  This insignificant little heading doesn’t even make it to the Frontpage, lurking on the UK page instead.  Anyone would think the BBC were trying to hide it.  Having heard a BBC radio report on the interview I now realise I didn’t get the full story there either.

Why would they do that when they go to town over a ‘church’ in the Calais ‘Jungle’…which will be broadcast next Sunday…along with God’s own little left wing storm trooper Giles Fraser?

Maybe the Telegraph’s headline, and it is the main headline, tells us why the BBC seek to hide what Hammond said:

Millions of African migrants threaten standard of living, Philip Hammond says

The BBC’s own write up gives us very little to go on merely saying that Hammond said that “more that can be done to enhance the physical security” of the Channel Tunnel and returning migrants to their country of origin was the solution to the problem of “large numbers of pretty desperate” migrants in Calais.

You have to watch the video to find out the rest of his comments about us being swamped, my word not his but his by implication, by immigration which will essentially destroy Europe as it can in no way absorb the millions of immigrants likely to come here.

Now that’s just common sense and what critics of mass immigration have been saying for a long time….but I think it is the first time I have heard someone as senior as Hammond make such a dramatic statement of truth.

It is an issue of overarching importance and has profound implications for the future of Europe and indeed the world.  Europe is clinging on as one of the few bastions of political, social and cultural freedom in the world, an area of the world that others still look to for their values and for protection and support.  If Europe breaks down, as it inevitably will due to massive immigration, who will be that ‘light’ that gives hope to many people of the world?  America?  It will probably retract into itself or become far more aggressive.  How about Russia, China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?  LOL.

The BBC would say that is precisely why the immigrants flock here, and yet they bring with them the seeds of Europe’s destruction.  It is impossible to provide a safe harbour for all the people in the world who say they feel oppressed or downtrodden or feel like they’d like a bit more cash in their pocket. Ironically it is the BBC’s World Service that is an example of what part of the solution is…it provides that ‘soft power’ intended to influence people and ’empower’ them with information and techniques to do battle with undemocratic regimes.  People are encouraged to be the masters of their own destiny and to take back their own countries…but paradoxically the BBC also sends out the message that says ‘Sod all that…drop everything, forget your own land, your culture, your family and friends…come to Europe to live off handouts and charity.’  That’s not sustainable, it’s impossible.  If the BBC thinks people in Europe will continue to tolerate millions of immigrants forcing their way into Europe they are mistaken.  It will not end well.

Here’s my grand solution…one that not only occupies the immigrants but also eventually solves the problem at source.

All those immigrants of fighting age, those who so vigorously assault the defences at Calais for instance, should be conscripted into an African army, trained, armed and equiped and sent back to Africa to do battle with those who oppress the African nations and that includes Syria.  Your great grandfathers or grandfathers probably fought in the last war against the Nazis to maintain the peace and freedoms of Europe….they were more likely than not conscripted into the forces to fight for years on behalf of certain values and beliefs.  I see no reason why those who come here should not be made to similarly fight for the same values in their own lands…if they aren’t prepared to fight for those rights, to put themselves at risk, why should they expect to be allowed to be the recipient of all the benefits of a Europe that so many did lose their lives to defend?  I wonder how many such immigrants would make their way here once they knew they might have to ‘live the cowboy’ and actually do something positive to end the ‘desperate’ situation back home which they’ve left their fellow countrymen to deal with when they ran off for a better life elsewhere.

The BBC’s solution?  Open the borders, open huge refugee camps, open your wallets, keep your mouths shut, and hope all hell doesn’t break loose.

Here is possibly some of the worst and most sanctimonious, malevolent of BBC reporting you’ll ever see…

The ‘sanitised narrative’ of Hiroshima’s atomic bombing

The conventional wisdom in the United States is that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and because of that it was justified – end of story.

Is that really the end of the story?

It’s certainly a convenient one. But it is one that was constructed after the war, by America’s leaders, to justify what they had done. And what they had done was, by any measure, horrendous.

Americans were told a sanitised narrative of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: that a great scientific endeavour had brought quick victory, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

How about that ‘told a sanitised narrative of the bombings‘  Really?

How is it then that this news reel from the time tells of the ‘dramatic story of destruction and terror that followed in the wake of the first atom bomb…30% of the city’s population was killed, some by radioactive gamma rays, some by the heat of radiation that showed its intensity in many freakish ways [images of casualties]…in a city of rubble and destruction…a year later it’s still a city of the dead’?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVFPjVnm-Cc

Or how about this film that tells of ‘the effects of the death dealing atomic power’ where ‘the devastation speaks for itself’.….

Or how about ‘a new and revolutionary increase in destruction’...

So did the Americans get a ‘sanitised’ narrative of the bombings or is that just a prejudiced and ignorant BBC narrative that allows the reporter to then go on and use it to spin a tale of American war crimes?

