‘As a man he suffers from a fatal incoherence of the intellectual pretensions.  He has wonderful dramatic ideas, but doesn’t have the drive or grasp to make a team of them.  His politics seems to me to be founded in a real imagination, sinister and very odd…too much smiling insinuation….and a continuous impersonation of reality out of illusion and fantasy combines with dark sideswipes at the ‘evil’ Press in a pseudo display of critical integrity.  What a dim muddy glow there is lighting this goldfish bowl of the English intelligentsia…they are a damply steaming compost of bile, saliva, & disntegrated copies of the Communist Manifesto…the pustulence of their own canker, the fungi that sits & swells & sweats & stinks wherever Socialism is gathered together.’  Ted Hughes on Jeremy Corbyn and his grandiose mewlings.  Or that’s what I believe Ted Hughes would say if he were still with us.

Corbyn and McDonnell.  What to make of them?  We are assured, and they work hard to present themselves as such, that they are hail fellows well met…and yet, that’s not true is it? Even as you watch or listen to the faux bonhomie, the reassuring tones and little quips intended to prove they are human you get an uncomfortable feeling that all is not just so, that something else lurks beneath.  Both Corbyn and McDonnell come across to me as rather sinister, their attempts at grooming us with their pleasant spiel reminds me of the German soldier in Saving Private Ryan as he spoke quietly and reassuringly to the American soldier he was killing by slowly pushing a bayonet into his chest…

Listen to the BBC and you’d have an entirely wrong perspective on these two.  The BBC downplays or ignores their radicalism and their unpopularity.  Listen to the BBC and you’d think they really were the face of a ‘new politics’ with a groundswell of popular support from around the country.  And yet, that’s not true.  Corbyn has nothing new to offer in the content of his politics nor in the way that he serves that politics up.  His support comes from a very vocal, very active group of militant supporters who hijacked the leadership election…even the Labour supporting New Statesman acknowledges Corbyn and his policies are not popular amongst the majority of Labour voters and even less so amongst potential Labour voters…so much for Corbyn himself claiming he has the support of the majority of people in the UK….

Corbyn claims his is a new politics, a line that the BBC seems all to happy to echo rather uncritically despite curiously also acknowledging the new politics seemed to have little substance….

In an era of growing disillusion towards politics, voters might like Mr Corbyn’s attempt at straight-talking, honest politics. But voters also like to know what politicians and parties believe in. At some point, the Labour leader’s policy blossom will have to bear fruit. And that is when the reckoning will be had.

‘Straight-talking, honest politics’?  You have to be kidding.  It’s all spin, it’s all theatrics..starting with PMQs last week.  The BBC just doesn’t seem to have noticed….in fact the BBC goes along with Corbyn that his image problems are all a result of the nasty right wing press…

For example, many voters – if they have read anything about Mr Corbyn’s economic policy from his opponents in the press – might think that all he wants to do is raise taxes and print money. Unless the Labour leader acts to challenge that impression soon, it might prove harder to dispel in later months.

Why  for instance has the BBC completely ignored the fact that a good proportion of Corbyn’s speech was lifted from something written in the 80’s and rejected by Labour leaders for decades as the Spectator, amongst many others (not the BBC), spells out?

Revealed: ‘unspun’ Jeremy Corbyn used a four-year old reject speech for Miliband

An off-the-peg speech then, regurgitated from the reject pile of history.  New politics?  Same old same old and the same old politics of spin.

What was the one factor that made Corbyn so attractive in this era of jaded voters according to the BBC?  It was that he had remained unchanged for decades, his ideology and politics and the causes he championed stayed the same for 30 years.   This was the man of conviction who spoke the unvarnished truth as he saw it and the voters had been crying out for such a man who would break the mould and bring in a new age of principled, straight-talking, honest politics.

Except that’s not true is it?  Immediately upon taking office all that conviction and honesty went out the window in an attempt to ‘fool’ the voters that he was not the Marxist ogre he had always proclaimed he was.  He dumped his ‘straight-talking honest politics’ and presented us with a ‘moderate’ face designed to reassure us that the 30 years of championing Communism can be brushed aside, he didn’t really mean it, or rather he did but he doesn’t want you to know he did….honest.  He now gets upset when reminded of his past utterances and blames the dark forces of the right-wing press for any mis-apprenhensions the Public might have about him and his ideas…never mind that they are his ideas.  The New Statesman recognises the deceit…..

In the short term, Corbyn will doubtless compromise on his policy agenda, in order to prevent an immediate revolt by more moderate Labour MPs. We should not be fooled. He is a principled socialist. His long-term aims remain. He is a leopard whose spots have never changed, and never will. In a way, that is to Corbyn’s credit….However, that is not remotely what most of Labour’s other leading MPs want. They believe in capitalism. 

How exactly is such a dishonest stance to Corbyn’s credit if he intends later to implement his extreme policies to the full along with presumably having ‘dealt’ with recalcitrant MPs who oppose him?

The BBC takes a similar stance…it’s clever politics……

Now on one level this is smart politics. If this week is designed to reassure voters frightened by what they read in the papers, why should Mr Corbyn rush his fences? Why establish positions in the early flush of electoral success that he might come to regret?

So Corbyn should not mention his long held politics of conviction in case he comes to regret it later….and yet he was voted in on the basis of that politics…like Syriza….is he now selling out…like Syriza?   Note once again the BBC is spinning its own anti-Press line, the same one that Corbyn uses….’voters frightened by what they read in the papers.’  So we shouldn’t believe 30 years of Corbyn ‘honest’ rhetoric then?  It was all an act?

Here is an issue that the BBC has conveniently decided not to explore which reflects upon Corbyn’s honesty…the issue of the asteroid…..Corbyn started his speech by dismissing this as the rabid anti-Corbyn Press making stuff up about him,…and yet it was true……both Corbyn and McDonnell signed up to a Parliamentary motion that welcomed the destruction of the earth and mankind by an asteroid….

Why would Corbyn be suddenly so embarrassed about his past, a past that he has kept alive right up until he had to put it into action in the real world?

“No, sorry commentariat: this is grown up, real politics where real people debate real issues.”

Not so much.  Why would he be embarrassed about such as this?….

“Our job is not to reform capitalism; it’s to overthrow it.” No wonder he has appointed a shadow chancellor whose Who’s Who entry declares his ambition as “fermenting the overthrow of capitalism”.

Corbyn continually attacks the right wing press and blames them for his image problems and yet, as the Spectator shows, the Press is waning and it is the left wing BBC that has enormous dominance of the news narrative….and that last quote came from the lefty New Statesman.

