Yearly Archives: 2015

Is the BBC completely out of control, more intent on promoting a left-wing social and political agenda than in actually just being a media organisation producing straight forward news and entertainment?

Who are the extremists when it comes to immigration?  Is it UKIP and others who want a sensible, measured policy to control immigration or the likes of the BBC who promote mass, uncontrolled immigration without thought for the consequences?

Should the government ‘renationalise’ the BBC and take it out of the hands of these left-wing media extremists who seek to undermine British society?

The BBC’s highly irresponsible promotion and encouragement of illegal immigration continues apace with the Today programme on Saturday (08:35) once again trying to paint those who oppose open borders and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration as immoral and inhumane.

Today presented us with two immigrant tales that were intended to tug on the heart strings and dragoon us with moral blackmail into flinging open the borders, more so than they already are, and letting in all and sundry regardless of the consequences, the disastrous consequences which the BBC assiduously fails to point out, one of which will be the end of the beloved welfare state with the hallowed NHS, state education and those welfare handouts that the immigrants, ironically, so often come here in search of made unworkable and unaffordable.

Of course it is the BBC that is setting the parameters when it comes to deciding what that ‘morality’ is…if you don’t agree with the BBC you are by default then ‘immoral’.  Nice when you can make the rules of the game up yourself to suit yourself.

First up we had a tale of a Pakistani ‘asylum seeker’.  No explanation as to why he was seeking asylum…could it be that he was just an economic migrant seeking  those ‘streets of gold’ that the UK is famously paved with?

He tried to leap onto a moving train and hit a concrete wall and subsequently died.  We are supposed to think...’How desperate they must be to take such risks’...and then unlock our hearts and the border.  Most people would have thought ‘That’s bad luck…but it was his own fault…why are we being held responsible by the BBC?’

What is this moral obligation that the BBC seeks to impose upon us just because some people have decided to make a dangerous journey to get here? As you’ll hear from the interviews they have come through eight countries, including Muslim Turkey, but none were to their taste…they want to come to Britain.

If they are so ‘desperate’ for sanctuary why do they not stop in Turkey where Islam is the national religion and claim it there from their fellow Muslims?  Why camp under plastic sheets for weeks in France when they can claim asylum in France, or Greece, or Italy, or Germany that they have travelled through?  What is it that they think they can get in the UK?

Makes you think the real reason has absolutely nothing to do with ‘asylum’ and all to do with the handouts they expect.

Immediately following the ‘harrowing’ tale of the death of an immigrant the BBC brought us another tale, this time of an Afghan who came here when he was 13 and who successfully got inside the system…but shows not a smidgeon of gratitude….Europe, apparently, is ‘uncivilised’ and the British public are wrong about immigration…misled by the Rightwing Press apparently…he’s really caught onto the scrounger/victim narrative hasn’t he?  He’s going to write a book about his experiences…a guaranteed ‘Book of the Week’ on the BBC and a fabulously adoring write up in the Guardian and the Independent.

If Europe is so uncivilised perhaps he should try his luck back in Afghanistan.  No?  Thought not.

It takes not even seconds to realise that the premise of the BBC’s immigration narrative stands up to not even the slightest bit of scrutiny.  Migrants make dangerous journeys to get here, therefore we must let them come to Britian and start paying for them….OK, and then what?  When does that stop?  Where is the line?  There can be no line.  If it was immoral, in the BBC’s eyes, to stop the first lot then the case remains exactly the same for the next lot.  They have to be let in.  And then what? Millions upon millions will turn up on our doorstep.

What of those who suffer some sort of persecution or harassment or oppression of varying degrees, or poverty or lack of opportunity?  The BBC is always making the case that these should be let in.  It must take the most optimistic and naive or stupid of people to think that such a policy could ever be made to work.  Apart from the fact that you could go to many parts of Britain where the same case could be made for its inhabitants is the BBC really suggesting that we let in all those who are in poverty and bring them here?  Really?  Billions of people…from China, from India, from Brazil, from Africa, from ……almost everywhere.  Billions.