So there you have it, the BBC is going to revise history for you and tell us that the bombs did not end the war abruptly saving hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties.  It can be no coincidence that Japan surrendered almost immediately the two bombs were dropped but as with the ‘Religion of Peace’ the BBC doesn’t like to make the obvious links that destroy their narrative. A BBC reporter, Rupert Wingfield–Hayes, who wasn’t born back then, wasn’t having  to fight his way to Japan island by island in a very bloody war, who didn’t see his mates blown to pieces beside him, who didn’t have to write the letters of  condolence to the parents of the killed soldiers, who wasn’t indeed one of those parents who received a letter telling them their son was dead, can blithely denounce the American effort to end the war quickly and say saving those American lives, and probably many civilian lives as well, was not worth while.  Perhaps he should ask his Japanese wife what she thinks.

Curious that he has this blinkered attitude when he has previously admitted in this, again anti-American, piece that the invasion of Japan would have been bloody if Okinawa was anything to go by…

There is deep bitterness here, in particular about how their overlords from the “mainland” sacrificed them at the end of World War 2.

“Okinawa is the only place in Japan that experienced battle on the ground,” says Satoru Oshiro “We cannot forget the tragedy, the horrible past.”

And it was unspeakably horrible.

On a hilltop just outside the capital Naha, I find Takamatsu Gushiken digging for human remains.

“When I find the bones of child and woman together, I cannot help but think that must be a mother and child and think about which died first,” Gushiken says.  “I heard of lots of babies sucking their mother’s breast after she has died. Was it like that or did the child go first and the mother hung on to the baby? It makes it very hard for us to see sights like that.”

All the more so when you realise that many of the victims he unearths did not die in battle but killed themselves on the orders of Japanese military commanders.

The carnage wrought by this policy is terrible to think about…Perhaps a quarter of a million people died here in three months of slaughter from April to June 1945. 

He makes no mention of the 14,000 allied soldiers that died, or the 50,000 injured, taking what was the relatively tiny island of Okinawa….multiply that up for the invasion of mainland Japan and the consideration that the defence would have been even more fanatical and the casualties may have been vastly higher.  I imagine the soldiers were extremely grateful not to have to fight their way into Japan…in fact you don’t have to imagine you can read it in many of their compelling and bloody and very unglorified accounts written direct from their own experience of combat against the Japanese …but what do they know, a BBC journalist is willing to sacrifice them for his own smug, sanctimonious narrative.  Like to see him storm a beach with 50lbs of kit and bullets coming his way or patrolling inland with the constant threat of attack  from all directions , or being pinned down under relentless artillery and machine gun fire for days on end and then tell us what he thinks of the need to end the war and whether he’d be so ‘gung ho’ about soldiers’ lives.

A real historian said this of people like Wingfield–Hayes who rewrite history from a modern perspective…..

“This is really a post-Hiroshima analysis, growing with more fervor as the distance from Hiroshima grows, about the moral legitimacy and the moral justifications for the act, and not about understanding the decision-making leading to the act.”

The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t taken quickly or lightly and was in fact informed by the casualties taken on Okinawa.

The Japanese were known to be massing their troops for the defence of the mainland and it looked like any invasion would face at least an equivalent number of Japanese forces as the allies could muster when the acknowledged ratio for success was  three to one in favour of the attackers…- ‘“not the recipe for victory.”…. New intelligence indicated that American casualties would reach over 600,000 during an invasion. ‘

Rupert Wingfield–Hayes‘ opinions are naive, simplistic and pathetically grovelling and apologetic, no doubt due to having very close and personal associations to the land he must now call home.

Perhaps the BBC would like to rewrite some other Japanese history.

In 1937 the Japanese attacked the Chinese city of Nanking killing up to 300,000 of its inhabitants according to the Chinese, 200,000 according to the International Military Tribunal For The Far East...and they didn’t die well... ‘burial societies and other organizations counted more than 155,000 bodies which they buried. They also reported that most of those were bound with their hands tied behind their backs. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, or by throwing them into the Yangtze River, or otherwise disposed of by Japanese. ‘

Will the Japanese be holding a memorial service for the dead, will the BBC be reporting it as a Chinese war crime?

What of the many millions of victims of Japanese militarism during and before WWII?  Will the BBC be reporting their fate in sombre, accusatory tones?

