Author Archives: Alan

The BBC digging out the smallest pro-EU story and ignoring the massive bombshell on immigration.

Oddly enough the Daily Mail is often the source of BBC stories and on Saturday the Today programme (08:52) highlighted an important issue using a story from the Mail.  Apparently we would never have had the children’s book ‘The Gruffalo’ if it hadn’t been for the EU…..

Oh look, the agitprop jihadis must be gutted…turns out that the murderer of Imam Jalal Uddin in Rochdale, or the ‘sex grooming town’ as the Times described it, was not a Far-Right, white Islamophobe……unless he was called ‘Mohammed Hussain Syeedy’ ,who has been charged with the murder.  Maybe, ala Hugh Sykes, he was conned into committing the murder by a sinister Right-Wing conspiracy?

No links on the BBC page to its former stories on this murder where they gave prominence to warnings from ‘concerned’ Muslim groups that this might be a racist, Islamophobic attack…but of course no one knows and do remain calm.  No ‘ratcheting up of tension’ there by the obvious suggestion that this just might be an anti-Muslim attack whilst pretending to be calming things down.

The BBC was happy to publish an attack by the police on the rival Times for its headline of which we were told the cops (who failed abysmally to protect the white girls of Rochdale) said…

“Your headline and its irrelevance to this case has the potential to cause community tensions.

“It is also offensive to the thousands of peaceful law-abiding Muslims and non-Muslims in Rochdale who are shocked by this murder.”

The police added…

“I would hope in the circumstances you issue an immediate apology and provide a response.”

Well, yeah, let’s have a grovelling apology to the 1400 girls raped and abused as the police stood by.

And let’s have an apology to the white or non-Muslim people of Rochdale who were offensively labelled Racist Islamophobes who at any moment might attack the Muslim community….

The mosque’s social media post said: “It is with deep sadness we inform you that our dear Qari Jalal Uddin Saab passed away last night.

“The cause of his death is yet to be confirmed, we recommend that you do not speculate but rather wait for the facts to be established by the police.”

Dobir Miah, chief officer for the Rochdale Council of Mosques, promised to “offer any assistance” to Greater Manchester Police.

“We would like to urge people to please remain calm and be reassured that everything possible is being done to find out what has happened,” he said.

“Nothing has been said that suggests there is an immediate threat to people doing their day-to-day activities.”

But of course every Muslim community leader knows that most people will take away an entirely different idea from such warnings.  Muslim community leaders are always pressing those buttons trying to build up an impression that the Muslim community is under siege and attack….trying to stop any negative stories about Muslims appearing in the Media by saying these make Muslims angry and isolated which leads to radicalisation.  It’s a tactic to silence anyone who dares to criticise Islam and those who want to impose ‘conservative Islam’ upon the UK…..which, as the influential MCB is one of those organisations and represents the vast bulk of Muslms in this country, you have to realise what not being able to criticise the likes of the MCB will lead to as it was deeply involved in the Trojan Horse scandal.

The Police were happy to add their two penneth worth raising the possibility that it might be a race attack whilst at the same time declaring they just don’t know…..

She said that while detectives were looking at the possibility of the incident being racially motivated, “at the moment we just cannot say one way or the other”.

They are also looking at the possibility that it was a drug deal gone wrong, or a suicide, or a Martian spaceship flew by, he tripped as he looked up and fell hitting his head as he went down.  Just looking at the possibility.

Let’s not raise tensions by subtly suggesting there are grounds for thinking this may be a race attack.

Originally I was going to say this video about the EU funding highly political oganisations such as Oxfam was purely one posted for interest which had nothing to do with the BBC but on reflection it has everything to do with the BBC.

The BBC, as we know, itself receives fairly large sums of cash from the EU...£20,152,022 (€24,435,906) to be precise. That is the sum dispersed to the BBC from EU funds between 2007-2012 inclusive.

Astonishingly Oxfam has received over €326 million from the EU between 2007 and 2013….last year it received €82.8 million.  Oxfam doesn’t just use this to feed or educate the needy it uses it to lobby and pressurise governments to adopt policies that Oxfam wants them to adopt.  Oxfam is highly political as you can see here…

Europe is facing unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality. Instead of putting people first, policy decision making is increasingly influenced by wealthy elites who bend the rules to their advantage, worsening poverty and economic inequality, while steadily and significantly eroding democratic institutions. Austerity measures and unfair tax systems across Europe are skewed in favour of powerful vested interests. It is time to reverse the course of poverty and inequality in Europe, putting people first. 