The BBC has been all too ready to accept the narrative that Corbyn is the face of a new politics, a man with integrity, compassion and conscience who has tapped into a widespread feeling across the country and who is attracting voters of all persuasions.

On Monday it was pretty much a Labour love-in on the BBC with hardly a critic in sight….Polly Toynbee and someone from the left wing Demos in one interview and then a whole programme devoted to what Labour thinks of itself..naturally there wasn’t much dissent on open display…..the only bit of reality came when a vox pop showed that the vast majority of voters questioned thought Corbyn was hopeless….the BBC news then picked out the pro-comments and an equal number of anti to give the impression that there was some kind of balance in Corbyn’s support.  Is this Miliband all over again with the Public hating him but the BBC insisting they all love him really?  The Telegraph notes….

One Labour MP ruefully told me that her party “failed to win the last election because we had a joke of a leader, and now we’ve elected an even bigger joke.”

Sure the BBC asks Labour: Straight talking or old politics? but they suggest, as mentioned, Corbyn is the victim of the right-wing press and not his own failings, his own extreme positioning, or his own compromising of that position.

The BBC is somewhat comfused as to who the speech was aimed at…his core support or the country…Jeremy Corbyn: Speaking to the hall not the nation  and yet he talked more of values than politics clearly aiming at the whole country not just the activists or Labour MPs….

“It’s because I am driven by these British majority values, because I love this country, that I want to rid it of injustice, to make it fairer, more decent, more equal.

“And I want all of our citizens to benefit from prosperity and success.”

Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme Mr Corbyn wanted to show that “people have nothing to fear from him” as he shares their values, which he will set out in his speech.

“I know that is a bit boring for people because we always want to see the rabbit out of the hat on the new policies, but that is exactly the kind of new approach to politics that I welcome,” she said.

After all why talk to those clearly already convinced about your radical brand of politics?  He was out to reassure us that he wasn’t so radical really.

And why has the BBC failed to challenge this claim?…..

And he attacked the “commentariat” for reporting “splits” in his top team, saying “this is grown-up, real politics where real people debate real issues”.

To a standing ovation, he added: “Cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber bullying, and especially cut out the misogynistic abuse.

“Let’s get on with bringing real values back into politics.”

It’s all about the values…..so why did he hug this speaker immediately after she abused the Tories as Nazis?..

And what of Unite leader, Len McCluskey’s comments in a similar vein, Unite being a big backer of Corbyn?…

Union chief Len McCluskey compares Tory strike laws to ‘wearing red triangles at Dachau’ under the NAZIS in furious rant at Cameron’s ‘fascist dictatorship’

Mr McCluskey said: ‘Whatever the law says, I’ll be on the picket line when Unite members are on strike and I will not be wearing the armbands with the red triangle, like the trade union prisoners.

‘Remember that’s what the Nazis did to trade unionists in the concentration camps at Dachau.’

A new, more respectful, value-led politics?

The BBC is not getting its hands dirty, it is standing back and offering up warmed-over pap that presumably is intended not to raise any hackles at Labour HQ.  The analysis is pretty anodyne and dodges the real dirt that would show Corbyn to be a complete fraud who has abandoned his principles for short term gain and who far from being straight and honest is spinning the politics in a way that Alastair Campbell would be proud of.

Student union blocks speech by ‘inflammatory’ anti-sharia activist

A human rights campaigner has been barred from speaking at Warwick University after organisers were told she was “highly inflammatory and could incite hatred”.

Maryam Namazie, an Iranian-born campaigner against religious laws, had been invited to speak to the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists Society next month. But the student union blocked the event, telling the society that Namazie’s appearance could violate its external speaker policy.

“We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus. There a number of articles written both by the speaker and by others about the speaker that indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campus.”

The student union’s policy says external speakers are “not permitted to encourage, glorify or promote any acts of terrorism” or “spread hatred and intolerance in the community” and “must seek to avoid insulting other faiths or groups”.

Namazie said she hoped to go ahead with the event if Warwick changed its mind. “The student union seems to lack an understanding of the difference between criticising religion, an idea or a far-right political movement on the one hand and attacking and inciting hate against people on the other,” she wrote on her blog. “Inciting hatred is what the Islamists do; I and my organisation challenge them and defend the rights of ex-Muslims, Muslims and others to dissent.”

Namazie, who has written for the Guardian, is the spokesperson for One Law for All, a group that campaigns against sharia and religious laws, and a member of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and the Worker-Communist party of Iran.

In 2005 she won the National Secularist Society’s prize for secularist of the year, presented by the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee.

Some thought-provoking articles that reflect on how the left/liberal agenda has undermined society and commonsense leaving people unable to cope with the real world and which silences free speech and honest debate…

Declining Student Resilience: A Serious Problem for Colleges

Students are increasingly seeking help for, and apparently having emotional crises over, problems of everyday life. Recent examples mentioned included a student who felt traumatized because her roommate had called her a “bitch” and two students who had sought counseling because they had seen a mouse in their off-campus apartment. The latter two also called the police, who kindly arrived and set a mousetrap for them.

Faculty at the meetings noted that students’ emotional fragility has become a serious problem when in comes to grading. Some said they had grown afraid to give low grades for poor performance, because of the subsequent emotional crises they would have to deal with in their offices.

Obama: P.C. Culture on Campus Leads to “Coddled” Students

President Barack Obama on Monday waded into the debate on political correctness saturating American colleges, forcefully rejecting the idea of tailoring curriculum or cutting funding based on the sensitivities of students.

During a town hall in Des Moines, Iowa, Obama described liberal college students—the kind of students who ban speakers from campus due to their political beliefs, at least—as “coddled.”

“I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative. Or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans, or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” he said, according to The Hill.

“I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of views.”

The culture of political correctness itself has generated a massive reaction, from liberal journalists, comedians, and researchers.

The Coddling of the American Mind

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.

Political correctness is killing freedom of speech

Ladies, gentlemen, people of indeterminate gender.

There are two reasons you should be freaked out by political correctness.

The first is that it prevents people from saying what they want to say, from expressing what they believe to be true. And it is fundamentally illiberal to stop people from expressing their beliefs and their ideas.

And the second is that it prevents the rest of us from hearing those ideas and deciding for ourselves if they are good or bad. It infantilises all of us through denying us the right to weigh things up, to argue over them, to be the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong.

Instead it gives that role to a dictatorship of do-gooders, who decide on our behalf what words and thoughts are fit for public consumption.