The Japanese mass murdering started long before WWII with the…

‘……Japanese seizure of Manchuria earlier. It really began in 1895 with Japan’s assassination of Korea’s Queen Min, and invasion of Korea, resulting in its absorption into Japan, followed quickly by Japan’s seizure of southern Manchuria, etc. – establishing that Japan was at war from 1895-1945. Prior to 1895, Japan had only briefly invaded Korea during the Shogunate, long before the Meiji Restoration, and the invasion failed. Therefore, Rummel’s estimate of 6-million to 10-million dead between 1937 (the Rape of Nanjing) and 1945, may be roughly corollary to the time-frame of the Nazi Holocaust, but it falls far short of the actual numbers killed by the Japanese war machine. If you add, say, 2-million Koreans, 2-million Manchurians, Chinese, Russians, many East European Jews (both Sephardic and Ashkenazy), and others killed by Japan between 1895 and 1937 (conservative figures), the total of Japanese victims is more like 10-million to 14-million. Of these, I would suggest that between 6-million and 8-million were ethnic Chinese, regardless of where they were resident.’

The Japanese were brutal, fanatical and ruthless. They killed millions, millions, of people by many different savage methods, not just shooting but by torture, starvation, crucifixion, bayoneting, beheading, burning, burying alive, chemical and biological attacks, or just working them to death.

The Japanese soldier rarely surrendered, preferring to fight to the death taking with him as many of his opponents as possible.  The Allies experienced this ruthless fanaticism during the war as they fought their way towards Japan.  This experience informed the decision to use the nuclear bombs on the Japanese mainland in order to make a powerful statement to the Japanese leadership that all such resistance was entirely hopeless and would lead to the destruction of Japan.

Wisely the Japanese recognised this and surrendered preventing the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had they been forced to invade Japan.

The BBC thinks that saving those Allied lives and the subsequent effects on their families was the wrong thing to do, that the lives of Japanese civilians were somehow more valuable than American or British soldiers, never mind that they had fully backed the Japanese military expansionism of the past decades.  Why does the BBC not ask the families of the US soldiers whether they are happy that the war ended as it did and their sons came home from the war?

The BBC prefers to ask an American student of the present day whom the BBC reporter thinks is ‘remarkable’….

I met a remarkable young man in Hiroshima the other day. His name is Jamal Maddox and he is a student at Princeton University in America.

Standing near the famous A-Bomb Dome, I asked Jamal whether his visit to Hiroshima had changed the way he views America’s use of the atom bomb on the city 70 years ago. He considered the question for a long time.

“It’s a difficult question,” he finally said. “I think we as a society need to revisit this point in history and ask ourselves how America came to a point where it was okay to destroy entire cities, to firebomb entire cities.

“I think that’s what’s really necessary if we are going to really make sense of what happened on that day.”

What if Jamal had visited Nanking or the Solomon Islands or Okinawa where so many American soldiers lost their lives?  Would he still have reservations about the use of the bomb?  We shall never know because that’s not on the BBC agenda. It is incredible how ‘Jamal’ is now the BBC poster boy, one man’s opinion, taken on the hop, being used to rewrite history and erase the real narrative behind the necessity for the use of the nuclear bombs in favour of the BBC’s preferred one of trying paint the Allies as the real war criminals in order to justify the BBC’s continued assault against the West, its history and its place in the world as it seeks to relativise everything and sell us a narrative that says there are no good or bad societies, no good or bad ideology, no good or bad cultures.  We should not judge how other people want to live their lives, unless you happen to be white and western, then it’s open season for the BBC.

This approach plays out back in the UK where Islam is given a free pass.  It is not intolerant, oppressive, authoritarian, misogynist, homophobic, violent, backward or unpleasant, it is a lovely, tolerant, peaceful and spiritual religion despite all the evidence being that it has never been that, and certainly isn’t today. Mishal Husain feels free to denounce Christianity as backward and unpleasant on the Today programme but no such vilification for her own religion.

The BBC’s hand-wringing, angst driven approach to reporting the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is motivated by its anti-Western agenda, its hatred of what it sees as the European/US, white dominance of history, its kneejerk cultural cringe and guilt-ridden fawning towards other races and cultures by its white reporters and a gleeful free for all from its ethnic reporters who take a great deal of pleasure in attacking the West and its values whether they have lived here all their lives or not like a school child being rude to their teacher.

The BBC of course would be entirely sympathetic to the notion that Japanese war criminals were in fact victims themselves..how often have we been peddled this exact same narrative for terrorists and criminals by the BBC?…

‘Many Japanese reacted to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal by demanding parole for the detainees or mitigation of their sentences. Shortly after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, a movement demanding the release of B- and C-class war criminals began, emphasizing the “unfairness of the war crimes tribunals” and the “misery and hardship of the families of war criminals”. The movement quickly garnered the support of more than ten million Japanese. The government commented that “public sentiment in our country is that the war criminals are not criminals. Rather, they gather great sympathy as victims of the war, and the number of people concerned about the war crimes tribunal system itself is steadily increasing”.’

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

The BBC has an agenda that is highly evident when it comes to reporting anything to do with race or indeed religion, one religion in particular of course.