The BBC’s continued attacks on those who oppose mass, uncontrolled immigration and its promotion of that immigration is dangerous and irresponsible.  The results of such an enticing narrative can be seen in Calais and Libya where maybe a million people wait to swarm into Europe with many more millions moving up behind them.

If governments don’t take control others will eventually try to do so.  The very thing that the BBC tries to engineer by its head in the sand approach, a huge conflict based upon race and or religion, is an ever closer likelihood ironically because of policies on immigration that the BBC itself has fostered.

The BBC’s charter says it is the job of the BBC to promote civil society and cohesion…if it is failing to do that then the government should step in and change the message.  The BBC was given that obligation by government and therefore there is no reason government shouldn’t decide what message is in the best interests of the country.  Why is such an important issue left in the hands of a small group of self-selected people who are clearly socially and politically antagonsitic to the national interest?  Would we have left the BBC in the hands of Nazi sympathisers during the war just because of the BBC’s famed independence?  No of course not…so why leave it in the hands of a cabal of simplistic, left-wing elitist liberals who act against the British national interest?  The BBC is the ‘extremist’ in this debate not the supposed ‘far right’…ie anyone who wants to control immigration that the BBC brands ‘toxic’ and racist.

‘Nationalise’ the BBC and take it out of the hands of the extremist, elitist, media royalty who have hijacked the People’s broadcaster.

No need for much comment here…Paul Mason spills the beans...

“I went into journalism at the age of 30, confident that because I could write polemical propaganda leaflets, news wouldn’t be a problem.”

Not a problem when he was employed by the BBC anyway.

Even an ex-Labour MP writing in the Guardian thinks Mason is beyond the pale, and , not even Jeremy Corbyn would be a fellow traveller on the journey Mason proposes.  What was it that the BBC thought he could bring to the debate as economics editor on Newsnight?

The BBC’s Norman Smith strikes again.  How is it that a man with such an everyday name can manage to come up with the most fantastical, imaginative, sinister flights of fancy that would have Roald Dahl turning in his grave with envy?

The government has announced that landlords must check the immigration status of tenants and has given them the ability to evict them without a court order…the penalty for not doing so may be 5 years in the clink…whilst the illegal immigrants are entertained no doubt in fine style by HM’s social services.

The government says that this measure is targeted at rogue landlords who deliberately exploit immigrants and the system not your every day law abiding landlord.

Norman Smith’s main conclusion on Today?  This would lead us back to the 1960’s or 70’s with signs saying ‘No blacks, Jews or Gays’.

Not sure how he made that huge leap, and definitely unsure where Jews and gays come into this as part of the landlord’s ‘profiling’ of potential tenants.  Why would a landlord think Jews or Gays were illegal immigrants?  Perhaps he was thinking of a different future in England once another ideology gets the whip hand.  Funny no warnings about that possibility.

Why did he make that claim when the main concern of the landlords was that if they tried to evict tenants it might result in violence as even the Guardian points out?..

A government plan to require landlords to evict tenants living in Britain illegally from their properties without a court order could lead to violent confrontations, the National Landlords’ Association has warned.

Smith has a habit of making hyperbolic, highly political statements of nonsense…claiming pre-election that the state of the economy was ‘utterly terrifying’ and that government plans to cut spending would take us back to the 1930’s depression era and Orwell’s Road to Wigan Pier….and claiming that budget predictions read like the ‘Book of Doom’.

“While there was a lot of enthusiasm on the Conservative benches and political joy at a lot of the popular measures, when you sit down and read the Office for Budget Responsibility report it reads like a book of doom.

“It is utterly terrifying, suggesting that spending will have to be hacked back to the levels of the 1930s as a proportion of GDP.

“That is an extraordinary concept, you’re back to the land of Road to Wigan Pier.”

 

Curious that he failed to mention that Labour’s spending in 2000/01 was almost exactly the same as predicted for the Tories’ spending plans….and the country wasn’t reduced to poverty and ruin or indeed put on the road to Wigan Pier.

More quality reporting from the BBC.