Ironically Oxfam discards all thoughts of European security and stability when on another hobby horse...Oxfam Position Paper for EU-Africa Migration..

With the latest figures showing that over the last 15 years at least 31,000 people have died or gone missing while trying to reach Europe, the EU must let human rights be the focus at Valletta and not prioritize the EU’s own agenda of tightened borders and increased state security.

Oxfam is calling for greater commitment to human security and human rights, sustainable development and prevention of violent conflict. Increased securitization of border control, and greater criminalization of irregular migration, will only increase human suffering and the risks to people’s safety. 

As  with the BBC’s finest Oxfam buries its head in the sand when it comes to assessing the impact mass migration of very different cultures into Europe will have.  It talks of security, poverty and inequality in Europe in one breath and then tells us we must allow in unlimited numbers of immigrants in another.

Oxfam’s, and the BBC’s, naivity and wilful blindness are not only ironic but highly dangerous.  A Europe that ends up destabilised and torn apart by immigration makes the whole world less safe because Europe is in the end the source of liberal values that speak of freedom of speech, of human rights, of equality and law.  If Europe as a set of cultures, not a political construct, collapses all those living in poverty and inequality in the rest of the world will have absolutely no chance.  Oxfam’s fine rhetoric takes no account of the reality of mass migration and its consequences that will only lead to conflict and even more refugees and more misery worldwide.

The BBC is no different.  It also of course receives a government grant, one that comes not direct from the British government but via the licence fee system which, due to its compulsory nature, is in fact a government gift given at arms length.  The BBC uses this money as it likes, more often than not to broadcast its propaganda slipped in under the radar into its children’s programmes, comedy, drama and soaps….and to pressurise the government on foreign policy and austerity.

The audience isn’t informed, educated and indeed rarely entertained as it has no choice as to what it hears….the debates are not rounded, balanced or honest.  The BBC pumps out one view on Islam, one view on Europe, one view on Climate Change, one view on the economy and if your views differs you are either mocked, ridiculed and scorned or shut out of the debate.

This is the direct opposite of what the BBC was intended to be as it now is nothing less than a propaganda machine that brooks no opposition and is in reality, despite appearances to the opposite, pretty much in the pay of government when it comes to issues like Islam, attacking the EDL and the ‘Far- Right’ as bidden by the Home Office, and climate, and now of course Europe as the government has adopted a pro-European Union position.

The BBC and the Left launched furious attacks on Murdoch because they told us he was buying influence and forcing politics to go the way he wanted….why the silence about the likes of Oxfam which rakes in a billion Euros a year and uses a lot of that to lobby governments and institutions on highly political matters?  Seems like one law for a ‘right-wing’ media mogul in competition wth the BBC and another for left-wing NGO’s, and the BBC itself, that support mass migration and massive spending programmes.

The BBC likes to go with the stereotype that those opposed to mass, uncontrolled immigration are uneducated, old, male and pale whilst the pro-EU types are young, educated, go-getting cosmopolitan thrusters……guess they’ll have to reel back on that convenient labelling….

The BBC was very eager to nail the government on its supposed ‘misleading’ figures for death rates in the NHS at weekends [Not so keen to get to the real figures though] with a FOI request.

Strangely the BBC shows a marked reluctance to similarly nail the government when it comes to genuinely dodgy immigration figures that the government admits it won’t reveal because ‘ it might prejudice the outcome of the EU referendum. ‘  Yes we can’t have facts and information relevant to the debate interfering with the debate.

From the Telegraph:

Official figures published suggested that 257,000 migrants came to Britain last year, with a significant rise in the number of Bulgarians and Romanians.

Remember the time when diligent BBC reporters would plaster the BBC website with stories of the police dragging ‘innocent’ schoolboys off to be waterboarded?  How times change…not a sign of this tale of a white, non-Muslim boy beng so treated…

Outrage as school calls police after pupil looks at Ukip website in class

Teenager Joe Taylor was flagged up for political extremism by the deputy head after he used a school computer to click on the party’s website. 

The 15-year-old went online earlier this week to research immigration following a classroom discussion on the subject, logging on with his school username. 

But he was stunned when teachers subsequently reported him to the police, claiming he had raised welfare concerns by visiting “politically incorrect websites”. 

Amazingly he was referred to a specialist team whose usual brief is preventing vulnerable youngsters from being groomed and indoctrinated by Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis. 

The BBC has been telling us all day of the rise in rough sleepers and Labour’s outraged reaction.

What the BBC wasn’t telling us in its news bulletins was that 56.7% of rough sleepers are immigrants….

Total non-UK    4,201    56.7%

Only right at the very bottom of its website report does it make any such admission about immigrants…

Where nationalities were available, 43% were from the UK, and 36% from Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.

Why is the BBC not so keen for you to know that and isn’t it a bit of a cheek for Labour, who opened the floodgates to attack the government for something Labour’s immigration policy, and of course the EU, is mostly to blame for?

So the police get all the blame for Rotherham?

Yesterday, unfortunately can’t remember when, a BBC reporter admitted that he repeatedly heard tales that the Hussain family were involved in serious crimes but the police were ignoring them. So the police ignored these crimes….what exactly did the intrepid BBC reporter do to expose both the crimes and the police’s inaction?  Nothing obviously.

This wasn’t just a matter of the police ignoring things, the media and local government were also involved and turned a blind eye due to the ‘race factor’.

Why do we not hear the BBC admitting the media were also at fault?

Curiously the report about the convictions has vanished off the BBC’s front, UK and England page despite this being a major story from yesterday….you have to go all the way deep into the website to the regional area of Sheffield and South Yorkshire to find the story now and even there it isn’t prominent.  Almost as if the BBC doesn’t want you to see the conviction of Muslim men for mass rape and abuse….the cover up continues.

Dame Janet Smith spent three years investigating the BBC and Savile and then allowed what, half an hour or so for journalists to quiz her on her conclusions limiting each one to one question and a supplementary question?  Ridiculous as she strictly regulated what they asked and how long they had to ask it.  Surprised at the journalists who deferred to her and allowed her to get away with it.  She was there to answer questions not to get away with revealing as little as possible whilst strenuously defending her own reputation..

Her conclusion that the BBC, as a corporate body, was blameless as senior managers had no knowledge of Savile’s activities is complete nonsense.  She claims that the hierarchical nature of the BBC meant that such discussions never happened but anyone who has ever worked in any organisation knows that there is huge amounts of contact between the different levels and that ‘gossip’ of such a salacious nature concerning someone as famous as Savile, a person who was a major and important celebrity for the BBC, would have flown around the organisation at speed.

DJS even admits that in 1971 the allegations were in the newspapers but the BBC top brass were so concerned with the reputation of the BBC that they covered them up…how then does she conclude that management knew nothing?

She states that knowledge about Savile was limited to producer level and producers did not have the authority to tackle them…OK say that was true….Savile was carrying out his abuses over many decades so when those producers got promotion and rose up the ranks were they not then in a position to take things further and to take preventative action as they saw he was still employed by the BBC?

DJS said that there was a culture of fear that meant staff would not report Savile’s behaviour for fear of the consequences for their careers.  Surely then that is the responsibility of senior management?  There have been plenty of similar enquiries about other organisations, such as the Police, where the BBC has been happy to point the finger of blame at senior management for not managing such a culture.

As the lawyer for the victims said, this is an expensive whitewash that gives BBC management a clean bill of health when in reality it beggars belief that they could not have known anything.

Liz Dux, from Slater and Gordon, says:

‘All the Savile and Hall victims have ever wanted from this report is truth and accountability. Despite millions having been spent on the inquiry, my clients will feel let down that the truth has still not been unearthed and many will feel it is nothing more than an expensive whitewash’.

On the basis of reading through parts of the report, it’s difficult to disagree with her assessment.

Having said all that the BBC itself, at least on the shape of BBC Trust headshed Rona Fairhead, took the blame as she said that ‘No one can doubt the BBC failed the victims and it turned a blind eye.’

On the 22nd of October 2015 the BBC published a report about Jeremy Hunt ‘misleading’ us about the figures for weekend deaths in hospitals.

Strangely this story resurfaced today as the BBC once again delved into the  subject, and curiously it just happened to be Prime Minister’s Questions today with Jeremy Corbyn leading with the BBC’s claim and actually quoting the BBC’s ‘research’.  No questions at all about the EU and the referendum but as Jon Pienaar told us afterwards the British public are apparently more interested in the Junior doctors’ challenge to Jeremy Hunt as the subject is closer to home.  Why is Pienaar making up excuses for Corbyn leading PMQs with a BBC story?

Not saying at all that the BBC and Corbyn have colluded in this although Guido has found a BBC employee who has been feeding Corbyn questions for PMQs.….little ‘Rosie’…who thinks Corbyn is ‘strong and Cameron ‘misleading’…

Cameron told Corbyn that yes indeed the figure of 6,000 was misleading because the true figure was 11,000….

“Now we’ve had time to go into these figures of more detail, I can tell the House that the Health Secretary was indeed guilty – he was guilty of an understatement,” Mr Cameron said.

“The true figures for excess deaths at the weekend were 11,000, not 6,000.  So perhaps the right honourable gentleman will now withdraw his totally unjustified attack on the Health Secretary?”

What did the BBC choose to report in its news bulletins? (03:02)  They aired Corbyn’s question in full but then oddly didn’t feel the need to give Cameron’s reply to that question instead telling us he said that there were misleadiing figures but they came from the BMA….he did indeed say that but that was not his answer to Corbyn’s question…which was that there are 11,000 deaths at the weekends above what might be expected on weekdays.

But were Hunt and Cameron misleading?

This is what the BMJ article concluded…..

Appropriate support services in hospitals are usually reduced from late Friday through the weekend, leading to disruption on Monday morning. This could go some way towards explaining our finding of a “weekend effect” extending into Friday and Monday.

We have shown a clear association between weekend admission and worse patient outcomes. Our analyses show that an increased proportion of higher risk patients are admitted on Saturday and Sunday, when services inside and outside the hospital are reduced. There is evidence that junior hospital doctors feel clinically exposed during the weekend and that hospital chief executives are concerned about levels of weekend cover. This has led to calls from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Medical Education England, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Royal College of Surgeons, for a review of the way services are provided in hospitals at weekend, with a particular focus on urgent care.

So not only do more deaths occur at the weekend as a proportion of patients but the Junior Doctors are extremely concerned about it and the levels of weekend cover and although the report does indeed say that to conclude these deaths are all avoidable would be ‘rash and misleading’ they then said….

From an epidemiological perspective, however, this statistic is “not otherwise ignorable” as a source of information on risk of death and it raises challenging questions about reduced service provision at weekends.

Yes, more patients come into hospital with severe problems at the weekend but that’s ‘more’ only as a proportion of patients as in fact the number who go to hospital at the weekends is considerably lower than on week days….therefore in fact the actual numbers of severe patients is lower than on a weekday.

A higher proportion of patients were admitted to hospital as emergencies on Saturday (635 020/1 261 085; 50%) and Sunday (621 356/952 375; 65%) than on weekdays (3 951 971/13 646 048; 29%).

The study in the BMJ begins with this…

Intuitively, reduced provision of healthcare at weekends adversely affects all of these domains…..

Our previous study of all NHS hospital admissions in England during the financial year 2009-10 indicated that admission at the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) was associated with a significantly increased risk of in-hospital death compared with midweek admission.

Pretty clear where the study is pointing….weekends do result in more deaths due to reduced services.

Why is the BBC being so dishonest about this and misleading the public on what Pienaar thinks is the most important subject politically today?

The study clearly states that 11,000 extra deaths occur at weekends and yet the BBC is blatantly claiming that Cameron and Hunt are doing the ‘misleading’ and have even edited out Cameron’s answer to Corbyn…Here’s the final words from the report…..

The real question is of those 11,000, although the report says it would be ‘rash and misleading’ to think they could be avoidable, just how many of them could be saved with the provision of appropriate services?….clearly many could be saved, the report itself makes that clear, reduced services cause problems at the weekend…but the BBC and Corbyn want to gloss over that whilst they make strawman attacks on Cameron & Co.

The BBC weren’t so concerned about causality in previous reports when it suited them to ignore it when attacking the government on nurse numbers…the BBC used a single study to claim that a fall in nursing numbers led to deaths….but the report they based that claim upon made no such link…..

Implications of the California nurse staffing mandate for other states.

We have tried to minimize this source of potential bias by obtaining reports from nurses in states without legislation and by using in-dependent patient data to validate the better outcomes for California hospitals. Our study is cross sectional and we cannot establish causality in the associations we observe.

The BBC basing its report on a study which admits there was no causality, no baseline and little evidence elsewhere to say that staff, like HCA’s, were detrimental to patient outcomes.

Back in 2014 the BBC were happy to ignore reports of 13,000 patient deaths under Labour‘s stewardship of the NHS…..

Labour is accused of operating a ‘Denial Machine’….welll yeahhh…it’s called the BBC.

Professor Sir Brian Jarman, of Imperial College London, worked on a government review which will this week show that 14 hospital trusts have been responsible for up to 13,000 “excess deaths” since 2005.

He accused Labour ministers of presiding over a “denial machine” and ignoring his data on high death rates for a decade.

Sir Brian said: “We felt we were banging against a locked door. They were denying out data even though there was no real reason. At the time there was pressure from Downing Street and pressure from ministers.

“The government was in the position of providing the health service and monitoring it, it was a conflict of interest. Ministers have an electoral interest in getting out good news.”