Political correctness: How censorship defeats itself

On its own terms, political correctness is self-defeating. It drives away potential supporters, and substitutes linguistic change for social change. It replaces the desire to reform society with the desire to reform manners, and fails to understand that practised hypocrites and seasoned manipulators can meet the demand to observe correct form with ease. Indeed, they will welcome political correctness because it gives them new opportunities to intimidate and control…..Spastic too was once a euphemism that became an insult. In 1994, the Spastics’ Society changed its name to ‘Scope’ because children were ‘shouting you big spastic’ at each other in the playground. No good did the substitution do. As current dictionaries of slang report ‘scopey’  is now ‘a byword for spaz’.

The BBC’s Samira Ahmed asks a fundamental question about the migrant crisis...but in The Big Issue magazine and not on the BBC….

Most refugees are men – we should be asking why

“Just as in East Germany, looking at gender opens up a legitimate question about how you build a strong and stable society”

One of the most intriguing anecdotal demographic phenomena of the 1990s was what happened to East Germany’s young women; how many upped sticks and headed west in search of opportunity. It was, Germans told me, overwhelmingly men who stayed put when their obsolete industrial jobs disappeared, and in some cases nursed a grievance against foreigners. The rise of far-right extremists in the East seemed correlated with that demographic change.

Polling here shows a large number of Britons, the majority even, are at best cautious about taking in refugees from Syria because of the fear of conservative Islamic attitudes. Some readers might want to dismiss this as a cover for racism, just as in the 1930s the Daily Mail warned of the “threat” of so many Jews coming from Hitler’s Germany.

But just as in East Germany, looking at gender opens up a legitimate question about how you build a strong and stable society. Where are all the women refugees? According to the latest UNHCR figures, 72 per cent of the numbers arriving in western Europe so far in 2015 are men, 15 per cent children and only 13 per cent women. A BBC World Service reporter a few days ago described on air the unease he and female colleagues felt when they tried to interview women refugees, only to be uniformly refused permission by their men.

So where ARE the women refugees? Some men will have planned to establish themselves and then bring families over safely. But talking to lawyers dealing with the influx of young male Afghan migrants here a decade earlier, it seems in many cases families spend money on the people they value most. And that’s not the women.

When we talk of compassion and doing the right thing in these humanitarian crises, perhaps we ignore gender at our peril.

Interesting that Samira Ahmed, a Muslim woman, should think this is an issue that is important enough to raise questions about …but….she does so not at the BBC but in ‘The Big Issue’ magazine.  Why?  Why not the BBC?  Is it just that she had the opportunity to write this in the Big Issue, perhaps somebody there asked her to do it, or is it an issue that is close to her heart but which the BBC has decided is one that isn’t to be aired by them due to its ‘inflammatory’ nature in that it raises serious questions about, not just immigration, but Islam itself and its respect or otherwise for women (as we looked at yesterday)?

Has the BBC explored this issue?, I haven’t seen it, or is this just another example of the BBC hiding uncomfortable truths because they would make people even less inclined to support immigration which the BBC is a powerful cheerleader for?

An interesting and very relevant consideration that is coming into focus very quickly is that Turkey is possibly heading towards civil war (and where are the cries of outrage, ala Israel, about Turkey’s massive military strikes against the PKK?) and yet the EU, itself heading towards a split, is trying to bribe the Turks to stop the flow of migrants by allowing Turks much freer access to Europe…all 75 million of them…..and note Islamist Turkey is helping the Islamic State because it is the enemy of the Kurds……the same Islamic State that is driving migrants towards Europe.

And here’s something from the Commentator, written by ex-ambassador Charles Crawford, to chew on and consider when listening to all those BBC journos wittering on about open borders, the horrors of the nation state and the joys of mass immigration of people who follow the religion of peace:

Open Borders? Meet national Identity

Migration crisis? Not good. Rapidly getting worse. Maybe World War Three starts not because one country grabs another’s land, but because in too many places simultaneously international borders just start to melt?

The dramas of fences and quotas and agonising personal stories now playing out in different parts of Europe and along other international borders raise existential questions at the heart of human identity. Do national and cultural identities exist? If so, how to defend them if they come under challenge?

Let’s look at another question. Do the lights in your home go on or off when you flick a switch? Yes, there’s electricity. But that electricity supply (and the fact that your house has a switch) comes from the fact of a reliable and identifiable legal order.

Everything you see around you has been invented and created somewhere in the world thanks to myriad contracts enforceable under local laws and supporting international agreements.

Those legal systems exist only because they are attached to a territorial jurisdiction. England’s laws apply in England. Cross into Scotland or hop over to France, and different laws apply. This is often overlooked when people talk about an EU without internal borders.

Yes, an EU citizen and a non-EU citizen with a Schengen visa can drive to and fro across continental Europe without producing a passport. But the EU member states’ respective invisible legal jurisdictions remain 100 percent in place.

If tens or hundreds of thousands of young Arab Muslims are unwilling to fight for their own country but instead demand to live in (say) Germany or Sweden or the UK or USA, what assurances of loyalty to their new host country and its values can and should be asked of them as part of the admission process?

How then to respond if they then form tightly-knit and ideologically extreme communities and start to resist their generous hosts’ hospitality?

As the modern democratic state’s control over its own vital rules frays, our smug political elites stare aghast at the philosophical and practical confusion their fecklessness has created.

And in one country after another, angry populists start to win leadership positions by playing on legitimate public concerns that if the state under current management is unable to do its most basic job — to protect its own borders, and choose and enforce its own values — the law-abiding citizens of that state need to look at more drastic solutions.

Not good. Rapidly getting worse.

Maybe World War Three starts not because one country grabs another’s land, but because in too many places simultaneously international borders just start to melt?

• Orla Guerin ‏@OrlaGuerin Sep 16

  Orla Guerin retweeted President Obama

  Ahmed’s clock gets the reaction it should have got at school…..

  President Obama @POTUS

  Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.

A quick update on Clockboy’s story….his sister was suspended from the same school for allegedly saying she wanted to blow the school up….though she denies saying any such thing...from Breitbart:

The sister of the boy who brought a suspected hoax-bomb to his Texas high school said she was suspended from a school in a prior bomb scare. Her suspension occurred in 2009 while she was attending middle school in the same district.

Lesley Weaver, a spokeswoman for the district, said school officials can’t release any information about the 18-year-old sister’s episode because the Sudanese parents won’t sign the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, The school has already sent the form to the immigrant Sudanese parents, but they won’t sign it, she said.

The sister is named Eyman Mohamed.

“I wish we could…. provide more information to the media,” said Weaver, whose school district and local police force are now facing worldwide claims that they unfairly targeted the sister’s brother — 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed — after he was detained Sept. 14 on the suspicion that he had brought a hoax bomb into the school.

The boy brought his device — a dismantled, 120-volt clock packed inside a school box — to show off to his teachers.

The sister claimed after the arrest that she had been suspended from a school for several days.  “I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with,” she said, without providing evidence or proof.

And on a similar note…the fire at an Ahmadiya mosque in London…...The Telegraph tells us:

Will the Today programme be asking serious questions tomorrow about Labour’s new Leader and his cronies in light of this Far Left attack?

Labour’s hard-left shadow chancellor backed ‘insurrection’ and praised student rioters who ‘kicked the s***’ out of London

‘There’s three ways in which we change society. 

‘One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action.

‘Don’t expect that change [to society] coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.’

In a speech in 2011 to a Right-to-Protest rally, he praised rioters who had ‘kicked the s***’ out of the Conservative Party’s headquarters at Millbank Tower in Westminster.

So McDonnell calls for ‘direct action’..’The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action.‘ and McCluskey also thinks that ‘direct action’, or ‘insurrection’, is an acceptable form of politics….as in perhaps attacking the gentlemen who run a small business selling cereal?

Will the BBC be on their case?  I somehow doubt it. If Cameron suggested that ‘direct action’ on the streets be taken by ‘concerned citizens’ to stem the spread of fundamentalist Islam in Britain would he be met with silence by the BBC?

Let’s hear the BBC ask McCluskey if attacks on cereal bars run by the ‘gentry’ are part and parcel of his new vision and alternative to old Britain?  Does he want a ‘French Revolutionary’ type reshaping of Britain?…

That is indeed a new kind of politics. The age of the conviction politician willing to offer socialist alternatives to the status quo, and confident enough to say we don’t have to take our broken society as an immutable given, is breaking. It may not be the French revolution, but it is a blissful dawn to greet.

A blissful dawn where you can have your breakfast to the sound of breaking glass lit by the fires of  poltical anarchy on the march….bliss indeed.

According to an editorial comment in the newspaper Westfalen-Blatt, police are refusing to go public about crimes involving refugees and migrants because they do not want to give legitimacy to critics of mass migration.

Police chief Bernd Flake countered that the silence was aimed at protecting the victim. “We will continue with this policy [of not informing the public] whenever crimes are committed in refugee facilities,” he said.

Police insist they have no proof that the rapes are taking place, although a police raid on the facility found that guards hired to provide security at the site were trafficking drugs and weapons and were turning a blind eye to the prostitution.

Giles Fraser reports from the ‘Jungle’ in Calais…….

The BBC’s Crimewatch programme came to us from the ‘Jungle’, Calais’ migrant camp where desperate migrants wait for the opportunity to slip into Britain and for the chance to get a better life for themselves.  The programme was an astonishing witness to the cultural diversity and vastly different attitudes towards women that Muslim migrants bring with them , while Labour’s criticism of it demonstrated the party’s ethical, moral and cultural illiteracy.

Walking through the middle of the migrant camp in Calais, the presenter Kirsty Young was clearly affected by what she saw: mostly Muslims, but a few Christians, fleeing all kinds of hell in their homelands.

“Its amazing that the first thing they want to do when they come here is to build a brothel” said Maya Konforti, a NGO worker from the camp. “They wanted a brothel before they wanted a home.”

And suddenly the Calais migrants are no longer some threatening illegal “swarm” but flesh and blood people – some churchgoers, yes, but first and foremost human and individual. Like you and me. With needs all too human…like you and me.

What was most subversive about Crimewatch was that it emphasised a common link that some of us share with them. And it is a link that transcends nationality and knows no border, there is no ‘relativity’….a criminal is a criminal, rape is rape, sexual abuse is sexual abuse, and Crimewatch shattered the myth and convenient hiding place of the liberal cheerleaders of ‘cultural relativity’ which says we must ignore the crimes of people from other countries because in their countries such acts would not be considered wrong, which of course absolves the progressives of the difficult task of actually having to respond to such crimes, to challenge such behaviour and to condemn it….thus causing ‘offence’ to the perpetrators.

But over the past few weeks Crimewatch has had a succession of Labour MPs and the Guardian editor frothing at the gills. “BBC labels desperate migrants ‘Crimigrants’” spluttered the Guardian. “This is how the BBC is spending YOUR cash bashing poor migrants” screamed the Mirror, doing its anti-BBC bit and raising the intriguing prospect of Crimewatch taking morality lessons from the former reader of Asian Babes as I’m assured the Mirror’s editor may have been.

It was an astonishing witness to the power and diversity of the criminal nature, and such a contrast to the perfect Sunday-best churchgoers singing in the BBC’s Song’s of Praise programme earlier. Nonetheless, it was a rather genteel-sounding social worker from Kent who put it simply, giving the liberal do-gooder’s perspective. Interviewed about why he had crossed the Channel to give advice and hand out condoms to some migrants – Young overdoing the “why aren’t you helping these desperate people more” line as a sop to the programme’s critics – he replied with dignity and simplicity: “That’s what the brothel is for…it’s a cathartic release, pent up sexual frustration creates a danger that the feelings will be expressed in other ways such as violence…and after all this is Muslim culture to see women as possessions to be used as men see fit….you’ve got to respect that..it’s in the Quran.”

And that lazy, laissez-faire attitude is so obviously wrong. “Well done CrimeWatch,” tweeted the Home Secretary as she applauded the BBC’s rigour in exposing criminality and abuse in the camp.  In conservative terms, this programme was entirely uncontroversial stuff, challenging the liberal narrative.

Passports are really not that significant in Christian terms. Christians are connected to each other by the waters of baptism and not by some accident of nationality. Thus, in Christ there is no east nor west.  However, Christianity demands of people a moral and ethical approach to life with repsect for other people at its heart.  Whilst the Church looks on benignly at the prospect of open borders it holds its own believers to a much higher standard….if you wish to enter into Heaven you must be of good character and have behaved in an appropriate manner throughout your life….otherwise the Gates to Heaven will be firmly shut in your face.  Just because you are a migrant and a Muslim you cannot act as you like and think it will be accepted of you.  God is merciful and forgivng but even though theologically the core of Christianity is probably Galatians 3.28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek or Muslim … for you are all one in Christ.” if you fuck with God he will crush you and bar Heaven’s Gate to you.

