The BBC has belatedly jumped on the bandwagon and has moved to claim the story about the rape and abuse of so many white girls in Rochdale and Rotherham as its own…after having ignored, downplayed and misreported it for so long. It has produced a docudrama on events in Rochdale detailing what happened to some girls there and how it was allowed to go on for so long….the Telegraph acclaims the BBC’s programme…
As an act of bearing witness, it was, however, a sterling example of public service broadcasting.
Really? Where was the BBC when the abuse was actually happening and they knew about it? Must leave a sour taste in the girls’ mouths as they see the BBC reaping rewards for all their suffering that was for so long ignored with themselves dismissed as white trash.
I heard this comment from a presenter on Woman’s Hour the other day as she discussed the programme with those involved in it…
‘If this makes you angry wait until you see the programme.’
From the BBC which was one of the organisations that turned a blind eye to the real time abuse as it happened and only now is coming out pointing fingers…not at itself of course.
We also had Laura Kuenssberg making an interesting comment about Labour’s re-nationalisation of utilities….
The spending to buy back these companies is apparently not like any other government spending and debt….why? Because…er…we then have an ‘asset’ that we’ve bought….and so it’s a positive on our national balance sheet.
I’m sure Corbyn was very grateful for that piece of propaganda…but it’s only an asset if we think we might want to sell it in future, not likely under Comrade Corbyn.
Second it’s just like any other debt, it’s got to be paid back and any other spending by government also creates ‘assets’…if the government borrows to build a bridge, or schools or hospitals we have the buildings as ‘assets’….they still have to be paid for though.
Absurd comment from Kuenssberg that seemed intent on helping make the case for nationalisation.
What else have we got?
Oh yes…Brexit was the BBC’s goto bête noire to blame any economic downturn on whilst also claiming immigration was great for the economy and vital for employers.
Curious then that on the Today show we had Remain’s favourite BBC journo, Kamal Ahmed, tell us that the economy is in meltdown with a consumer squeeze as pay is cut and inflation rises. Ahmed tells us it is the government’s fault for not creating the right atmosphere where ‘work pays’. Also companies are, get this, too reliant on low paid, low skill workers and are not investing to boost productivity and hence pay.
Yep…low skill and low paid workers keep wages down and are used by businesses so that they don’t have to invest in new technology and upskilling their workforce.
So the BBC is now admitting immigration has held back the British economy, stalling productivity and keeping wages low.
And it blames the government, during an election. Funny how a new BBC narrative pops up when needed, as suits its political agenda. The BBC quite happy to sacrifice the immigrants for a couple of weeks if it can damage the Tories by trying to blame them for the economy. Normal service will return after the election.
Did note the BBC trying to blame the government at first for the NHS computer crash, with Marr trying to suggest ‘deaths’ will be the result. They had to reel back on this line as expert after expert, and many NHS insiders, said it was down to the NHS Trusts themselves…90% of hospitals being OK indicated that it was failure on the part of individual organisations not to update and secure their PCs rather than government cuts as the BBC initially tried to suggest…along with Labour.
Also of interest, Buzzfeed told the BBC that there is not a problem with ‘fake news’ in the UK…presumably Buzzfeed did not examine the BBC’s output especially concerning fake news…which the BBC insists is the world’s biggest problem and we must crack down hard on it….the BBC appointing itself judge and jury as to what is fake news.
The BBC has also been filling the airwaves with the voice of US General Hayden as he attacks Trump….without telling us he is a known enemy of Trump and who previously stated that he thought Trump was unfit for Office.
So if I borrowed £15k to buy a car that would be ‘OK’ because it would be an asset?
Not only would I be paying interest on that loan I would be having to pay out money to maintain that asset.
Should I in future years choose to sell the car I would not be surprised to find that its value to me as a car is not shared by potential buyers, i.e. that asset will have depreciated in value, so I won’t get back what I paid.
And that is exactly the same for any ‘asset’ that Labour would take into so-called public ownership.
This is dangerous economic thinking. On no account should you repeat it to anyone working for the BBC. Their head might explode.
Jim ” if I borrowed £15k to buy a car that would be ‘OK’ because it would be an asset?”.