As David notes the Today programme set out to ‘prove’ the BBC’s contention that Narendra Modi’s election would be the start of persecution against minority communities in India was correct….Modi apparently being a ‘mass murderer’…a claim that went unchallenged on the BBC.  It is notable that the BBC is keen to link Hinduism to terrorism and extremism (not to mention its same approach to Buddhism)…but reluctant to link Islam to ideologically based terrorism….not just reluctant, it in fact sets out to completely deny the very obvious link.

Timing is always relevant when looking at what the BBC does.  Why for instance did the BBC choose today to broadcast this attack on Modi?  After all it based the attack on a report that came out on May 1st.

The Today programme running order doesn’t include this report….why was it suddenly squeezed in?  Could it be that the BBC is trying to counter the BJP’s allegations against the Congress party in India made on Saturday?

If so why is the BBC involving itself in Indian politics?

If it is going to report alleged attacks on minorities by Hindus it should also be making quite clear that Muslims are by far the most likely terrorists in India along with the Communists….Wonder why the BBC doesn’t want to make that clear.  Two of its favourite fellow travellers?  The BBC will however find time and space to list the Palestinian casualties in Gaza in just about every report from Israel however tenuous the link to the conflict there.

Why has the BBC specifically chosen India to target when mentioning that report?  After all India is in the second tier of concern, where it has been since…2009….not 2014….Pakistan is in the first tier, the report noting…

Key Findings

Pakistan represents one of the worst situations in the world for religious freedom for countries not currently designated by the U.S. government as “countries of particular concern.” In the past year, the government grappled with a challenging security environment and initiated efforts to fight the Pakistani Taliban. However, despite these efforts, Pakistan continued to experience chronic sectarian violence targeting Shi’a Muslims, Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, and Hindus.

Why has the BBC set its sights on Hindu India and not Muslim Pakistan?…after all the biggest number of asylum claims to the Uk come from…guess where…not India, but Pakistan.

So India has been of on the second tier of concern for a while, meaning that attacks against minorities are nothing new…in 2010 this was being said..

“In controversial comments, Rahul Gandhi has told US Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer that growth of “radicalised Hindu groups” posed a bigger threat to the country than militant groups like LeT, according to a leaked American diplomatic cable.” 

There is definitely Hindu based violence against other minorities but the other minorities aen’t innocent of exactly the same.

When the BBC quotes Hindu politicians making Hindu nationalist statements perhaps they should consider if that is a response to the Muslim attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001? The BBC normally loves a good ‘blowback’ conspiracy theory when explaining away Muslim terrorism.  Perhaps the BBC should consider all those other Muslim attacks on India such as the Bombay bombing in 1993 and Mumbai recently….‘Murder in Mumbai: There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff. The terrorists didn’t want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other “infidels” as they could, and in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.…So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists?’

…….along with many many other attacks.

The report that the BBC uses to attack Modi says this…

Despite the country’s status as a pluralistic, secular democracy, India has long struggled to protect minority religious communities or provide justice when crimes occur, which perpetuates a climate of impunity. Incidents of religiously-motivated and communal violence reportedly have increased for three consecutive years.  

The country has experienced periodic outbreaks of large-scale communal violence against religious minorities, including in Uttar Pradesh in 2013, Odisha in 2007-2008, Gujarat in 2002, and Delhi in 1984.

Based on these concerns, USCIRF again places India on its Tier 2 list of countries, where it has been since 2009.

 In light of these concerns, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement in support of religious freedom made after the close of the reporting period (discussed more fully below) was a positive development.

So the report recognises that such events have been happening for a long time and then goes on to praise Modi…the Today programme didn’t report that bit.

Oh and to finish….as for Hindus forcefully converting Muslims as mentioned by the Today programme…Muslims converting people by force is rampant in Pakistan…and not just Pakistan…

Police protect girls forced to convert to Islam

Extremist Muslims who force vulnerable teenage girls to convert to Islam are being targeted by police, Met chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed.

Police are working with universities to clamp down on “aggressive conversions” during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses.

The Hindu Forum of Britain claims hundreds of mostly Sikh and Hindu girls have been intimidated by Muslim men who take them out on dates before terrorising them until they convert.

Ramesh Kallidai, of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said: “Some girls are petrified because they are constantly being phoned up, having their door knocked.

“One girl was beaten up on the street and others have been forced to leave university.”

Any chance this brick lobbing ‘Islamophobe’ is in fact a Sunni Muslim attacking an Ahmadi mosque?  Any chance that the BBC will notice?

Police hunting man who hurled bricks and bottles at a mosque in ‘hate crime’

West Midlands Police have released an image of a man suspected of hurling bricks and bottles at a Wolverhampton Mosque.

Windows were smashed at the Baitul Atta Ahmadiyya Mosque on Willenhall Road just after 4am on 21 June.

Following investigations officers are now in a position to release images of a person they would like to speak to in connection with the incident.

Sergeant Martin Hewitt, from Wolverhampton police, said: “We are dealing with this crime as a hate crime. Someone deliberately targeted the Mosque and this has caused considerable distress within the community”

Here’s what a well known Muslim commentator thinks of Ahmadis…..

Tell MAMA says:

Posting Anti-Muslim or Antisemitic Cartoons or Graphics Are Unacceptable. So Why Do It Dilly Hussain?

Why does the Deputy Editor of a web-site which is targeted towards Muslim communities recycle exactly the same tropes against Jews and Jewish communities?

Lastly, recently Dilly Hussain also abused Ahmadi Muslims, regarding them less than animals in their closeness to God. Muslim communities deserve better than this and at the very least, a public apology on both counts is needed.

The BBC, naturally, has Hussain on speed dial along with other Muslim spokesmen with well known dubious views such as Mehdi Hasan, the Cage boys and MPACUK.

As the end of his Presidency approaches, Obama acts more and more like a despot rather than a President. He seems to have a disregard for the views of Congress and his previously stated ambition to work in partnership with the US Congress has been junked. L’état, c’est moi

This seems to please the BBC. They were in throes of ecstasy over the Iran deal and now they are working themselves into a frenzy over his latest plan to tackle “climate change”.

US President Barack Obama is due to unveil what he called “the biggest, most important step we have ever taken” in tackling climate change. The aim of the revised Clean Power Plan is to cut greenhouse gas emissions from US power stations by nearly a third within 15 years. The measures will place significant emphasis on wind and solar power and other renewable energy sources.

But hush….

However, opponents in the energy industry have vowed to fight the plan.

Oh no. How dare they. Obama (and Hillary Clinton) can be assured of the plaudits from the BBC for hyping the utter implausibility of “tackling” climate change since this fits in nicely with the BBC’s enduring commitment to the left wing issue.

The 6.30am – 7.00am is always a rich time slot on BBC Radio 4 Today to pick up some jaw dropping bias. This morning, the BBC ran a 5 minute attack on the “right wing” Modi Government in India. The big concern, according to the BBC this morning, has been how it treats Muslims. Yup – that.

Monday morning and a new open thread to start the week! Which BBC bias is concerning you today? Detail it here please.

I was amazed by a  story that the BBC ran earlier today on Radio 4 Today.

Social services in Kent are struggling to cope with an increase in the numbers of unaccompanied child asylum seekers. Bernie Gibson is managing director of the agency Compass Fostering.

The central issue here was the lack of good foster homes for …Eritrean immigrants. (All boys. mysteriously) The BBC shared the concern of Ms Gibson. I’m surprised the BBC does not put them all up in Broadcasting House.

I caught an item on BBC Today programme on R4 around 6.40am which was classic BBC bashing of the one ethnic group the BBC cannot tolerate – White people. This morning it was Australians that were in the firing line and the line being sold was that Australia has a major issue dealing with the fact that “White redneck” Aussies are so racist.  Quite incredibly generalising and patronising. Naturally the treatment of Aborigines was brought up as was a stat they were ’20 times more likely to be in prison” that Whitey. I wonder are they 20 times more likely to commit certain types of crime? We will never know because the BBC were out on a mission to simply blacken the reputation of White Australians.