Not a Christian?  You’re not coming in, you’re not welcome in Heaven.  Muslim ‘migrants’ to Heaven?  Bugger off!  It’s the Christian way.  Open borders, no east nor west, my backside.

Whilst bringing us cheerful, happy-clappy, sympathy inducing programmes such as Songs of Praise from migrant camps why is the BBC ignoring what is really going on in the camps and refugee centres?

Rape and child abuse ‘are rife in German refugee camps’: Unsegregated conditions blamed as women are ‘seen as fair game’ in overcrowded migrant centres

Germany in a state of SIEGE: Merkel was cheered when she opened the floodgates to migrants. Now, with gangs of men roaming the streets and young German women being told to cover up, the mood’s changing

Germany: Migrants’ Rape Epidemic

On August 18, a coalition of four social work organizations and women’s rights groups sent a two-page letter to the leaders of the political parties in the regional parliament in Hesse, a state in west-central Germany, warning them of the worsening situation for women and children in the refugee shelters. The letter said:

“The ever-increasing influx of refugees has complicated the situation for women and girls at the receiving center in Giessen (HEAE) and its subsidiaries.

“The practice of providing accommodations in large tents, the lack of gender-separate sanitary facilities, premises that cannot be locked, the lack of safe havens for women and girls — to name just a few spatial factors — increases the vulnerability of women and children within the HEAE. This situation plays into the hands of those men who assign women a subordinate role and treat women traveling alone as ‘wild game’.

“The consequences are numerous rapes and sexual assaults. We are also receiving an increasing number of reports of forced prostitution. It must be stressed: these are not isolated cases.

“Women report that they, as well as children, have been raped or subjected to sexual assault. As a result, many women sleep in their street clothes. Women regularly report that they do not use the toilet at night because of the danger of rape and robbery on the way to the sanitary facilities. Even during daylight, passing through the camp is a frightful situation for many women.

“The feeling to have arrived here — in safety — and to be able to move without fear, is a gift for many women…. We therefore ask you…to join our call for the immediate establishment of protected premises (locked apartments or houses) for women and children who are travelling alone….

“These facilities must be equipped so that men do not have access to the premises of the women, with the exception of emergency workers and security personnel. In addition bedrooms, lounges, kitchens and sanitary facilities must be interconnected so that they form a self-contained unit — and thus can only be reached via lockable and monitored access to the house or the apartment.”

Approximately 80% of the refugees/migrants at one shelter are male, according to Bavarian Broadcasting (Bayerischer Rundfunk), which reports that the price for sex with female asylum seekers is ten euros. A social worker described the facility this way: “We are the biggest brothel in Munich.”

Not just migrant women but many German women are victims of ‘Mother Merkel’s’ migrant miracle.

Parents are being warned to look after their daughters. Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old-girl was raped on September 11, have issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. They have also advised women not to walk to or from the train station alone because of its proximity to a refugee shelter.

In the Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium have warned parents not to let their daughters wear revealing clothing in order to avoid “misunderstandings” with the 200 Muslim refugees housed in emergency accommodations in a building next to the school. The letter said:

“The Syrian citizens are mainly Muslim and speak Arabic. The refugees have their own culture. Because our school is directly next to where they are staying, modest clothing should be worn in order to avoid disagreements. Revealing tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings.”

A local politician quoted by Die Welt newspaper said:

“When Muslim teenage boys go to open air swimming pools, they are overwhelmed when they see girls in bikinis. These boys, who come from a culture where for women it is frowned upon to show naked skin, will follow girls and bother them without their realizing it. Naturally, this generates fear.”

The increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country.

Just a few of the rapes that have been reported:

On August 28, a 22-year-old Eritrean asylum seeker was sentenced to one year and eight months in prison for attempting to rape a 30-year-old Iraqi-Kurdish woman at a refugee shelter in the Bavarian town of Höchstädt. The reduced sentence was thanks to the efforts of the defense attorney, who persuaded the judge that the defendant’s situation at the shelter was hopeless: “For a year now he sits around and thinks about — about nothingness.”

On August 26, a 34-year-old asylum seeker attempted to rape a 34-year-old woman in the laundry room of a refugee facility in Stralsund, a city near the Baltic Sea.

On August 6, police revealed that a 13-year-old Muslim girl was raped by another asylum seeker at a refugee facility in Detmold, a city in west-central Germany. The girl and her mother reportedly fled their homeland to escape a culture of sexual violence; as it turns out, the man who raped the girl is from their country.

Although the rape took place in June, police kept silent about it for nearly three months, until local media published a story about the crime. According to an editorial comment in the newspaper Westfalen-Blatt, police are refusing to go public about crimes involving refugees and migrants because they do not want to give legitimacy to critics of mass migration.

Police chief Bernd Flake countered that the silence was aimed at protecting the victim. “We will continue with this policy [of not informing the public] whenever crimes are committed in refugee facilities,” he said.

Over the weekend of June 12-14, a 15-year-old girl housed at a refugee shelter in Habenhausen, a district in the northern city of Bremen, was repeatedly raped by two other asylum seekers. The facility has been has been described as a “house of horrors” due to the spiraling violence perpetrated by rival gangs of youth from Africa and Kosovo. A total of 247 asylum seekers are staying at the shelter, which has a capacity for 180 and a cafeteria with seating for 53.

Meanwhile, the raping of German women by asylum seekers is becoming commonplace. Following are a few select cases just from 2015:

On September 11, a 16-year-old girl was raped by an unidentified “dark-skinned man speaking broken German” close to a refugee shelter in the Bavarian town of Mering. The attack occurred while the girl was walking home from the train station.

On August 13, police arrested two Iraqi asylum seekers, aged 23 and 19, for raping an 18-year-old German woman behind a schoolyard in Hamm, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia.

On July 26, a 14-year-old boy was sexually assaulted inside the bathroom of a regional train in Heilbronn, a city in southwestern Germany. Police are looking for a “dark skinned” man between the ages of 30 and 40 who has an “Arab appearance.” Also on July 26, a 21-year-old Tunisian asylum seeker raped a 20-year-old woman in the Dornwaldsiedlung district of Karlsruhe. Police kept the crime secret until August 14, when a local paper went public with the story.

On June 9, two Somali asylum seekers, aged 20 and 18, were sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison for raping a 21-year-old German woman in Bad Kreuznach, a town in Rhineland-Palatinate, on December 13, 2014.

On June 5, a 30-year-old Somali asylum seeker called “Ali S” was sentenced to four years and nine months in prison for attempting to rape a 20-year-old woman in Munich. Ali had previously served a seven-year sentence for rape, and had been out of prison for only five months before he attacked again. In an effort to protect the identity of Ali S, a Munich newspaper referred to him by the more politically correct “Joseph T.”