When white people are filmed being racially abusive to non-whites on public transport the BBC will rapidly broadcast the videos with profound expressions of shocked sensibilities.  You see no such videos ffrom the BBC of black people abusing whites.  When a white police officer shoots a black man in America the BBC’s default position is that the shooting was a result of racial prejudice. The BBC will trawl the archives for anything remotely similar, or even not similar at all.  A black man dies of cancer or in a road accident and the deaths are all gathered together, conflated along with the shootings to create the narrative that somehow black lives are worth less than white ones and that all black deaths are somehow a result of racism whether overt or hidden….victims of a society that doesn’t care about them.

Yesterday we posted a look at the BBC’s latest such effort that was a very long piece of race baiting from the BBC designed to do what we’ve just stated, to merge together all black deaths of any cause into one bloated, censorious accusation against American Society, the white bit of society that is.

It is a typical piece of race hustling that we’ve come to expect from the racism industry and unfortunately from the ‘impartial’ BBC as well.  Institutions we are told can be racist, systems can be racist, even buildings can apparently be racist not meeting the specific needs of the black citizens, whatever those specific needs might be, and of course if they can’t find anything current to complain about there is always the legacy of history from which all black people are obviously suffering, whether they know it or not, and let’s not forget the innate racism of white people who, even if they never display any signs of racism, can never throw off the prejudices so natural to their race and indeed not being racist is a sure sign of being racist in its condesending patronising display of white supremacy…..the neo-colonialism of the do-gooder still ‘helping out’, civilising, the black man.

Amongst all of the BBC’s vast number of highly emotive reports about police killing black people in the US are there any that mention white people being killed in a similar manner by police?  Because it’s bound to be happening…and indeed here’s one such killing that the BBC seems to have somehow missed….

The Independent reports the controversy…..

Zachary Hammond death: Shooting of unarmed white teenager by police officer sparks debate over ‘lack of outrage’ in America

The Guardian reports it…..

Zachary Hammond autopsy challenges police account of fatal shooting

The BBC hasn’t shown the slightest interest in a white man, unarmed, killed, shot in the back, by police in America.

If he’d been black his death might have merited some interest, considerable interest, and a whole narrative of police brutality and of a racist America spun and hung off of it.

The Independent reports…’The Hammond family’s lawyer has said it is because it was a “white on white” killing.  Eric Bland told the newspaper: “It’s sad but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen. “The hypocrisy that has been shown toward this is really disconcerting.  The issue should never be ‘what is the colour of the victim?’  “The issue should be: ‘why was an unarmed teen gunned down in a situation where deadly force was not even justified?”’

Something for the BBC to consider before it once again exploits black deaths for its own, what is, racist, anti-white, agenda…..

“The issue should never be ‘what is the colour of the victim?   The issue should be: ‘why was an unarmed teen gunned down in a situation where deadly force was not even justified?”’

The BBC’s reporting on these issues is entirely worthless without the context of how many white people are also killed by police in America in similar circumstances.  Without that statistic it is impossible to judge whether there is any link between race and the police’s actions.  That doesn’t stop the BBC from making wild and dangerous accusations that ramp up the anger and ill-will not just towards the police but towards white people.  So much for the BBC ‘maintaining civil society and citizenship’. It seems more intent on inciting riots and race wars.

Perhaps once the BBC wakes up they will make a film about the young white man’s killing just as they are doing for the death of a black man, one who was armed and presumably willing to use the weapon against somebody…

Actors Wanted For Drama Doc For BBC

This is a really interesting 60 minute drama doc for BBC 1 about the incident that started the riots in 2011.

MARK DUGGAN (Male)

29-year-old Tottenham resident, was shot and killed by police in Tottenham, North London, England, on 4 August 2011. The Metropolitan Police stated that officers were attempting to arrest Duggan on suspicion of planning an attack, and that he was in possession of a handgun. Mark Duggan was not the notorious gunman the press have portrayed him to be; neither was he, as his family readily accept, “an angel”. In this film we will try to find the man behind the gangster stereotype and understand the challenges he faced as a young black man from Tottenham’s Broadwater Farm Estate, an area which has lived in a state of semi permanent siege since the murder of PC Keith Blakelock in 1985.

The BBC trying to paint Duggan as a victim of the police regardless of the verdict of the inquiry into his death andfailing that are clearly trying to persuade us that Duggan was a victim of society, not responsible for his own actions, forced into them by a racist and uncaring white majority society.  Such deaths never occur in Jamaica then?

Why is the BBC so obsessed with US police ‘brutality’, white police that is, when other police forces around the world are so much worse…this video claims that Jamaican police are the most violent in the world killing hundreds of people every year in a population that is one hundredth that of America?  Why hardly a glimmer of interest from the BBC?