It is an asset – to the bank, and your employer, and the Government of the day 😉 as it is going to keep you working, and working hard – if you want to keep the car – just in order to finance the repayments.
In reality, the national assets that were privatised in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, were often sold at an appreciated value. Maybe not quite so much in real terms, thanks to the inflation that has plagued the UK especially since 1970 but the Victorians and Edwardians certainly did us a favour with their public infrastructure spending.
And the quality of their ‘builds’, too!
Just don’t talk about any of the current cases of white girls suffering at the hands of Muslim savages, or else!
https://twitter.com/frank_fisher/status/864915356644724736
Chilling but consistent with the current progressive mindset. No platform is from the same source. We are judge and we are jury and we decide.
There is no way anybody reading this from the BBc could construe it as other than a threat. Nice behaviour from our BBC as it so quaintly calls itself.
It is but a small step from this to reporting any content on any website the BBC does not like. Is it setting itself up to become the censor of choice for the Powers that be?
Every day we can see that the 1st Amendment rights of the USA are the only real defence against what is becoming an insidious tyranny over our lives. We have no such right to free speech and that is our weakness and that the BBC is going to exploit as it positions itself to become part of the new deep state.
I can no longer bear to watch or listen to this wannabee stasi .
I don’t disagree with your comments about the Beebyanka, but I am a bit more sceptical about the “First Amendment” idea. The idea of a written constitution may be to provide permanent protection for fundamental liberties, but it doesn’t work when you have an activist judiciary prepared to make up the law as it goes along. There is ample evidence of such a judiciary on both sides of the Atlantic (and in Canada, just as much as in the United States).
Furthermore, there have been two attempts in my recollection to foist a written constitution on us. One was a Quixotic effort, hosted by the “New Statesman”, called “Charter ’88”. The other was the European constitution, concocted mainly by Giscard d’Estaing. They shared the same flaw: the people who wrote them couldn’t resist the opportunity to tell everybody else what they were and were not going to be permitted to do and to think.
Frankly, if we had a written constitution, any “First Amendment” either would not make it into the document in the first place, or would be hedged around so much as to invite virtually infinite shades of interpretation. And consider this: could the Beebyanka hold back from trying to influence the content of a constitution? Imagine a speech code approved by Nicky Campbell, Andrew Marr, or Mishal Husain.
America is proving on a daily basis that constitutional defence of free speech is worthless, in the absence of a will to give that defence substance. In most of American academia, free speech is a dead letter. People who defend free speech are routinely accused of being n*zis. In the current climate, a written constitution could end up enshrining that mentality in law.
“We also had Laura Kuenssberg making an interesting comment about Labour’s re-nationalisation of utilities….
The spending to buy back these companies is apparently not like any other government spending and debt….why? Because…er…we then have an ‘asset’ that we’ve bought….and so it’s a positive on our national balance sheet.
I’m sure Corbyn was very grateful for that piece of propaganda…but it’s only an asset if we think we might want to sell it in future, not likely under Comrade Corbyn.”
Aah! The David ‘Two brains’ Willetts*-style University Degree at work, right there in our Laura.
(* DW, a man with an Oxbridge Double First, who once upon a time claimed that a University Tuition Fee debt was not a debt because it was not like a credit card debt.)
So we spend good money on so called assets we don’t need or want and then pay interest on the borrowed money we used to buy them. Brilliant. That is what socialists mean by spending to invest. Give me a break. I really need a 1969 Pontiac GTO. I really do .
The Rotherham rapists are just a tip of the iceberg. The real figure is likely to be upward of 30,000. Assuming just ten Pakistani men in a gang to one girl, some 300,000 Pakistani Muslims were involved in the brutal serial gang rapes of young girls.
This is not a crime but a war crime. Not just by Muslims, who are not immigrants or even migrants, but invaders and colonisers, but by those who knew, and yet allowed it to happen.
Islam is waging war on Christendom, so this amounts to a war crime. And the reason it has happened, is that Muslims view England as conquered territory, and therefore its women as fair booty for the victors.
And yet, such is nature of the treason, that there is no precedent for punishment of such a crime, as there is no parallel in history, anywhere or anytime.