On May 22, a 30-year-old Moroccan man was sentenced to four years and nine months in prison for attempting to rape a 55-year-old woman in Dresden. On May 20, a 25-year-old Senegalese asylum seeker was arrested after he attempted to rape a 21-year-old German woman at the Stachus, a large square in central Munich.

On April 16, a 21-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq was sentenced to three years and ten months in prison for raping a 17-year-old girl at festival in the Bavarian town of Straubing in August 2014. On April 7, a 29-year-old asylum seeker was arrested for the attempted rape of a 14-year-old girl in the town of Alzenau.

On March 17, two Afghan asylum seekers aged 19 and 20 were sentenced to five years in prison for the “particularly abhorrent” rape of a 21-year-old German woman in Kirchheim, a town near Stuttgart, on August 17, 2014.

On February 11, a 28-year-old asylum seeker from Eritrea was sentenced to four years in prison for raping a 25-year-old German woman in Stralsund, along the Baltic Sea, in October 2014.

On February 1, a 27-year-old asylum seeker from Somalia was arrested after attempting to rape women in the Bavarian town of Reisbach.

On January 16, a 24-year-old Moroccan immigrant raped a 29-year-old woman in Dresden.

Dozens of other cases of rape and attempted rape — cases in which police are specifically looking for foreign perpetrators (German police often refer to them as Südländer, or “southerners”) — remain unresolved. Following is a partial list just for August 2015:

On August 23, a “dark skinned” man attempted to rape a 35-year-old woman in Dortmund. On August 17, three male “southerners” attempted to rape a 42-year-old woman in Ansbach. On August 16, a male “southerner” raped a woman in Hanau.

On August 12, a male “southerner” attempted to rape a 17-year-old woman in Hannover. Also on August 12, a male “southerner” exposed himself to a 31-year-old woman in Kassel. Police say a similar incident occurred in the same area on August 11.

On August 10, five men of “Turkish origin” attempted to rape a girl in Mönchengladbach. Also on August 10, a male “southerner” raped a 15-year-old girl in Rinteln. On August 8, a male “southerner” attempted to rape a 20-year-old woman in Siegen.

On August 3, a “North African” raped a seven-year-old girl in broad daylight in a park in Chemnitz, a city in eastern Germany. On August 1, a male “southerner” attempted to rape a 27-year-old woman in downtown Stuttgart.

Muslim accosts injured Para in hospital

A paratrooper wounded in Afghanistan was threatened by a Muslim visitor to the British hospital where he is recovering.

Seriously wounded soldiers have complained that they are worried about their safety after being left on wards that are open to the public at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham.

On one occasion a member of the Parachute Regiment, still dressed in his combat uniform after being evacuated from Afghanistan, was accosted by a Muslim over the British involvement in the country.

“You have been killing my Muslim brothers in Afghanistan,” the man said during a tirade.

Because the soldier was badly injured and could not defend himself, he was very worried for his safety, sources told The Daily Telegraph.

The BBC has been reporting that an RAF sergeant was moved from a hospital ward in case his presence upset  ‘other patients’…or rather might ’cause offence’ to them.  There is one very relevant quote missing from the BBC’s reports….even the Guardian uses the quote…..the Sergeant was moved because “they didn’t want to upset people” and because the hospital has “lots of different cultures coming in”. 

Of course when they say ‘different cultures’ they mean only one…Muslim.  Let’s examine the issue….the RAF sergeant has been to Iraq and Afghanistan to help improve the lives of people in those countries, to free them from the oppression and tyranny they have lived under for so long whilst the sort of people who attack forces personnel in hospital are the same who travelled, or supported those who did, to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight British and American troops and  spent most of their time murdering as many Afghans and Iraqis as they could…whilst blaming it on Western foreign policy….the BBC of course backed which side?  No need to guess.

I would suggest the person of a ‘different culture’ be moved (given a one way ticket to meet his ‘brothers in Iraq or Afghanistan’ possibly?) and not the good Sergeant or other service personnel in a similar situation.

The way the British Sergeant was treated in hospital was no different in effect to how the BBC has treated the British forces for years…trying to ignore their efforts to bring peace and stability to those countries, and to demean and malign them whilst all the time peddling a false narrative about Iraq, and British history in the Middle East, a narrative that has long served to fill the ranks of the Jihadis….the BBC has very serious questions to answer about its part in promoting terrorism…even now that narrative is sending people to ISIS.  Strangely the BBC, which repeatedly tells us that Islam is the ‘religion of peace’, that made a programme that insisted Al Qaeda didn’t exist, another that suggested we need to negotiate with the Taliban, and which tried to cover up the facts about ‘Muslim demographics’ in Europe is more than happy to call Buddhism a violent religion, to suggest we have ‘Buddhist terrorism’ and a Buddhist ‘Osama Bin Laden’….Why is the BBC so ready to attack Buddhists (when not attacking Hindus) ….the Buddhists are in a fight with Muslim insurgents in Myanmar/Burma…guess who the bad guys are in the BBC reports.

It seems the BBC hasn’t changed and doesn’t want you to know the real reason the Sergeant was moved….especially as we are in the midst of a ‘migration crisis’ in which millions of like-minded people of ‘different cultures’ are on the march towards Europe…bringing those ‘different cultures’ with them.

The future is so bright, so cosmopolitan and diverse…oh yes...enjoy your kebab.

Absolutely nothing to do with BBC bias but couldn’t not laugh….

Jonathan Dimbleby summoned up an alarming vision of Western Civilisation under threat as the dark shadow of a Tory government looms across the land intent on turning back the clock, if not to the ravages and poverty of the 1930’s then at least to 1984, a Western Civilisation under threat from the commercial Vandals and the predations of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies in Westminster, under threat from the People, the People, once patronised and denied a voice, now, thanks to the internet, able to find not only their voice but all the information that the Media for so long jealously guarded to ensure its own dominance.  Dimbleby does not like the People having a voice. Dimbleby told us that the BBC was all that stood between the end of Western Civilisation and those barbarians that want a free for all, a free world, a free press, free speech.  Dimbleby doesn’t seem to want any of that, not the bloggers, not the commercial rivals, not even the politicans were to be allowed a voice…he wanted the BBC to be the ‘one voice’ that spoke ‘truth’ to power and the People…countering the lies of government, Murdoch and the People.  The problem is that his highly misleading claims, his lies, his abuse of his position as a BBC Grandee, his extremely biased attacks on the ‘enemies of the BBC’ in the commercial sector and in government, all undermine his claim that the BBC and those who run it are trustworthy enough to be granted the supremely privileged position as that ‘one voice’ that alone could be trusted as the credible authority with the integrity to produce totally impartial, balanced and fair news and programming.  There is a credibility gap all too obvious when you hear the likes of Dimbleby making grand statements proclaiming the BBC’s worthy intentions and then look at the methods he employs to slate his enemies and  promote the BBC.

That credibility gap is all too evident elswhere, none so much as in the BBC’s reporting into the various child abuse scandals.

What is the BBC’s main concern?  Is it to investigate fully any child abuse claims, to explore the issues, to help bring to justice those who perpetrate such crimes?  Seemingly not.  The BBC’s main concern seems to be looking after the BBC’s reputation and scoring political points against its ‘enemies’.

We all know about the BBC’s slur against Lord McAlpine.…was the BBC all too eager to brand him a criminal because of this high ranking position in the Tory party and his close links to Thatcher….‘ a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years.”?  Were they desperate enough to try and smear Thatcher by association on the flimsiest of evidence?

Then there was Savile and the BBC’s attempt to sweep that under the carpet in a damage limitation exercise.  The journalists who exposed the BBC’s role in that farce have all been forced out…..and maybe we know why as BBC bigwig, Alan Yentob, is claimed to have called them ‘traitors to the BBC’.   I’m guessing this suggests he would prefer to hide the truth than allow the BBC’s reputation to be sullied by an exposé of that truth.

Now the Independent reports that Panorama is finally to broadcast its film about allegations of a VIP paedophile ring, originally scheduled for April.  It will now be screened on October 6th, during the Tory Party conference.  Go figure.  Even though the film apparently debunks the VIP paedophile ring claims, or at least those about murder, it is odd timing to broadcast it, the BBC undoubtedly knowing that the film will dominate the Media scrum and overshadow the Tory conference and at the same time have the Tory politicians cornered with every journalist undoubtedly only interested in one subject…definitely not how well the economy may be doing!  A cunning BBC plan?  Just maybe.

The Independent says:

Reports suggested that BBC executives were at loggerheads over the film, which is expected to cast doubt over allegations made by a witness known as “Nick”.  Executives within BBC News were said to be concerned that the programme would be seen as an “attack on the victims” and might discredit its own reports into the alleged abuse.

In other words it’s all about the BBC’s reputation….how the ‘victims’ would react towards the BBC and any subsequent bad publicity coming the BBC’s way.  And what of that curious statement that it ‘might discredit its own reports into the alleged abuse.‘  What are they suggesting, that the BBC’s reports on the VIP paedophile ring may have been less than balanced and trustworthy….seeing as they targeted mostly Tories?

Is the BBC more concerned about managing its reputation than getting to the truth, is it using the sex abuse claims to target the Tories, is there a huge credibility gap between the values the BBC proclaims and how it actually operates in the real world?

If you hoped he’d seek truth and spread a little enlightenment you’d be disappointed, if you believed in his integrity you’d be disillusioned, if you thought he’d bring balance and the judgement of Solomon using wisdom gleaned through decades of mingling with Kings and commoners you’d be disabused of that soon enough.

It is an unfortunate fact that Jonathan Dimbleby is as corrupt, as deceitful, as stupid, as intolerant, as prejudiced, as the rest of us may, or may not, be.

He talks grandly and urgently of freedom of speech, of troubling times, of voices silenced, of living in the darkest of times, he talks of intimidation and bullying, of the threat to British values, of witch-hunts and hate speech.  But it’s all a front, a fraud.  His moral grandstanding, his pious babbling is all a lie.  All this talk of values, of liberty, of freedom of speech is merely a vehicle to deliver his real message, one of course close to his heart and wallet, about the ‘threat’ to the BBC due its charter renewal and the dark forces that seek to detroy it.  This isn’t about freedom of speech and liberty and British values, it’s a tawdry exercise in propping up the BBC’s privileged, entrenched and powerfully dominant position in the media world.

Dimbleby knows the BBC is under threat because…

News Corp and its ilk have a vested financial interest in reducing the BBC’s scope and influence in the hope that the edifice will tumble, leaving a gaping hole in the market for them to fill. They and their cronies in Westminster care not a jot for balance or fairness, but are doing their best to shape the outcome of the negotiations over the renewal of the BBC’s charter – effectively its licence to broadcast.

Oh yes, the old enemy…Murdoch and those ‘cronies in Westminster’…by that he means the ruling Tory government, just elected with a decent majority (against all the predictions of the BBC so-called political experts!) whilst of course Dimbleby has never been elected to his position from whence on high he lectures us all…..a Dimbleby dynasty, handed down from father to son(s)…so much for democracy and all that.

Dimbleby suggests that the power of the BBC is a good thing, a vital thing, when social media is an unregulated and yet powerfully influential player in politics and society now…

In this climate, public service broadcasting is arguably more important than ever but, ironically, under greater threat than ever.

The BBC has become the most influential public service broadcaster in the world. It sets a benchmark for all broadcasters – public and commercial. That is why you should be very worried about what is happening to it.

Now all that’s a bit odd really when you consider what the BBC gets up to…as just today Allison Pearson reports ….My Leftie hell on Radio 4’s Any Questions

She tells us that…

I soon realised with a sinking heart, however, that the audience in the school hall was outrageously biased.

How could it be, when almost all of Cambridgeshire and, indeed, East Anglia, is true blue that the Any Questions audience appeared to be composed mainly of Corbyn fans?

I do blame the BBC, which has to take some responsibility for broadcasting a current affairs programme which gives such an erroneous snapshot of the national mood.

After the recording, the show’s excellent host, Jonathan Dimbleby, sighed heavily and told me it was a constant problem.

He and the whole AQ team found it immensely frustrating that Tories simply did not show up on the night to add their voices. The producer said it would cost £5,000 a week to pay someone to assemble a politically balanced audience.

The BBC needs to take action so that its current affairs output better reflects the views of all of the people who pay its licence fee.

Oh the irony…a BBC programme run by Dimbleby that has an audience packed out with hard-left activists and Dimbleby has the cheek to say that the BBC is an essential bulwark against such manipulation of the media sphere by very vocal and aggressive groups.  The fact is the BBC is the default goto organisation for anyone with a grievance against British society…be they Irish or Islamic terrorists or embittered left wingers who hate the nasty party or black race-baiters….you want a platform to air your grievance, however unjustified?, the BBC’s the place to go.

All the more ironic as Dimbleby says this..

In institutions across the western world, the “hecklers’’’ veto is growing in frequency and volume.

Remember this is a BBC that essentially banned Lord Lawson from the airwaves because he didn’t submit to the intimidation and bullying of the climate alarmist ‘consensus’, the BBC supinely crumbling after being bombarded with complaints from foam-flecked climate ‘hecklers’… a BBC that allowed itself to fall under the spell of climate activist Roger Harrabin and his mate Dr Joe Smith who effectively silenced climate change sceptics and drove them off the BBC airwaves.  So much for freedom of speech and respecting the right to be heard.

Dimbleby goes on to build on his claims about the threat to the BBC…

Today its enemies are more powerful than ever. Some are ideological, some are commercial. The former are to be found at their most ferocious on the backbenches of the House of Commons. Then there are the enemies in the media, who are not so much driven by ideology as profit. Principal among these is News UK, owned by News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

He goes on to whinge that the culture secretary has dared to raise the question of BBC reform…

The culture secretary, John Whittingdale, produced a green paper (open to public comment) that made his agenda pretty clear. It asserted that today, “the BBC is just one voice among many” before going on to ask if the corporation has “become too big, and if so, should it be more focused?” This is what a lawyer might describe as a leading, and a loaded, question.

Dimbleby finishes on this note…as ‘western civilisation is imperilled’...

In this dysfunctional world, the BBC, like other public service broadcasters across Europe, has a vital role. It is a unique forum. It would be a tragedy if any government, wittingly or unwittingly, were so to tamper with the BBC as to turn it into merely “one voice among many”.

Oh, by the way, when he talks of ‘western civilisation being imperilled’ he doesn’t mean by millions of Muslim migrants, terrorism and the looney left but by the Tory government and its alleged attacks on the rule of law,  freedom and democracy. 

Interesting though that Dimbleby believes that the BBC should be the single most important media voice in Britain and not merely a ‘voice among many’.

Fascinating that, arrogant, imperial, just a touch fascist maybe.  The BBC über alles.  No wonder the BBC seems so in awe of Frau Merkel and her migrant miracle message.

I would imagine, well no, facts prove, that the BBC itself is one of the major threats to western civilisation, a civilisation that it seems to hate and seeks to undermine and malign at every opportunity.  Dimbleby and his dishonest and self-serving tract illustrate perfectly the conceit, arrogance and delusions peddled by the BBC as it seeks to protect itself from scrutiny and accountability.

You have to ask how it is that a major BBC figure, one so very senior within its ranks, is allowed to pen such prejudiced and biased comments that attack not only commercial rivals who have to earn their pay and not have it handed to them on a plate, and also attack the government itself.  If that does not breach just about every code on bias and impartiality I’m not sure what would.

As perfect example of the BBC mindset as you’ll find anywhere surfaced today on 5 Live Daily today(11:15 ish).  Discussing migration a UKIP representative, an MEP, said that a major problem was that freedom of movement within the EU meant that as 100s of thousands of EU citizens came to the UK there was less and less room for refugees and asylum seekers who may be in genuine need.

The BBC’s Clare McDonnell dismissed his statement by saying it was an argument put forward by the Right-Wing and presumably in her mind, therefore not worthy of any consideration.

Firstly it’s not an ‘argument’, it’s not philosophy or an abstract notion….it’s the truth.  Vast numbers of EU immigrants means there are fewer resources to deal with refugees and far less will in the country to accept them here.

Secondly it’s not a ‘right wing’ attitude…it’s one that is the prevailing view in the country….77% of people want less immigration…because….we’re full up.

McDonnell then gave us another insight into the BBC’s mindset as she declared that ‘We’ll move on from migration and talk about housing now’.

Her attitude, that the housing shortage has nothing to do with immigration, is typical of how the BBC approaches this subject, sweeping under the carpet the uncomfortable truth that if you have 330,000 people a year swarming into the UK, or is it over 550,000 last year now?, it should be apparent to anyone that they need to live somewhere and therefore a housing crisis is the likely outcome of importing so many people.

But no, the BBC wants to separate the issues because it supports uncontrolled immigration regardless of the consequences.

The BBC, power without responsibility.  Perhaps the Charter Review panel should start taking a good look at the BBC’s politics as well as its size, scope and structure.

And as we’re on the subjects of the EU, migration and the ‘Right wing’ let’s ask if Germany is going to be the cause of yet another war in Europe..this time, ironically, as it tries to use the EU itself, an organisation supposed to force peace upon us all, to bully and intimidate its neighbours into doing what Germany wants…Germany has unilaterally decided to take in a million migrants, mostly Muslim, but found it couldn’t cope and now is demanding we all do as she tells us…or else.

The Express reports a gloomy future as predicted by various people...

“Our borders are in danger. Our way of life where we respect the law is in danger.

“The whole of Hungary and Europe is in danger.

“The migrants are blitzing us.”

 “We’re on the march to war. History is repeating itself.

“It’s a repeat of the 1930s. The crash of 1929, the Great Depression, currency wars, trade wars, world war.

“We’ve got the panic of ’08, the Great Recession, currency wars, trade wars and now we’re seeing the refugees of war sweeping on the shores of Europe.”

He said another big terror attack on society will see an emotional outpouring across the Western world that will then transform into a catastrophic thirst for revenge.

Mr Celente said: “They are leading us to the next great war. All it is going to take is a terror attack and people will be tying yellow ribbons around everything that doesn’t move, waving American flags and we’re off to what Einstein called the whole war scenario.”

“This is chilling. People should be scared to death.”

Now you could just write that off as so much hyperbole and over-excited doom-mongering but it is a scenario that could all too readily come true and is one that should definitely be discussed in relation to the flood of immigrants storming Europe…not just now, or tomorrow or for a few weeks but everyday, every week, every month possibly for years to come an endless tide of humanity seeking ‘a better life’….but what baggage do they bring with them?

The BBC was quite prepared to loudly and repeatedly warn us of an apparent Far Right rise in Europe, ironically whilst at the same time refusing to acknowledge, and in fact doing everything it could to downplay, the very real and growing threat of Muslim radicalism inside Europe. Why is it so reluctant to ‘warn’ us of the threat to our culture, values, beliefs, societies, politics, welfare structures, schools and health services that is posed by the migration of millions of people who have beliefs, values and cultures that are directly opposed to ours?

If you’re a UKIP MEP your views are unwelcome on the BBC but if you’re an Islamic terrorist you must have your reasons, here’s a platform on the BBC to justify your violence.