Kuwait and the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries are too valuable to accept any refugees. In the end it is not right for us to accept a people that are different from us. We don’t want people that suffer from internal stress and trauma in our country.’

Fahad Alshalami, Kuwaiti official, explaining why the gulf countries aren’t taking Syrian refugees Via Douglas Murray

DB has spotted a BBC producer who has been marching to open the borders up to refugees as he calls them…though they are in effect economic migrants……interesting how the marchers all seem to  be right-on Middle Class people….and a lot of the protest is anti-war, pro-Corbyn and anti-Tory….not saying that it was hijacked by STWC…but good chance our BBC friend is just another useful idiot for the cause…..

Tony Brown ‏@tonyprod77 14 hrs14 hours ago  

“Say it loud and say it proud refugees are welcome here” #refugeeswelcome

And if you weren’t convinced of his views here’s another Tweet…

• Tony Brown ‏@tonyprod77 14 hrs14 hours ago

  The refugees fleeing war and dodgy governments must be encouraged if they see these #refugeeswelcome rallies #London

Brown also retweets this from a fellow media johnny…

Hmmmm…..as Corbyn is intent getting rid of Trident and the Army, intent on taxing and spending our way back to the 70’s if not to the Weimar Republic as he prints billions of pounds to help fund his lavish spending, siding with the terrorists and nationalising anything that moves…and oh yes…Protect the BBC from further cuts…I would imagine that the Tories are right on this one.  Interesting though that Brown’s Labour supporting friend has tweeted something that Brown thinks is spot on and relevant to any debate on Corbyn.

Brown responds to DB’s questions about whether it is appropriate for  BBC journalist to be taking part and Tweeting about such a highly political and controversial subject……

He obviously feels he is losing the argument and resorts to a patronising and childish attempt to gain the moral highground by suggesting DB is not being grown up…whereas a man who reacts purely on an emotional basis regardless of the consequences is a ‘grown up’.

So let’s be grown up and ask what are those consequences of having Europe flooded with migrants the vast majority of whom are young, male and Muslim…if they had AK47’s they would be called an army and this would be an ‘invasion’.  What are the social, political, cultural ramifications of having Europe invaded by young Muslim men?  Not a question Brown has ever considered, he’s just happy to get the feeling of warm glowing smugness of a man panhandling publicly for the credit for his humanity by his public display of compassion which he advertises on Twitter.

It is a question that is essential to ask and yet the BBC doesn’t dare…others do though.

The measured and rational Charles Moore in the Telegraph voices some of his concerns about this influx of Muslims to Western Europe:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

Viktor Orbán is the prime minister of Hungary. It is through his country that very large numbers of migrants from the Middle East and the Balkans now pass. At the beginning of this month, Mr Orbán said: “I think we have a right to decide that we don’t want to have a large number of Muslim people in our country.”

Mr Orbán was fiercely attacked for the motives behind his remark. I do not know enough about Hungarian politics to say whether such attacks are justified. But, regardless of the precise facts about Mr Orbán, I would guess most people in western – let alone eastern – Europe would quietly agree with his general proposition. One of the biggest anxieties about the current immigration is its high Muslim element. Is it wrong to have such an anxiety, let alone to express it publicly, let alone to want to have a system of immigration based on it?

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

It would also be wrong to deny that, in current conditions, a large Muslim community in a non-Muslim country produces more political disturbance, more communal tension, more intolerance of other faiths (and of non-faiths) and more terrorism. Few non-Muslims want to live near a mosque, see women veiling their faces or have Muslim practices introduced into state schools. Few non-Muslims want lots more Muslim immigrants.

An assimilated Muslim is not a contradiction in terms, but neither is he or she the norm in Britain today. With the Muslim world in ferment and on the move, the risks grow daily.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn and the foolish, naive motivations of those who supported his inclusion in the election must act as a warning to those who wish to brush aside concerns and bury their heads in the sand about the prospect of a ‘clash of civilizations’ and instead blunder on ramming their own ideological delusions and fallacies down everyone else’s throats in the interest of multiculturalism and diversity….the politics of ‘inclusion’….

When Corbyn thanked the Labour MPs who nominated him “in the spirit of inclusion” the room laughed, as well they might. This is the greatest joke of the campaign: the ‘morons’, as John McTernan’s put it, the MPs who nominated Corbyn because they thought he was too crazy too win and would make the rest seem centrist by comparison. But there is a new rule now: nothing is too crazy for the Labour Party. Not any more.

Being ‘inclusive’, pandering to Muslim activist’s demands, allowing an ever-increasing Islamisation of the public sphere in the hope that if Muslims are allowed to practise their religion more freely, and everyone else is forced to ‘respect’ that, then Muslims won’t beome radicalised….when the opposite is true…they will in fact become more and more ‘radicalised’, or devout, and intent on pressing their advantage, creating a situation where everything has to be done filtered through an Islamic perspective…out of ‘respect’ for Muslims.

Happy Christmas   Ramadan from the morons at the BBC.

H/T Alex in the comments:

I have frequently heard guests on BBC programmes, and indeed BBC presenters, say that the UK is responsible for what happened in LIbya, that Britain initiated the war and is therefore responsible for the outcome and the resultant flow of migrants launching themselves from the coast of Libya.

However, just as the war in Syria has no link to the UK the war in Libya was not the responsibility of Britain.  The war began, as in Syria, after Libyans began demonstrations against the regime and were subsequently attacked by the regime.  The UN declared no’fly zones and authorised air-strikes to protect civilians in missions controlled by NATO.

This was a multi-nation operation conducted under UN jurisdiction to help protect civilians and to stop a massacre.

The BBC seems to think we should have stood back and let it happen….where’s that famous ‘moral obligation’ now then?  Guess it only gets run up the flagpole when it suits the BBC’s agenda……perhaps the BBC should remember its own previous analysis of events in Libya:

2011 February – Arrest of human rights campaigner sparks violent protests in eastern city of Benghazi that rapidly spread to other cities, leading to escalating clashes between security forces and rebels. Gaddafi insists that he will not quit, and remains in control of the capital, Tripoli.

2011 March – UN Security Council authorises a no-fly zone over Libya and air strikes to protect civilians, over which NATO assumes command.

The BBC’s Labour supporting old dinosaur, James Naughtie, is a man desperately in need of a common-man dictionary with the word ‘impartial’ explained for him rather than the BBC official issue that obviously has a different interpretation of that word to the everyday one as understood by the ‘common man’.

The Telegraph tells us that Naughtie is destined to be the voice of the BBC, the vessel through which our understanding of the EU referendum is filtered…

Mr Naughtie, 64, is leaving the Today programme in January after 21 years. He will instead becoming Radio 4’s Special Correspondent, and “will have a responsibility for charting the course of the constitutional changes at the heart of the UK political debate – devolution and independence, parliamentary reform and the changes in the UK’s relations with Europe”.

He will act as a roving reporter in the UK and around the world, covering the Scottish, US and French elections and the EU referendum, in addition to presenting radio documentaries.

The importance of that job makes it remarkable that a man such as  Naughtie, who can demonstrate an incredibly high degree of pig-ignorant arrogance, should get the job when you realise he is entirely unconcerned about the facts and has a sneeringly dismissive attitude to anyone who dares to raise the very serious problem of BBC bias…a bias ironically very ably demonstrated by Naughtie as he attempts to deny it and move the debate away from anything that might actually shed some light on matters…a sheer arrogance which the Spectator reports in full….

Jenkin: There is the other problem. Jim, you know the history of the BBC’s coverage of the European Union question. There was the report commissioned in 2005 under chairmanship of Lord Wilson of Dinton, the former cabinet secretary, that found that and I quote “we have found there is widespread perception that the BBC suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias”.

Naughtie: A widespread perception?

Jenkin: The BBC governance accepted that and we know that the Today programme basically got the presentation of the Euro wrong. We know that, that’s now been accepted.

Naughtie: Can we get back to the issue?

Jenkin: This is an important point Jim because every morning we have someone on the Today programme from business and they’re always asked the question “do you think we should stay in the EU?” but you tend to choose people from a certain sector of business who are going to say what they think the establishment wants to hear.

Naughtie: Sorry, we want to get back to the point but can I just tell you that is simply not true.

Jenkin: It’s an important issue and I hope you will address it in a future programme.

Naughtie: Finally, do you think that the fact the government was beaten last night on this indicates that particularly on European questions but on a whole host of things, the Prime Minister is skating on very thin ice?

Jenkin: Well, I think this question actually indicates part of the unintentional cultural bias of the BBC.

Naughtie: Oh for goodness sake.

Jenkin: No listen, let me just explain that.

Naughtie: This really is tedious.

Jenkin: This was a cross party dispassionate discussion about how to create a fair referendum. If there is to be a new politics, it’s this kind of politics where a select committee on cross-party basis makes recommendations and the opposition in a rather non-partisan way I have to say supports that case. That’s what happen last night and your question wants to see it through the lens of party politics, the party game at Westminster and who’s in and who’s out and whether the Prime Minister is weaker or stronger. That’s not what this was about, it was about a fairer referendum…

Naughtie: …a game you have never participated in…

Jenkin: …we’ve got a step closer to a fairer referendum, which is the kind of thing the British people want.

The BBC’s Chris Mason on 5Live today displayed a similarly arrogant and  dismissive tone when he told us that ‘inevitably‘ Nigel Farage raised doubts about the EU opening the doors to migrants.  ‘Inevitably’ suggests Mason thinks Farage’s views are also rather ‘tedious’ and without merit.

The BBC treated us to a ‘Migration Special’ today…not sure why it was ‘special’ as it seemed to be the same old unpleasant, emotive trickery rank with the odour of sanctimonious and completely unearned moral superiority that BBC journalists wrap themselves in.

The BBC mashed together as many of its old reports on the migrants that it could, the more emotive, the more sympathy inducing, the more guilt inducing the better.  This was pure propaganda designed to ‘change your mind’ should you have doubts about the wisdom of opening the borders in the way they have been to what can only be described as an invasion, one that seems to consist mostly of highly aggressive young men which can’t bode well for the future.

The BBC has three prongs to its attack…one, make you feel sympathy for the plight of the ‘refugees’, and we are constantly assured that they are refugees despite many coming from safe countries, second, to make you feel guilty that perhaps you are not being compassionate or humane enough, the BBC telling us we just don’t understand how these migrants/refugees must feel, third, failing all that they try to shame us by suggesting that anyone who doesn’t support the migration must be a Nazi…of course they don’t say this outright but they head off to Hungary or the Czech Republic, quote someone from there, make a sweeping conclusion from that one quote that the whole country is therefore packed full of racists and that you don’t really want to be seen to be like them…do you?  The BBC’s Rob Cameron claimed that East Europeans are a bit too white and a bit too culturally unenlightened…they haven’t learnt of the benefits of a multicultural society as we have in the UK…such as Rotherham, or the Trojan Horse scandal or bombs going off in London or a British soldier being almost beheaded in an English city.

As I say, nowt but propaganda.

And the BBC isn’t giving up….it’s not just the news being fabricated to fit the BBC agenda but they have started to use licence payers money to pump out dramas that are pure propaganda for the migrant cause.

Tonight we had a drama that must have been churned out as fast as possible in the hope that putting the plight of the migrants in a form that wasn’t ‘cold, hard news’, in a form that could be artistically embellished [to a greater extent than they have already achieved with the news] would increase the emotional manipulation and be more effective than ‘straight news’ that people might view less emotionally and more critically….and of course it allows the BBC to build ‘loveable’ characters and invent life stories and dramatic and perilous troubles that supposedly hook  the viewer and  link them to the characters and their situation, all intended to hopefully produce a feeling of personal connection and sympathy which will then translate into real life and how you feel about real refugees.

When the BBC churns out highly political messages dressed up as entertainment, as drama, then you have to think the BBC has stepped way over the line and has completely lost the plot as it moves from a supposedly impartial observer and reporter helping people understand the issues to an activist, an alarmist campaigner peddling its own views and attempting to label anyone who disagrees as inhumane nazis.

BBC news is shaped not to inform but to reform.  You are too uneducated or too prejudiced to be allowed to make your own decisions…the BBC will make them for you and if you don’t agree then it will publicly denounce you as a racist, a Nazi or as someone lacking compassion and humanity hoping to make it ‘socially unacceptable’ to express concerns about immigration.

The only light at the end of the tunnel is that despite all this mawkish and emotive propaganda from the BBC I have yet to meet anyone who thinks opening the borders is a good idea…or that helping British jihadis on their way to martyrdom is a bad thing….many would happily send the bill for the hellfire missile that ended their murderous lives to the families of the recently deceased seeing as how ready the jihadis and Co are to sue the British government.

The BBC doesn’t like the way you think.  You’re far too independent of mind and far too unwilling to bow to their superior intelligence, knowledge and heightened sense of morality…Hence the BBC feels justified in patronising and lecturing you with an endless stream of pro-immigration propaganda that is designed to counter your appalling prejudices, ignorance and inhumanity.

Think we shouldn’t let in so many culturally alien migrants?  That’s very sad says Mark Easton as he expresses his sorrow at our selfishness and unfeeling inhumanity.

Think that the migrants are mainly economic since they abandon the safe areas they have initially fled to?  Wrong…the situation is very confused….and poverty and loss of hope is a terrible burden that the West can alleviate….and you know what, the migrants only want to contribute to our economy…listen out for that one…it’s one of the phrases that seems to have been forged and passed on in the ‘memo’ for use against the doubters.

Think that Europe doesn’t need all these migrants?  Wrong...Germany is in desperate need of more workers as it’s population falls and ages….that of course is no solution as the migrants will age and they also bring with them their own cultural baggage….the Turks refuse to integrate and have been told not to by the Turkish government…..that is just storing up a lot of trouble for the future…..Merkel admits there’s trouble ahead…but still invites more in…‘Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the “breathtaking” flow of migrants into Germany will “occupy and change” the country in the coming years.’

Think that Hungary has the right approach to dealing with the swarms of migrants invading their territory?  Wrong…..The Hungarians are such hypocrites…having been ‘fed a diet of anti-migrant vitriol’ and having been migrants themselves…Migrant crisis: Hungary crossings echo 1989 and 1956…..though of course the Hungarians in the UK don’t set up parrallel societies , try to take over schools by stealth, call white women prostitutes, consider young white girls as trash and sexual playthings, they don’t try to bomb us, they don’t cut off soldiers heads in the streets of Britain, they don’t set up ‘Hungarian patrols’ to force people to live by their own laws…..just a few of the difficulties that ‘alien’cultures bring with them.

“Why these defendants focused their attention on white under-age girls is unexplained but I have no doubt vulnerability played a substantial part in it,” he said.

“If they pursued Asian under-age girls, they would have paid a heavy price in their community.”

Think that ISIL members might be hiding in amongst the migrants (along with many ‘normal’ criminals’)?  Wrong….it’s all propaganda from the anti-immigration brigade…This viral photo falsely claims to show an IS fighter posing as a refugee

The possibility of militants sneaking into Europe as part of the huge flow of migrants from Syria and other countries has long worried governments and experts, but one viral picture claiming to show proof of a “migrant” Islamic State fighter isn’t at all what it seems.

But if there are IS fighters posing as asylum seekers, this man is not one of them. In fact, for an asylum seeker, his identity is unusually well documented. His name is Laith Al Saleh, and last month he was the subject of a profile by the Associated Press news agency. He says that he was a Free Syrian Army commander, and that before the civil war he worked as a plasterer in his home city of Aleppo.

Note that ‘unusually well documented’….really?  By whom?  There’s only one report and that is based on the guy’s own word that he isn’t an ISIL member.  Why has he shaved off his beard?  He says he is one of the Free Syria groups….that could be ISIL, or it could be Al Nusra or any of the other hardline groups there…not at all certain who he is or his history….so not at all ‘unusually well documented’.

And note this that the BBC doesn’t quote from the same source..

‘Kos held a more sinister encounter for him — a man he recognized as a Syrian enemy. “Two days ago, I saw a sniper for the government forces,” he said. “I didn’t talk to him, but I am still very angry.”

So that’s an alleged ‘Free Syria’ rebel and an Assad sniper mingling with the crowds…any chance that there are plenty of ISIL amongst them too?

Think that most of the migrants are fit, healthy young men of an aggressive nature?  No you’d be wrong as the BBC fills the screens and its reports with photos of women and children and we hear heart rending tales of perilous jourmeys against the odds….even though I did hear James Mates admit this morning that most of the migrants are in fact young, fit males who are in fact dodging conscription into the Syrian army or one of the rebel groups….odd how that isn’t reflected in the vast majority of the BBC’s reporting and their TV pictures and web photos.

The BBC is very definitely running a campaign to ‘change your mind’ on immigration.  So much for it being ‘your’ BBC.

Who needs a charter review if the BBC is closed down as perhaps it should be?…It is now completely out of control and unaccountable it seems.

Two down…many more to go!

One strike in Syria – what next?

Just a couple of weeks ago, an unmanned British Reaper drone did drop a missile on a group of so-called IS fighters in Syria that killed two British citizens.

One, the target, Reyaad Khan, was according to David Cameron involved in plotting a barbaric attack on British soil. In the PM’s view and, he says, the view of the government’s most senior lawyer – the attorney general – that made the attack entirely proper and legal.

“There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop him,” the PM said. Although we’ve been told repeatedly British drones have been flying over Syria to carry out surveillance, in the small print the government always retained the right to act in extremis without specific permission from MPs.

But you know what….you can’t be sure this strike was in any way justified…the BBC has many questions to ask…

As the operation appears to have been led by intelligence the truth is we may never know what really happened, what the precise circumstances were.

As have the family…and the BBC is all too willing to provide a platform for them.

The ‘barbaric’ Khan is dead…but the BBC has already warmed up the seats in the studios for the lengthy series of chats they are looking forward to having with the family…the real  ‘victims’….

Family ‘devastated and broken’ over RAF strike death

A friend of the Khan family says they are “devastated” over the death of Reyaad Khan in Syria.

After much skirmishing Tony Hall has finally fired the opening salvo in the Charter Wars and set out his initial gameplan for the BBC march to victory.

It is a gameplan with imperial ambitions.  Less is definitely more in Tony Hall’s world it seems.  That world is to be seen by more and more people but filtered more and more through the BBC lens…if Hall has his way. This is a huge, ambitious power grab to make the BBC the king maker, the interpreter of world events that everyone turns to whether they realise it or not as the BBC feeds its news into other ‘independent’ outlets and controls how that news is interpreted and perceived.

However we must remember that ‘this is not an expansionist BBC.’  And Russian troops are not in the Ukraine.

Let’s look at some of the detail……

He tells us, as usual, that we all love the BBC..

The BBC has a very simple purpose. We’re here to make great programmes and services. That’s why people love the BBC. That’s why they enjoy it. That’s why they trust it. That’s why they value it.

The BBC makes great programmes…that’s why he says…they enjoy it…they love it….they trust it…they value it.

Just one thing missing from that of course….here’s how the sentence ended….’That’s what they pay us to do.’

If Hall really was so sure that the people loved the BBC, trusted and enjoyed it, he would have said ‘That’s why they pay us to do it’  Of course he couldn’t say that because the audience doesn’t have the choice as to whether they can make that ultimate signal of approval by paying hard cash for something.

When Hall puts his confidence in his own genius to the test and starts to ask how many people will pay for this service, and how much, we might start to believe him.

And let’s also start with a bit of truth…Hall claims that  ‘The iPlayer helped create a market, and others followed with successful players of their own.’

Really?  YouTube went live in 2005….Channel 4’s 4OD in 2006:

Channel 4 Launches 4oD Video-On-Demand Service

16 Nov 2006 News Releases

Channel 4 today announces the launch of 4oD, its own-brand video-on-demand service, making it the first UK broadcaster to make all its home-grown programming available on an on demand basis. 

The iPlayer?  2007…

BBC iPlayer launched

Dec 27th 2007, 00:00

Christmas Day saw the official launch of the BBC’s much anticipated online iPlayer, with television adverts pushing the playback service to viewers.

Hall is trying to create the idea that the BBC is at the centre of creativity and the new digital world…clearly they are in fact behind the curve on this not leading from the front.  Sky, and Alan Sugar, were the pioneers of innovative digital technology not the BBC….the BBC which spent £100 million on a digital management system that never got off the ground….Youtube cost a couple of million to start up….where did the BBC go so wrong?

Hilariously Hall says…‘We intend to put our technology and digital capabilities at the service of our partners and the wider industry – bringing us closer together for the good of the country – to deliver the very best to audiences.’  I’m sure they are all very grateful…but going backwards probably isn’t in their own gameplans.

Onto the meat of the speech and we get to Hall’s over-inflated, high flown bombast that pumps out the self-adoring flattery of the BBC…he tells us that the essence of the BBC is “excellence without arrogance” and then goes on to say that not only does he want the BBC to be ‘a BBC that is a creative powerhouse for the whole of the United Kingdom’ but that it already is that powerhouse….’We are the cornerstone of one of the most successful media industries of the world.’  No bloated self-regard and arrogance there then.

Many might quibble with his claim as there are many more broadcasters and creative movers and shakers out there….and essentially the BBC is in its position purely because it is in its position…it is too big to fail…and as Stalin said ‘Quantity has a quality all of its own’.  The BBC maybe a big player in the media industry but that is only because of its unique, abundant and risk free funding rather than any other innate talent or quality that only the BBC possesses….it has relatively vast amounts of money, it spends it, therefore it dominates…possibly an argument against the license fee rather than for it, especially when you consider how the BBC uses that power to disseminate highly political messages within its programmes which kind of makes a mockery of Halls ‘watchwords’….‘Creative freedom. Universal reach. Trust and consent. These are the watchwords of the BBC.’

What of that freedom to be as creative as they like?….

We want the BBC in the next decade to be a magnet for creativity – the place people come to make brilliant programmes, programmes of distinction. For producers, directors, writers, artists to have the creative freedom to do things they would find it harder to do elsewhere.

And, by the way, that isn’t just coming from me. It’s what Peter Kosminsky, who directed Wolf Hall for us, Hugo Blick, and other extraordinarily gifted people – it’s what they tell me.

That’ll be the BBC that carefully ‘manages’ what can be said about climate change, which even now is ‘managing’ how we are meant to perceive the immigration crisis…how many times have you heard a  BBC presenter ask ‘Have you changed your mind yet on how we should treat refugees?’?  Clearly we are supposed to listen and learn……as I type Craig at Is the BBC Biased? (Hell yes!)  brings us this from Mark Easton…

Our conscience has been pricked, our hearts have been softened. The tragic image of little Alan Kurdi lying dead on Europe’s shoreline has, we are told, awakened Britain’s generous nature….But I’m afraid I don’t believe it.

No, ‘fraid not Mark.

This is the BBC which refuses to publish the truth about Islam and has censored its own programmes to hide uncomfortable truths…for example about the causes of radicalisation…the BBC’s preferred cause being Western foreign policy…when the truth came out that it was due to the increasing identification with Islam by young Muslims the BBC suddenly shelved the film that they had commissioned in search of the answer…an answer they didn’t want to find.

And as for Hugo Blick…the man who brought us ‘The Honourable Woman’…a highly, highly politicised anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian tract that wasn’t even particularly good TV.  Freedom to be creative?  God help us.

What else?  Oh yes…

Our aim, as we set out in the paper we’re publishing today, is to create a BBC that is more distinctive than ever – and clearly distinguishable from the market.

That’ll be Strictly, Doctors, The Voice and a few historical bodice rippers.   Very distinguished.

Then we have….

The BBC’s mission was set nearly a century ago by its founding father, Lord Reith. It was to inform, to educate and to entertain. That mission is as pertinent today as it was then. And as necessary in the future as it is now.

The BBC doesn’t ‘educate’ and ‘inform’…it provides us with very subjective material that provides a very one-sided view of the world….as with immigration.

Which brings us onto this…Trust….

The internet strengthens the case for the BBC and its enduring role in serving the public.

In the internet era, it is easier to find information but harder to know whether to trust it. In the internet age our mission is simple: great British programmes and a trusted guide for every one of us.

‘Trust’ the BBC?  You are kidding.

However if you do trust the BBC you can provide them with all your personal data that enables them to personalise its service to you…

Mobile also provides the best opportunity to deliver a more personalised news service and to inform audiences in new ways – the relevant data, context and information that everyone needs, delivered to suit their requirements.

A bespoke BBC News, made to measure for you, wherever you are.

Big Brother is watching and taking notes of everything you do.

Then there are those imperial ambitions…to take on the world….curiously India is counted as amongst those nations in need of the BBC’s help in democratising itself…alongside those other paragons of virtue…Russia and the Middle Eastern states….just another example of the BBC’s anti-Hindu stance that is all too apparent at the moment?…

It’ll also be the backbone of our global news operation helping us to reach 500m people, building on the unique power and brand of the World Service – one of our country’s greatest assets abroad.

This is a service we want to strengthen and expand through new proposals we are also publishing today. My own strong view is that this is one area where this country’s voice could be much stronger – especially in the Middle East, India and Russia and the states that used to make up the Soviet Union.

And then there is the local news…Janet Daley isn’t impressed and nor are local newsmen…here’s Hall blowing smoke up their backsides….

Local democracy really interests me. I’ve seen for myself how important our local radio stations are, and I’m really proud of the way they serve their communities. But I now want us to go further.

So, in future, The BBC would set aside licence fee funding to invest in a service that reports on Councils, courts and public services. And we would make available our regional video and local audio for immediate use on the internet services of local and regional news organisations.

In my view, that’s good for audiences, good for the industry but we look forward to hearing the views of others.

So having the BBC provide independent news outlets with news is good for democracy?  It sounds more like something Stalin would have been overjoyed about as the local press seem to suggest:

The BBC’s plans for “a network of 100 public service reporters across the country” did not find favour with the Scottish Newspaper Society, who labelled the proposal “a Trojan horse which will undermine long-established publications and destroy local news agencies”.

“Instead of helping local news publishers, it would make the BBC even more powerful and would further concentrate coverage of news in the hands of the state-funded broadcaster,” said its director John McLellan.

“Under the guise of being helpful, the BBC would end up replacing independent local news services,” he told Radio 4’s The World at One, calling the plan “a further expansion of the BBC’s encroachment”.

The BBC disagrees…

This accusation was rejected by James Purnell, the BBC’s director of strategy, who told the same programme it was “very much not the goal” for the BBC to “take over all local journalism”.

Then we get onto another brick in the Berlin Wall that the BBC seems to want to build to annex off the media world as its own little kingdom…the ‘Ideas Service’…..a ‘gift to the world’….like Communism no doubt……

In the 20th century, Britain created the World Service, a democratic gift to the world. In this century, building on the wealth of British knowledge and culture, we want to offer another gift: the Ideas Service.

It is a core part of our vision for an Open BBC.

The Ideas Service will be a platform for the ideas that matter and for the people who want to explore them. An open online platform.

The Service will host the best content from the BBC but also from some of our country’s leading cultural institutions: from the British Museum to the Royal Shakespeare Company, from the Edinburgh Festivals to the Liverpool Biennial, from this amazing institution – the Science Museum – to the University of Manchester.

Our new, Open BBC will act as a curator bringing the best from Britain’s great cultural institutions and thinkers to everyone. Britain has some of the greatest cultural forces in the world. We want to join with them, working alongside them, to make Britain the greatest cultural force in the world.

So the BBC will be the ‘curator’ of these ‘ideas’?…it will file, manage, analyse and interpret and then disseminate….everything once again filtered through the BBC lens.  No area of life is to be free from the BBC thought police it seems.

As Hall admits…others may bring you the news but the BBC will help you to ‘understand’ it….all coloured by its own particular and very prejudiced way of thinking.

We are extremely ambitious for this new service.

Where Google’s mission is to organise the world’s information, ours, in a smaller way, would be to understand it.

It’s a brave new world out there.

And there’s more of this to come…

Today’s paper is the first in a series of four key moments. The second paper, which will be published at the Royal Television Society conference later this month, sets out our proposals on the future of BBC production and Worldwide. The third, which will be published in early October, will be the BBC’s direct response to the Government’s questions set out in their Green Paper. The fourth moment, later in the year, will set out the BBC’s money saving proposals.

The BBC did a hatchet job on the Hungarian PM, Viktor Orban, for his comments about Muslim migration into Europe and referenced a comment by the Economist made way back in 2007…….the BBC said..

‘Politics of the gutter’

Out of government, Mr Orban was regarded by political analysts as a populist, to the extent that in 2007 the UK’s Economist awarded him its “politics of the gutter award”, citing his “cynical populism and mystifyingly authoritarian socialist-style policies”.

 

And here is what the Economist said:

Politics of the gutter award: Given jointly to Ferenc Gyurcsany, prime minister of Hungary, for admitting that his government had lied, and for turning a blind eye to police brutality; and to Hungary’s opposition leader, Viktor Orban, for cynical populism and mystifyingly authoritarian socialist-style policies.

Have to say that Jeremy Corbyn must be in line for the next award then considering his ‘ cynical populism and mystifyingly authoritarian socialist-style policies.‘

But it is, as always, instructive as to what the BBC doesn’t tell us that the Economist also said….first that ….

Most worrying trend: Between the Baltic, Black and Adriatic seas there is not a single strong reforming government. Drift, muddle and sleaze were the hallmarks of 2006.

And yet the BBC complains that Orban is too strong, too reformist….curious they miss that one out.

Then, and this is all the more surprising omission considering the BBC is writing about immigration into Europe and defending it, there is this…..

Big question: East-west migration. The worst-governed ex-communist countries have lost a million people or more to emigration. Now local job markets are tight, and wages are rising, but not enough to attract many migrants back. The opportunities and the quality of government are still so much better in western Europe. Until that gap narrows, worries of depopulation in the east, and overcrowding in the west, will grow.

So the Economist thinks that there is ‘overcrowding in the west‘!  No wonder the BBC missed that little gem out.

Remember the furore over Cameron using the word ‘swarm’…apparently this meant he was dismissing the migrants (can we use that word?) as insects or animals (and listen to Sarah Montague snort in what is definitely a knowingly mocking way when Sir John Holmes talks of not seeing migrants as ‘animals’ in another interview…you know exaclty what went  through her mind and how she was thinking).

Remember Gordon Brown’s reaction to the ‘bigoted’ Gillian Duffy when she talked of immigrants ‘flocking here’.

Guess someone at the BBC didn’t get the memo….

Ending the war in Syria would make a huge difference – but that still looks a long way off. Syrians are the biggest group of migrants flocking to Europe.

‘Flocking to Europe’.…shock horror!!  Hang him out to dry.

Funny no one has denounced the BBC for such language.

The crisis deepens: Isis are threatening to capture a vital highway in Syria – its loss could spark the exodus of millions more refugees

 

Many credible voices, such as Lord Carey and Boris Johnson, are saying that Europe is essentially being invaded.  Had the migrants been armed we would look entirely differently at them but because they come over as ‘refugees’ they are treated benignly as if there are no very serious implications resulting from this tidal wave of people who are mostly Muslim entering Europe.

It is undeniable that what is happening is in essence everything that ISIL could have dreamt of…the increasing spread of Islam to Europe and all without any actual military/terrorist force having to be deployed.  People like the Prime Minister of Hungary suggest that this is a cultural time bomb inside Europe….one that we have already had plenty of evidence is ticking.

The BBC asks what is to be done?  It has several answers…

• Agreeing on asylum rules
• National asylum quotas
• Tackling migration at source
• Legal migration paths
• Sending migrants back

None of which solve the real problem…the war in Syria.  The BBC ‘solution’s’ actually increase the problem or ignore that real problem though they do admit that:

Ending the war in Syria would make a huge difference – but that still looks a long way off. Syrians are the biggest group of migrants flocking to Europe.

Why hasn’t anyone acted to make a genuine effort to end the war?  Because the same BBC and its fellow travellers would launch a media counter-offensive to prevent military action just as they did with Iraq and then proceed to paint Cameron as a war criminal over the course of the next 10 years.

Merkel has said that the refugee crisis is Europe’s biggest migration emergency since the second world war.

So treat this like the second world war.  Put together a massive coalition of forces and destroy ISIL.  Assad is almost certainly secure…..with Russian forces reportedly now moving in to support and bolster his regime making it very difficult to take action against him without getting a counter-reaction from Moscow…hardly likely to be something that brings peace to the world.

The West [& Saudi Arabia will have to be told to back off and stop supporting ISIL….and also to stop funding Muslim fundamentalism around the world] will have to accept that Assad is in fact the best hope for a stable Syria and Iraq and will have to fight alongside him to destroy ISIL even if not in an explicit coalition…. we joined up with the Communists in WWII so nothing new there.  The ‘Free Syria’ forces will have to be put back in their box..  Hard facts but the only way.

This demands not just airstrikes but a massive presence on the ground.  Kurdish forces, and certainly not Iraqi forces, will not dislodge ISIL. Only the combined might of many countries will rapidly end this and it has to be done now.

Lord Carey advocates airstrikes, George Osborne wants to smash ISIL,  the former defence secretary Liam Fox says that “handwringing” about the plight of the refugees was not enough and action was needed to deal with the “root of the problem”…

 “You’ve got to deal with the [migration] problem at source, which is this evil Assad regime and the Isil terrorists, and you need a comprehensive plan for a more stable, peaceful Syria. A huge challenge of course, but you can’t just let that crisis fester. We’ve got to get engaged in that.”

Even the ‘tread-lightly’ Matthew Parris in the Times thinks that the answer lies in tackling Syria telling us to ‘Stop crying if you’re serious about migrants’.  He says that saying ‘we must do more’ when we see photos of dead children is not a policy….a ‘shaft of ice should enter the soul’ when considering the issues and we should not be swayed by emotive photographs or presumably BBC ‘journalism’.

He argues that the likes of the BBC have been exploiting the photograph of the drowned boy but we should not be swayed by this when deciding how to react, and that if we don’t get it right social cohesion in Europe will fall apart with all that entails….

Basic human decency takes us not a quarter of the way to a solution…Millions of migrants from another culture settling across Europe in a short time is not the answer for the countries they come from, or for us.

Every effort must be made to stop this accelerating…..There will be casualties and, yes, “casualties” is a euphemism for dead people. It isn’t easy to pit, against the power of one heart-rending photograph, a string of abstract nouns about the future social cohesion.  But we must try.’

He is suggesting military action is the solution and that Muslim migration is a danger to Europe echoing the words of Orban and Carey and Boris Johnson.

The BBC has been avoiding serious discussion about military action as the solution…as shown above its main concern is the migrants and their comfort and when given the opportunity Sarah Montague failed to explore the issue when raised by Sir John Holmes. which is kind of remarkable for the BBC’s prime news and current affairs programme bearing in mind that this is probably one of , if not the, most pressing issue at the moment for the UK.

The BBC will of course not want to raise the question of the effect of Muslim immigration into Europe but it looks like it may well be forced onto their agenda with so many voices expressing serious concerns about this issue.

The only solution to Syria is boots on the ground.  The BBC will hate this as it not only opposes any military action but is more than happy to see European unity and cultural solidarity smashed by immigration as it does in the UK seeking to encourage the notion that there is no such thing as ‘English’ identity.

The BBC does not really want a solution to the emigration crisis, it thinks the ‘crisis’ is in fact everything it, and the hard left, has dreamt of for years.