No wonder several judges appointed on extremely high salaries, have quit. Obviously they felt they couldn’t meet the terms of the contract – that is, minimize the scale of the crime, and absolve all those involved, from Islam, to our our own wonderful constabulary and politicians
In a settled society with a common culture, rape is a direct assault on the home culture, and thus does not happen too often, as the rapist is punished, both legally and socially. In a multicultural society, and particularly one in which Islam is in the mix, rape is not just of an individual woman, but an assault on the honour and pride of another tribe. That is how Muslims see it, and we know this as they do engage in “honour” killings.
In a genuine tribal society, such an assault would be avenged fairly quickly by violence and retaliatory rapes. Thus, to achieve some degree of stability in a multi-tribal (read multicultural) society, it requires that men of the tribe take direct action to protect their tribe by violence against an offending tribe.
What we have now in the UK is the worst of all possible scenarios. We have Muslim immigrants who view women with contempt. Muslims also view rapes as an act of contempt on Infidel society (tribe). The rapist may be punished with a derisory sentence, but is held in respect within his own “tribe”. Meanwhile “Men of the West” have been neutered by decades of feminist and socialist propaganda, thus making any retaliatory action well nigh impossible. Thus, all impediments to rape have been removed.
What we have created is not just a rapist’s paradise but the rape of an entire nation. Sweden has been the rape capital of Europe for atleast ten years. Fjordman has been pointing this out for virtually the same time.In Britain, the systematic brutal gang rapes of young non-Muslim girls by Pakistani Muslims had been going on for decades. In all cases the police and political authorities knowingly ignored the cries of the victims.
The news only broke when the EDL started to protest about the gang rapes of working class girls. . The authorities and media response was to besmirch the EDL as right wing racist Nazis, arrest Tommy Robinnson, and “kettle” EDL demonstrations. And as the news was now out, they admitted that they had kept quiet about the gang rapes because they didn’t want to be perceived as “racists”. This doesn’t wash on any ground.
1. What sort of people are these media and authority types that willingly and knowingly ignored the cries and tears of young girls over decades.
2. And the claim that they didn,t want to be perceived as “racist” is a cowardly reason to give, that is, trying to hide their cowardice, and disgusting politically expedient behaviour behind what they believe will be perceived as a good cause of non-racism”.
NCBBC.
Excellent post, thank you.
Thank you.
Just a thought.
The media, BBC and the authorities, are not telling us that “grooming”- an odd word for violent sexual assault, was not just on White girls but Sikh and Punjabi girls too. For if they did, it would blow open the whole charade of “Asian “, or “Brown”.
Then where will blame will be assigned – to people from tribal backgrounds, unable to settle in a modern society? And when that too fails, something else will be thought off – everything but the truth.
It is evident that this mass sexual predation is Islamic in origin. And yet, the BBC, normally anti-racist supreme, are hell bent in making normal Islamic practice into Racism, and blame “Asians” for this mass sexual predation.
It is very unfair to Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and Christians. And yes Jedis too, who may be Brown or Asian.
The Last of England
https://www.steynonline.com/6803/the-last-of-england
Totally agree NCBBC . I think the BBC strategy of constantly referring to these rapists as “asian” and not “muslim” men achieves two objectives
1 The obvious one – it takes attention away from their favourite minority
2 It also gives the impression that organisations such as the EDL (who the BBC labels as racist with little evidence) are intrinsically against all “asian” men rather than being against those of a certain religion that condones rape and violence against those who do not share that same religion.
This helps to devalue any campaigns they may be associated with such as the Chelsea Wright protests, thus enabling some of Mo,s mates to carry on with business as usual with very little attention and interference from the authorities.
If these campaigns are given little attention in the press and the authorities are not interested, and campaigners such as Tommy Robinson given no protection – Then who does this leave to protect the likes of Chelsea Wright and the thousands of other victims of these bastards.
Any bright ideas you trolls?
Sex slavery on an industrial basis to humiliate the Kuffar is not ordinary criminal activity. The intent of Islam/Muslims is to humiliate the Kuffar, so that he acknowledges that Islam is superior and converts to Islam.
Combined with violent actions, terrorism, criminality, Benefit fraud on a grand scale, this is a war against the UK and the Crown. All Muslim, not just Pakistanis, are working towards that goal.
It is the duty of government to put a stop to it with force if necessary, and to banish the invaders. This is the prime duty of government – to defeat and banish the enemies of the Crown.
Brexit is one one part of that defence – banishment of a foreign power (EU), whose intent was to rule the UK.
The defeat and banishment of Islam from these shores is the second part. I see no other way. The UK, as in the last century will have to take the lead. If it does, the Anglo-sphere will follow. I hope. And who knows, the rest of Christendom.
https://twitter.com/GodfreyElfwick/status/864936893041049601
very sharp and clever by that man Elfwick
You didn’t hear the words “Islam” or “Moslem” though, did you. I have just watched all three episodes and there was not a mention.
Moghrey mie Kys t’ou.
You hear ”paki” all the time on Australian sports and news channels, it is no insult, just like manxie or Brit is no insult,..
The paki fielder,…..wicket batsman etc etc. just a shortened name, those none paki’s offended by the term in Britain, are sick Brits, Mentally.
Was Elfwick using ‘British” gallows humour, ”dry sarcasm”…..Noorey vie ort!
Noorey vie erriu!
No doubt “goray” will be okay.
Very much so.
He pulled off this fantastic troll of The Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/wrongskin-twitter-campaign-white-man-5872674
I’ve said this before, but fake news has been around for decades, even before the internet. It has been fake news that has kept us obedient and voting for ‘more of the same’ for the last 20 years or so. It has been fake news that has conned people into voting for higher taxes and false promises, for government wastefulness on unnecessary excesses and projects created to create jobs rather than useful public services. It is fake news that has convinced the naïve and unwise that expressing concerns over levels of immigration is racist, or that the rise in food bank usage is down to government cuts rather than an increase in the numbers of available food banks.
The only difference today is that fake news isn’t working to the advantage of those who wish to perpetuate the illusion that voting for kind words and dry tears is the ‘compassionate’ thing to do. The illusion that spending more on the NHS will improve the service rather than fund continual failure.
Ironically, most fake news is written by leftists, not surprisingly. Now they blame their own brainwashing tool for Trump and Brexit.
It isn’t that we’ve fallen for fake news; on the contrary, it’s that we are too smart to fall for it any longer.
I’m sure followers of this site will remember Big (boom and bust) Gord whenever he announced spending he was always “INVESTING” in something or other swallowing up tax payers cash and borrowings.
Unfortunately the extra input never seemed to equate to an equivalent extra “output”.
Quite right. And it’s a deliberately misleading usage that the BBC loves to employ, as well.
Can’t think why…
Sorry, ARUFF (Accidental Report Using Fat Fingers).
I believe fiscal sage Emily Thornbury is doing the rounds sharing the joys of borrowing to invest.
I am on Wonga as we speak to get a few mil to stick in a Nationwide Flex.
What’s disappointing is that for all the mock concern from the BBC about this, they won’t have the courage to address the problem at it’s core. That being that it isn’t a simple case of a ‘couple of bad eggs’ but rather an ingrained cultural attitude of a lot of those pouring into the country at an alarming rate that have no respect for the values of this country.
This same attitude regularly shows it’s face in Sweden and Germany with women suffering the consequences yet still the media are unwilling to connect the dots and point any fingers.
Given the free pass the BBC gives to Muslim rapists of white women, we can answer questions as to the BBC’ views on the following matters:
1) Does the BBC support women’s rights?
2) Does the BBC support the destruction of traditional Western civilisation?
With the obvious answers No and Yes, the rationale for BBC support for all things Muslim becomes clear: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
No doubt who the BBC jumps ‘to’ as soon, and as often as they can get them onscreen…
Is the bBC still covering Islamic rape crimes in Rochdale
The bBC is cock a hoop with self praise regards exposing the
IslamicBritishrapegrooming gangs that do as they please across the UK. So with that in mind and seeing as how Rochdale is where the series ‘3 Girls’ is supposed to be set. You’d think the bBC would have given this news story greater prominence than the back pages it currently resides: