The BBC censored the identity of the murderers of two Swedes at an Ikea store. The BBC has now come up with a narrative that allows them to reveal the truth about who killed the Swedes whilst managing to paint the murderers as motiveless madmen and asylum seekers as the real victims of the murders.
The real big issue revealed by the murders? Sinister Swedish ‘dark forces’ that are set to attack the asylum seekers. The BBC has no problem with asylum seekers attacking Swedes, members of the ‘Dark Forces’ or not.
Police in central Sweden have increased security at refugee accommodation centres after two Eritrean asylum seekers were arrested on suspicion of murdering two people at an Ikea store.
Local officials feared a backlash from “dark forces” who wanted to exploit the case, police chief Per Agren said.
Only when they have set the scene of asylum seekers under attack do we get to hear about the dead...’A mother and son died in the knife attack which took place inside an Ikea store in Vasteras on Monday.‘…and that’s it…oh wait there’s more….the BBC has worked really hard to let us know something about them…they were… “ordinary shoppers” .
The murders were dismissed as ” an act of madness.” No motive, no blame, no responsibility. Not the immigrant’s fault. As Mark Mardell might say we have a senseless tragedy perhaps devoid of deeper meaning.
Are Muslim Fundamentalists A Danger To Other Britons?
That’s not a question you will ever hear coming from the BBC. In fact they work strenuously to put across the opposite idea…the well known phrase that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ is one we hear constantly spouted by BBC presenters. The BBC in fact promotes the idea that Islamic fundamentalism is a good thing…Mark Easton infamously favourably comparing Muslim extremists to Ghandi, Churchill and Mandela. This is the BBC that suggested that if Muslim fundamentalists wanted to take over schools, and if that is what some parents wanted, then we should let them do that. The BBC has long supported the Muslim anti-war narrative that has fed and ‘jusitified’ the radicalisation of Muslims and been overly sympathetic to the ‘plight’ of Guantanamo Bay inmates.
So no, you won’t hear the BBC asking that question…despite a least one Muslim a day being arrested on terrorism related charges.
Which begs the question why they are happy to demonise Hindus in what seems like a campaign against them and their place in India?
Here is just the latest piece of anti-Hindu rhetoric from the BBC…
Why does the BBC selectively choose Hindus in India? Muslims are just as likely to be the instigators of violence there…it was Muslim insistence on a Muslim state that led to the creation of the breakaway state of Pakistan and the subsequent million deaths and millions of people being ethnically cleansed….and such Muslim attempts to annex parts of India didn’t stop in 1947, they continue to this day, never mind Bangladesh and the millions dead there…however if you read the BBC report you will come away with the idea that violence started by Muslims or started by a random incident was in fact a Hindu plot to attack Muslims. Where is the BBC article asking are Muslims a threat to Christians in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Malaysia or the Maldives or Egypt, or the Sudan…..and so on and so on and so on?
The BBC has along history of demonising some religions…notably it is those religions that are involved in conflict, often not by choice, with Muslims…inevitably the BBC presents Muslims as the victims…as in Burma where the fact that there has been a Muslim ‘Jihad’ going on since the 1940’s as they try to set up their own state in Burma is pretty much ignored or dismissed as fantasy by the BBC. The BBC of course had no problem denouncing Buddhism as a violent religion just as they are happy to similarly picture Christianity in a negative light whilst conversely not only refusing to acknowledge the violence done in the name of Islam but to actually work to deny that that is the case, that Islam is a violent religion….even the Islamist Tariq Ramadan has admitted that the Koran incites violence (24 mins) upon its readers….I paraphrase….
‘I wouldn’t say Islam is a religion of peace…..People are naturally violent and religion channels that violence to serve its purpose…to get peace…it’s the way towards peace but it’s not the peaceful reality’
He then tries to turn it on its head….the problem, he says, is not the book but the reader….but the reader is reading a text that accepts people are violent and encourages people to use violence….so the problem is the text…non?
Use violence to move towards peace…but what is peace in Islam?….the domination of Islam over all other religions….with Islam on top there is no need for war…..‘They create a desert and call it peace’.
Ramadan slips away from whether Islam is violent into describing peace as being ‘inner peace’ brought to you by knowledge gained through religion rather than the peace we get when there is no fighting.
Ramadan also states that we must understand the fundamentals of the religion to understand current events…..perhaps the BBC should take note….what exactly does the Koran and the Hadith say about violence? Need to know that to understand what is happening now.
If the BBC is going to look so closely at Hindu, or Buddhist, or Christian extremism then the same close examination must be carried out on Islam.
And today we have yet another example of the BBC promoting a Muslim narrative…
Ostensibly about Uighurs who migrated to Pakistan (where all is lovely) from China but is in fact just a vehicle to attack China and its ‘atrocities’ against innocent Muslims in China.
The BBC is having a few problems with consistency when it comes to knife attacks.
A teenager with a ‘Pakistani background’ stabs a black teacher in a racially motivated attack and the BBC covers up his race prefering to let people think this was ‘yet another’ racist attack by a white person…a version of events given ‘credence’ by the Today programme’s subsequent decision to then interview an Asian teacher who tells us that he has suffered racism thus suggesting it is a problem of white racism….the interview was clearly intended to be a counter to what the BBC knows are the critics of its failure to report on the truth about the Pakistani youth’s racist behaviour rather than a genuine look at racism.
A deadly knife attack in Sweden gets little BBC attention, or rather there is a big hole in the BBC’s reporting…just who were the attackers?
The two people killed in the attack on Monday in the central town of Västerås were a 55-year-old woman and her 28-year-old son, police said on Tuesday.
Deputy prosecutor general Eva Moren told reporters: “The two suspects are both from Eritrea. They have been living at an asylum centre,” she said, adding that the pair knew each other. “We know nothing about the motive yet, the investigation will have to determine that,” she said.
Why would the BBC not want to highlight the identity of asylum seeking murderers?
In contrast on the Greek island of Kos immigrants are flooding, swarming?, ashore at an unmanageable rate…the authorities warn of impending violence...the BBC concentrates on a police officer who slaps an immigrant whilst holding a knife…..doesn’t stab him, doesn’t even threaten to stab him or even wave the knife threateningly, and certainly doesn’t murder anyone……
Police officers used batons and sprayed fire extinguishers as they tried to impose order on the crowds. It comes after an officer on Kos was suspended for slapping one man while brandishing a knife. Authorities are struggling with a rapidly growing number of migrants who have arrived hoping for a better life.
The BBC has his picture…
And reports more on this serious incident…
A policeman on Kos was suspended on Monday after he was caught on camera striking a migrant.
The footage shows him roughly pushing back migrants outside a local authority building in Kos, slapping one man across the face as he shoves others, telling them to get back behind a line he has drawn on the pavement with the knife.
Why would the BBC hide the identity of asylum seeker knife murderers? Why would the BBC hide the identity of a ‘Pakistani background’ racist knife attacker? In contrast why would the BBC be more than happy to highlight a police officer holding a knife slapping an immigrant?
The BBC is clearly trying to manage the news and prevent people from seeing the truth, stopping them from making their own judgemnts about events that relate to immigration and any downsides to it.
The BBC has a pro-immigration, pro-immigrant agenda that it seeks to impose whether that involves going to war with the government and smearing them by saying they are racists inflaming hatred towards immigrants or by faking the news in order to manipulate the Public’s perceptions and hence their opinions about immigration.
The BBC is getting itself into ever deeper waters by its politicisation of the news and its hijacking of its own services to use in its own interests.
When will the politicians genuinely wake up and take a long hard look at just how corrupt, overly powerful and dangerous the BBC now is?
Its not often that I am lucky enough to get the opportunity to catch some of R4’s Woman’s Hour but today was one of those days when the chance came my way and I leapt at it. As with every other occasion it seems I, by chance, managed to tune in just as they were talking about converts to Islam. Usually it is about the joys of conversion and just how happy everyone seems. The researchers must have got it wrong this time as the narrative went rapidly off line, the convert, in a book under discussion, going from infidel, to Muslim convert, to suicide bomber.
However there was a rapid rebuttal of any thoughts that Islam might be the trigger for the convert’s terrorism, the author stating that it absolutely had nothing to do with Islam but was a result of the woman’s own psychological problems, Islam does not lead you into terrorism.
The presenter, Jane Garvey, told us that Muslims were sick to death of Islam and terrorism being linked together….it’s all the media’s fault…..Garvey said that ‘it’s so unfair’.
Except it’s not really is it? Islam does have a link to terrorism….but there’s the rub, Muslim campaigners always claim that terrorism and violence are not linked to Islam however that’s not really the problem with Islam in the West. The problem is the innate nature of Islam that is in opposition to everything that a democratic, secular, liberal, western civilisation stands for and it is that ‘extremism’ by comparison to the West’s values that is the problem which Muslims and the BBC don’t want to talk about and divert attention away from by talking of terrorism or violence as if they are the only issues….just look at how the BBC reported the Trojan Horse scandal…the BBC essentially lied about what was going on, downplaying its significance, telling us that it was a hoax, that this was more about racism, Islamophobia and paranoia of non-Muslims than any real threat to society.
The author of the book, Meike Ziervogel, told us that she had considered converting to Islam herself, however it was not for spiritual reasons. She said she found certain aspects of Islam highly attractive at the time, almost mesmerising….the rigid structure, the rituals, the praying 5 times a day, the rules that told you exactly how to live your life. In the end she didn’t convert but as I listened I thought that Islam must be the ideal religion for those on the autistic spectrum needing that rigid structure to their lives in order to cope in a world so full of options.
Whilst fanatically rigid Islam is by far the most suitable for those needing an ‘institutionalised’ way of life many religions could offer similar solace and support almost like a drug to help treat them, taking away the need for free thought and decision making, all that confusing choice and personal responsibility.
Maybe Islam should be available on the NHS. Religion is the opium of the masses after all.
As religion strips away the need to think it puts the power into the hands of the leader’s of the religion which is what makes religion, with its unthinking, often fanatical, battalions on tap, so dangerous. The Church of England had long been the source of much radicalism and terror until it was tamed and became the friendly parish priest doling out tea and sympathy linking the community together. Religions need to be leavened, moderated, to control and rein in the fanaticism.
Islam on the other hand is nowhere near that stage of development, and looks increasingly like it never will flip to the peaceful side. The BBC’s Giles Fraser for one is happy that this is so, and in fact wants the Church to go down a similar path of radicalisation and fundamentalism…presumably he wants a Christian Isis…a Chrisis?
He tells us that…
The Church of England is the longest-running prevent strategy in history. If not from its inception, then certainly from the end of the English civil war, the big idea of the C of E was to prevent radicalisation – precisely the sort of radicalisation that led to religious people butchering each other throughout the 1630s and 40s. Its strategy was to discourage two things: big expansive politically minded theology – the sort of theology that has ambitions to change the world – and religious passion (or “enthusiasm” as it was dismissively described).
And then along comes Islam – and, thankfully, it disrupts this absurd game and refuses to play by the rules. Its practitioners want to talk about God, sex and politics rather than mortgages, school places and the latest Boden catalogue. And good for them.
Yes, good for them….that’s precisley what we need…more radicalisation… ‘the sort of radicalisation that led to religious people butchering each other throughout the 1630s and 40s.’ Good for them.
Fraser likes ‘non-violent extremism’ and doesn’t appreciate Cameron’s approach to it….
Attacking it is simply an attack on thinking big, thinking differently and arguing passionately. It comes from a now defunct C of E mindset (now defunct even within the C of E, thank God) that assumes it’s the job of religious people to be pastorally nice, softly spoken and uncontroversial. But that’s not Jesus. And like him, I believe in pulling the mighty from their thrones and lifting up the lowly. And I believe there is an authority greater than yours – one I would obey before I would obey the laws of this land. And if that makes me a dangerous extremist, Mr Cameron, then you probably ought to come over to south London and arrest me now.
Trouble is ‘non-violent extremism’ is the source of the ideology that spawns the violence that is intended to impose that ‘non-violent’ extremist ideology on those who don’t agree with it….as he admits….
Of course, the reason the authorities are often nervous of religious anarchy is precisely because of the enormous power that it can evoke, for good and ill. Hence the need for our episcopal prefects to behave as the state’s health and safety officers in matters of religion.
And here’s where Giles disagrees with himself..declaring that diverse and turbulent religions need tanks on the streets and state control of religion, ala Cameron?, to keep the peace between the communities…..who’d have thought?….direct from Kazakhstan and Giles Fraser’s brain…
There’s also an increasing anxiety that a less repressive approach to religion might open the door to radicalisation. So only state-authorised religions are allowed here. Missionaries are regulated. Religious political parties are banned. And the president of Kazakhstan, an old-style ex-Soviet politician – who received a comedy 97.75% of the vote at his re-re-re-election back in April – presides over this gathering of well-meaning religious flannel.
And maybe they are right to do all this. For Kazakhstan has, within its own set limits, developed a properly deserved reputation for religious toleration. …..his is a place of genuine diversity, where different faiths rub along remarkably well. Despite all the off-putting pomposity of the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, it’s not a totally unrealistic reflection of how things are here. Maybe there is something for that tank to protect.
Great that the BBC employs a wannabe religious extremist who wants to turn the Church fundamentalist and radicalise it by injecting some ‘anarchic religious energy’ into it. Just what we need, yet another set of religious fanatics, this time presumably wanting to live by their fundamentalist religious beliefs and presumably also therefore opposing those other religions that attack and undermine Christianity…such as Islam….a recipe for disaster and religious wars on a grander scale than we have already?
A black teacher is stabbed by a teenager of Pakistani background who shouts ‘nigger’ and ‘black bastard’ as he does so. It’s a ‘racially motivated’ attack.
It is well known that there is a level of racial tension between the two communities.
But what does the BBC do, apart from ignore the race of the attacker? It interviews an Asian teacher about the racism in schools (08:10) he has suffered as a teacher. Sue at Is the BBC biased? also noticed the disconnect between events on the ground and the BBC’s reaction as the major issue that arises from the case is not racism towards teachers, I imagine most people already recognise that there is some of that going on ( why is the BBC committing its prime-time slot at 08:10 to already established truths?), but that it highlights the racism that almost endemic between the two communities.
The BBC has looked at the subject before in this 2006 report Rise of UK’s ‘inter-ethnic conflicts’ so you might ask why they are being so circumspect about it now, trying to divert attention away from the real issues and onto some almost abstract notion of racism in general in schools. The answer is almost certainly to do with the heightened tensions and controversies around Islam, immigration and asylum seekers today. The BBC does not want to put a spotlight on the problems that having ever increasingly diverse and separate communities results in when it is spending so much time banging the drum for immigration and multi-culturalism.
Just at a time when such issues really need to be openly debated in a rational manner the BBC instead attempts to play down and cover up the problems and dangers that come from such vast numbers of immigrants suddenly turning up in a community. Not only that but in order to silence them or scare anyone else into silence or risk being publicly ‘shamed’ as a racist, the BBC also resorts to alarmist and threatening scaremongering denouncing those who oppose open borders as racists or as people who are inciting racial tensions by inflammatory language…the BBC of course deciding what is and what is not inflammatory.
The real hilarity in the interview began when Laura Pidcock, education manager at Show Racism the Red Card, came on and said that we shouldn’t condemn or judge pupils who were being racist, in fact we should allow them to be racist (I’m pretty sure that’s what she was suggesting!). You could hear Jim Naughtie starting to huff and puff. She said the pupils should have a safe place to express themselves and we must not criminalise them for their racism but understand it and the events in their lives that led them to think and behave like this.
Of course what could the BBC find to object to in that approach, after all that is the approach they take to dealing with Muslim extremism, radicalisation and terrorism?…..understand, explain away, don’t condemn, in fact allow it to continue so that Muslims don’t feel alienated and besieged.
Later in a different segment of the programme (08:50) we heard the BBC interviewer raising the suggestion that we shouldn’t over-react to ‘controversial’ subjects, in this case a book about the Holocaust, because by over-reacting there is a danger that we close down debate and don’t explore the the issues properly.
Does he mean such as the way the BBC over-reacts to anyone who even hints that it might just be sensible to limit immigration, or at least have a debate about it, by calling them a Nazi and accusing them of recklessly inflamming anti-immigrant feeling?
‘The size of the lie was so great’ – Martin Amis on Robert Conquest and Stalin’s ‘utopia’ http://bbc.in/1MXQC9a
We looked at the BBC’s refusal to report the words of the Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, about immigration and its potential to have hugely damaging economic and social effects in Europe and give them the import they required. The BBC totally ignored his comments until this morning when the subject finally came up. Did the BBC want to investigate the extremely serious issues that Hammond raised? Did they think that a warning that the economy will suffer and that society may break down due to uncontrolled mass immigration was something that needed to be part of the public discussion about immigration?
No.
The BBC instead went to war against Hammond and Cameron declaring that they had got the ‘tone’ wrong when speaking about immigration in the manner that they had. What we have is a BBC, supposedly a news organisation, that instead of examining the issues coolly and rationally, deliberately seeks to ratchet up the extremist pro-immigration rhetoric by trying to silence all voices critical of mass immigration, and that even includes the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, labelling them either racists or people who are using inflammatory language that incites racism and hostility towards immigrants….which pre-supposes that all people who have an opinion which leans towards less immigration are doing so because they are racist or led by the nose by rabble rousing politicians….this is the same BBC that itself exploits highly emotive language and images to manipulate the audience’s perceptions and opinions on immigration and is quite happy to metaphorically and in reality to dangle dead bodies of immigrants in front of us, continually hyping up the ‘desperation’ of the migrants and the dangers they faced in their journeys to get here…all intended to play with your emotions…..so whose ‘tone’ is inflammatory and exploitative?
The BBC has decided that it will sit in moral judgement and that it is the final arbiter of what our immigration policy should be. It is vastly overstepping the mark when it comes to its role in society believing it has the right to not only decide government policy but also to publicly denounce and vilify government ministers who don’t toe the BBC line.
They managed to bully and intimidate Andrew Mitchell on the Today programme (08:10) demanding to know what he thought about Cameron’s use of the word ‘swarming’ and Hammond’s words…Mitchell shamefully backed down in front of their bullying and refused to back them instead repeating the approved BBC mantra that all migrants are humans and need to be treated with digntity and respect or some such happy clappy sentiments.
Hmmm….from 2003….did they get the ‘tone’ right?…..
A report by the influential House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published earlier this month said the large number of asylum-seekers was threatening “social unrest” and had to be curbed.
Later on(about 08:43) we had someone on from Oxfam. He was asked how he would sell the public the idea that we must allow in more migrants…..not a leading question at all is it?, one that pre-supposes we should let them in….once again the BBC not reportng but campaigning.
His answer was that Britain has to accept more asylum seekers… he’d sell the idea by ‘describing the misery of the lives of people in Syria and the desperation of those who are crossing the ocean with terrible risk to their lives and terrible suffering….when you get that sense of personal connectivity you recognise that these are not just people who are looking for a sunnier tomorrow, they are people who are living in fear and in poverty.’
Curiously that is exactly how the BBC goes about ‘reporting’ the issues already. In other words they are ‘selling us the idea’ of more migrants being allowed in to Britain….wherever they come from and for whatever reason.
Later on on 5Live (around 12:20) we had Le Crackpot, the UN’s Francois Crépeau, who thinks anyone who opposes mass immigration is racist and that the borders should be flung wide open …..to allow people to come and go…trouble is there won’t be much ‘going’ will there?
To give you an idea of how mass immigration would be handled but with no ideas on how the welfare system, the NHS, schools, housing would survive…no ideas on how they would be managed…but here’s some fine grandstanding by him with some thoughts that demonstrate just how out of touch he really is with the world…look at how complicated and impossibly involved his solutions are…
Not investing in migrant integration doesn’t bode well for the future. The sustainable management of diversity requires strong political leadership (diversity must be made part of the founding features of our societies, on a number of indicators: age groups, social classes, generations, religions, sexual orientations, family models, lifestyles, social media communities, epistemic communities, to name only a few), fact-based and efficient policies (anti-racism, hate speech prosecution, anti-discrimination, reasonable accommodation in the labour market, development of school curriculum…) and active, informed and well-trained institutions (courts, administrative tribunals, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons, complaint mechanisms, lawyers, social workers, labour inspectors…). Without such strong and coherent public discourse, policies and institutions, fractious nationalist populist politicians will wreak havoc, advocating for simplistic “solutions” based on myths, fantasies, stereotypes and threats that will go unchallenged. For their lack of leadership on the mobility and diversity issue, mainstream political parties are presently failing the populations they represent, as well as endangering the democratic institutions that these populations have been so painstakingly built over the past decades.
The trouble is it won’t be ‘populist politicians wreaking havoc’ but mass immigrant populations destabilising society and undermining the economy along with the huge conflicts that will result.
Here’s the BBC in 2006 telling of the tensions already in existence before it decided that it would decisively take sides in the immigration debate…
As three Asian men are found guilty of killing a black man during riots in Birmingham last year, the BBC News website examines what caused two ethnic minority communities to clash.
What made the clashes stand out even more was the fact that it was two ethnic minority communities – black and Asian – that were at loggerheads. According to Birmingham race campaigner Maxie Hayles, the trouble was rooted in long-standing division between the two communities.
“Just because people don’t throw bricks at each other on a daily basis doesn’t mean everything’s rosy in the garden,” he says.
“The reality is that there’s an apartheid situation. We live in a society where you’ve got white on top, Asians in the middle and then black at the bottom, particularly in economic terms.”
Lozells is an inner-city area that has seen significant change in its ethnic mix. Forty years ago African Caribbeans were its main ethnic minority group.
Mr Cantle, who wrote a review for the government after the 2001 riots warning of communities living “parallel lives”, says until recently such “inter-ethnic conflicts” were not on the agenda of public bodies and the mainstream media.
The UK’s shifting racial mix and changing definitions complicated matters, he said.
“At one time, going back into the 60s, 70s and even the 80s,”black” was an all-encompassing term, almost a political expression of being in a minority counterposed against a white majority,” he says.
“All of that’s changed and identities are increasingly fine-tuned and now include faith groups.
“So the pressure is now to work across boundaries but those boundaries are becoming increasingly reinforced.”
And if you’re going to look up close and personal at the migrants in order to ‘sell the idea’ then you have to look at the whole…the good and the bad…from 2003….
High levels of organised crime across the country are linked to immigrants and asylum-seekers, according to one of England’s most senior police officers.
People-smuggling, prostitution and drug dealing are among the crimes linked to immigration by Chris Fox, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
Immigration and asylum are also being used as a cover by criminals to enter the country, he told BBC One’s Breakfast.
He warned a “tidal wave” of mass immigration had brought a “new wave of crimes”, in an interview with the Observer newspaper.
“Mass migration has brought with it a whole new range and a whole new type of crime, from the Nigerian fraudster, to the eastern European who deals in drugs and prostitution to the Jamaican concentration on drug dealing,” he said.
“My personal view is that this is a small island.
“We have some very, very intensely-populated areas and I think we have to be careful just how we let the mix develop.
‘Balancing act’
“It’s healthy that we’ve got lots of different people, but if you go into some of the cities, looking at the north, Bradford simmers, Blackburn simmers.”
Mr Fox said it did not take much to disturb that balance
“We’ve got to be very careful to make sure that we’re not overwhelming our current infrastructure,” he said.
A report by the influential House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published earlier this month said the large number of asylum-seekers was threatening “social unrest” and had to be curbed.
Mass immigration is clearly dangerous for all concerned…immigrants and the native population. No good will come of it, certainly when the public start to realise they are being ‘sold’ an idea, especially based upon so many lies by the BBC.
Having heard the BBC reporting all day that a teenager had been convicted of stabbing a black teacher in a ‘racially motivated’ attack I, possibly along with most people, assumed that the attacker was white.
Not so. What the BBC fails to mention is that he was of Pakistani background…as the Guardian, the Mirror and Sky point out. The court has ordered that the boy’s name not be released but that doesn’t stop his ethnic origins being mentioned…and they are relevant to the report….as Sky reports he ‘could not handle being disciplined by a black man.’
Of course I should have known better, for if he had of been white the BBC would almost certainly have said so.
The BBC isn’t so shy when it comes to making allegations and naming names of white police officers as it continues with its Ferguson reporting and keeps up the narrative of innocent black youths gunned down by racist white cops The consequences of that type of inflammatory and inaccurate reporting such as using the Michael Brown case as the prime example of police racism when we know that wasn’t at all true, can be seen on the streets of Ferguson right now as yet more disturbances break out and police are shot at and respond by shooting the attacker.
Is the BBC ‘maintaining civic society and citizenship’ or helping to stir up inter-communal conflict?
Stewart Lee has been worried. He’s been away. On holiday. In the Pyrenees. In a Pyrenean ‘shack’ no less. Anyway, he’s been worried. Worried that without his acid wit raining down on Cameron’s parade, without him mustering the Twitterati against the marauding Middle Class Daily Mail readers, and without him manning the BBC barricades that defend that august and generous institution from the predations of the ‘Vested Interests’, the country will fall apart. Have to say, not so far. No need to hurry back Stew!
Lee, cut off from the world, had two choices, one the Daily Mail, the other a copy of the Guardian. Naturally like all good Lefties he chose the Mail as we know they all do. Well, the Guardian was left ‘abandoned in a campsite lavatory’.…I knew there had to be a use for it…though that old joke comes to mind.
Of course reading the Mail was only in the interest of work, researching the enemy. He found plenty to tickle his fancy and to reinvigorate his bile duct, in particular a Quentin Letts article…he’s very popular in the Guardian at the moment.
Lee informs us that ‘on page 14, the demonstrably inaccurate writer Quentin Letts rubbished institutionalised attempts to encourage social mobility in an incoherent column that included the genuine sentence: “Middle-class parents are middle class because they have learned what it takes to succeed.”
For some reason that sentence just doesn’t get Lee’s approval. Why not? It’s perfectly clear and understandable to any normal person of even passing intelligence. But then again if you’re looking out from the Bubble still pretending to be working class as you send instagram postcards from your Pyrenean gite all the world must be a mystery especially that concept of the hated Middle Class and that other mystery to the Left…getting things on merit. The comrades say no, it doesn’t compute.
Lee explains his concerns…..
‘The sentence, of course, does not bear a moment’s analysis, attempting to assuage readers’ guilt by assuring them their privilege is deserved. But it seemed so bizarre to me that such a sentence could actually be written without shame, only 12 days after I had left the country, only two and half months after the Conservative victory, that I wondered what was really going on at home.’
No, he’s right, no need to spend even a moment having to analyse the sentence, it’s clear as day what it means. Good of Lee to spell out his hackneyed old trot-like antipathy to the Middle Class…but should they really feel guilty at being Middle Class? Why? Of course, I know what it is, they got to be Middle Class achievers coz they’re Masons, the dodgy handshake and Pythonesque leg wiggle…the route to success. That’s right, the cardiac surgeon in the hospital, the lawyer, the dentist, the successful small businessman, the highly qualified nurse, the school teacher….yep none of them deserve to have what they have. They didn’t earn one bit of they’re place in society, it was all handed to them on a plate. Yep, they should really be ashamed of themselves for studying hard for years on end, for focussing on improving their lives, for improving society and providing all those essential services that keep the place running. Yep, yep, yep, don’t need them, bloody parasites, what we really need is more comedians whose sole qualification is a chip on their shoulder, oh and an amenable and generous benefactor like the BBC or the Guardian to keep the pay cheques rolling in. Who needs merit when you hit the goldmine of lefty paydirt.
The BBC’s College of Journalism will have to buck up its ideas. Just what have they been teaching the BBC’s finest and brightest?
I had always thought that the point of an interview was not only to ask questions and to get some answers to those questions but ultimately to publish those responses for public consumption. Apparently I was wrong, the idea is to write up only those responses you wanted to get in order to ‘prove’ whatever point you are trying to make and then quietly shelve the rest of the interview if it tells awkward or inconvenient truths that undermine your wonderful and powerfully made narrative.
The BBC interviewed a very important man today, the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, and then went on to bury the interview.
Look as I could I couldn’t see this interview on the website…surely an interview with the Foreign Secretary about a highly controversial subject as the immigration farce at Calais in which he makes somewhat ‘bombshell’ statements would be headline news.
But no. I found the ‘report’ eventually, such as it was, tucked quietly away on the sidebar under the anodyne heading‘More can be done on channel security’. This insignificant little heading doesn’t even make it to the Frontpage, lurking on the UK page instead. Anyone would think the BBC were trying to hide it. Having heard a BBC radio report on the interview I now realise I didn’t get the full story there either.
Why would they do that when they go to town over a ‘church’ in the Calais ‘Jungle’…which will be broadcast next Sunday…along with God’s own little left wing storm trooper Giles Fraser?
Maybe the Telegraph’s headline, and it is the main headline, tells us why the BBC seek to hide what Hammond said:
The BBC’s own write up gives us very little to go on merely saying that Hammond said that “more that can be done to enhance the physical security” of the Channel Tunnel and returning migrants to their country of origin was the solution to the problem of “large numbers of pretty desperate” migrants in Calais.
You have to watch the video to find out the rest of his comments about us being swamped, my word not his but his by implication, by immigration which will essentially destroy Europe as it can in no way absorb the millions of immigrants likely to come here.
Now that’s just common sense and what critics of mass immigration have been saying for a long time….but I think it is the first time I have heard someone as senior as Hammond make such a dramatic statement of truth.
It is an issue of overarching importance and has profound implications for the future of Europe and indeed the world. Europe is clinging on as one of the few bastions of political, social and cultural freedom in the world, an area of the world that others still look to for their values and for protection and support. If Europe breaks down, as it inevitably will due to massive immigration, who will be that ‘light’ that gives hope to many people of the world? America? It will probably retract into itself or become far more aggressive. How about Russia, China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? LOL.
The BBC would say that is precisely why the immigrants flock here, and yet they bring with them the seeds of Europe’s destruction. It is impossible to provide a safe harbour for all the people in the world who say they feel oppressed or downtrodden or feel like they’d like a bit more cash in their pocket. Ironically it is the BBC’s World Service that is an example of what part of the solution is…it provides that ‘soft power’ intended to influence people and ’empower’ them with information and techniques to do battle with undemocratic regimes. People are encouraged to be the masters of their own destiny and to take back their own countries…but paradoxically the BBC also sends out the message that says ‘Sod all that…drop everything, forget your own land, your culture, your family and friends…come to Europe to live off handouts and charity.’ That’s not sustainable, it’s impossible. If the BBC thinks people in Europe will continue to tolerate millions of immigrants forcing their way into Europe they are mistaken. It will not end well.
Here’s my grand solution…one that not only occupies the immigrants but also eventually solves the problem at source.
All those immigrants of fighting age, those who so vigorously assault the defences at Calais for instance, should be conscripted into an African army, trained, armed and equiped and sent back to Africa to do battle with those who oppress the African nations and that includes Syria. Your great grandfathers or grandfathers probably fought in the last war against the Nazis to maintain the peace and freedoms of Europe….they were more likely than not conscripted into the forces to fight for years on behalf of certain values and beliefs. I see no reason why those who come here should not be made to similarly fight for the same values in their own lands…if they aren’t prepared to fight for those rights, to put themselves at risk, why should they expect to be allowed to be the recipient of all the benefits of a Europe that so many did lose their lives to defend? I wonder how many such immigrants would make their way here once they knew they might have to ‘live the cowboy’ and actually do something positive to end the ‘desperate’ situation back home which they’ve left their fellow countrymen to deal with when they ran off for a better life elsewhere.
The BBC’s solution? Open the borders, open huge refugee camps, open your wallets, keep your mouths shut, and hope all hell doesn’t break loose.
The conventional wisdom in the United States is that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and because of that it was justified – end of story.
Is that really the end of the story?
It’s certainly a convenient one. But it is one that was constructed after the war, by America’s leaders, to justify what they had done. And what they had done was, by any measure, horrendous.
Americans were told a sanitised narrative of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: that a great scientific endeavour had brought quick victory, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
How about that ‘told a sanitised narrative of the bombings‘ Really?
How is it then that this news reel from the time tells of the ‘dramatic story of destruction and terror that followed in the wake of the first atom bomb…30% of the city’s population was killed, some by radioactive gamma rays, some by the heat of radiation that showed its intensity in many freakish ways [images of casualties]…in a city of rubble and destruction…a year later it’s still a city of the dead’?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVFPjVnm-Cc
Or how about this film that tells of ‘the effects of the death dealing atomic power’ where ‘the devastation speaks for itself’.….
Or how about ‘a new and revolutionary increase in destruction’...
So did the Americans get a ‘sanitised’ narrative of the bombings or is that just a prejudiced and ignorant BBC narrative that allows the reporter to then go on and use it to spin a tale of American war crimes?
So there you have it, the BBC is going to revise history for you and tell us that the bombs did not end the war abruptly saving hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties. It can be no coincidence that Japan surrendered almost immediately the two bombs were dropped but as with the ‘Religion of Peace’ the BBC doesn’t like to make the obvious links that destroy their narrative. A BBC reporter, Rupert Wingfield–Hayes, who wasn’t born back then, wasn’t having to fight his way to Japan island by island in a very bloody war, who didn’t see his mates blown to pieces beside him, who didn’t have to write the letters of condolence to the parents of the killed soldiers, who wasn’t indeed one of those parents who received a letter telling them their son was dead, can blithely denounce the American effort to end the war quickly and say saving those American lives, and probably many civilian lives as well, was not worth while. Perhaps he should ask his Japanese wife what she thinks.
Curious that he has this blinkered attitude when he has previously admitted in this, again anti-American, piece that the invasion of Japan would have been bloody if Okinawa was anything to go by…
There is deep bitterness here, in particular about how their overlords from the “mainland” sacrificed them at the end of World War 2.
“Okinawa is the only place in Japan that experienced battle on the ground,” says Satoru Oshiro “We cannot forget the tragedy, the horrible past.”
And it was unspeakably horrible.
On a hilltop just outside the capital Naha, I find Takamatsu Gushiken digging for human remains.
“When I find the bones of child and woman together, I cannot help but think that must be a mother and child and think about which died first,” Gushiken says. “I heard of lots of babies sucking their mother’s breast after she has died. Was it like that or did the child go first and the mother hung on to the baby? It makes it very hard for us to see sights like that.”
All the more so when you realise that many of the victims he unearths did not die in battle but killed themselves on the orders of Japanese military commanders.
The carnage wrought by this policy is terrible to think about…Perhaps a quarter of a million people died here in three months of slaughter from April to June 1945.
He makes no mention of the 14,000 allied soldiers that died, or the 50,000 injured, taking what was the relatively tiny island of Okinawa….multiply that up for the invasion of mainland Japan and the consideration that the defence would have been even more fanatical and the casualties may have been vastly higher. I imagine the soldiers were extremely grateful not to have to fight their way into Japan…in fact you don’t have to imagine you can read it in many of their compelling and bloody and very unglorified accounts written direct from their own experience of combat against the Japanese …but what do they know, a BBC journalist is willing to sacrifice them for his own smug, sanctimonious narrative. Like to see him storm a beach with 50lbs of kit and bullets coming his way or patrolling inland with the constant threat of attack from all directions , or being pinned down under relentless artillery and machine gun fire for days on end and then tell us what he thinks of the need to end the war and whether he’d be so ‘gung ho’ about soldiers’ lives.
A real historian said this of people like Wingfield–Hayes who rewrite history from a modern perspective…..
“This is really a post-Hiroshima analysis, growing with more fervor as the distance from Hiroshima grows, about the moral legitimacy and the moral justifications for the act, and not about understanding the decision-making leading to the act.”
The Japanese were known to be massing their troops for the defence of the mainland and it looked like any invasion would face at least an equivalent number of Japanese forces as the allies could muster when the acknowledged ratio for success was three to one in favour of the attackers…- ‘“not the recipe for victory.”…. New intelligence indicated that American casualties would reach over 600,000 during an invasion. ‘
Rupert Wingfield–Hayes‘ opinions are naive, simplistic and pathetically grovelling and apologetic, no doubt due to having very close and personal associations to the land he must now call home.
Perhaps the BBC would like to rewrite some other Japanese history.
In 1937 the Japanese attacked the Chinese city of Nanking killing up to 300,000 of its inhabitants according to the Chinese, 200,000 according to the International Military Tribunal For The Far East...and they didn’t die well... ‘burial societies and other organizations counted more than 155,000 bodies which they buried. They also reported that most of those were bound with their hands tied behind their backs. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, or by throwing them into the Yangtze River, or otherwise disposed of by Japanese. ‘
Will the Japanese be holding a memorial service for the dead, will the BBC be reporting it as a Chinese war crime?
What of the many millions of victims of Japanese militarism during and before WWII? Will the BBC be reporting their fate in sombre, accusatory tones?
The Japanese mass murdering started long before WWII with the…
‘……Japanese seizure of Manchuria earlier. It really began in 1895 with Japan’s assassination of Korea’s Queen Min, and invasion of Korea, resulting in its absorption into Japan, followed quickly by Japan’s seizure of southern Manchuria, etc. – establishing that Japan was at war from 1895-1945. Prior to 1895, Japan had only briefly invaded Korea during the Shogunate, long before the Meiji Restoration, and the invasion failed. Therefore, Rummel’s estimate of 6-million to 10-million dead between 1937 (the Rape of Nanjing) and 1945, may be roughly corollary to the time-frame of the Nazi Holocaust, but it falls far short of the actual numbers killed by the Japanese war machine. If you add, say, 2-million Koreans, 2-million Manchurians, Chinese, Russians, many East European Jews (both Sephardic and Ashkenazy), and others killed by Japan between 1895 and 1937 (conservative figures), the total of Japanese victims is more like 10-million to 14-million. Of these, I would suggest that between 6-million and 8-million were ethnic Chinese, regardless of where they were resident.’
The Japanese were brutal, fanatical and ruthless. They killed millions, millions, of people by many different savage methods, not just shooting but by torture, starvation, crucifixion, bayoneting, beheading, burning, burying alive, chemical and biological attacks, or just working them to death.
The Japanese soldier rarely surrendered, preferring to fight to the death taking with him as many of his opponents as possible. The Allies experienced this ruthless fanaticism during the war as they fought their way towards Japan. This experience informed the decision to use the nuclear bombs on the Japanese mainland in order to make a powerful statement to the Japanese leadership that all such resistance was entirely hopeless and would lead to the destruction of Japan.
Wisely the Japanese recognised this and surrendered preventing the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had they been forced to invade Japan.
The BBC thinks that saving those Allied lives and the subsequent effects on their families was the wrong thing to do, that the lives of Japanese civilians were somehow more valuable than American or British soldiers, never mind that they had fully backed the Japanese military expansionism of the past decades. Why does the BBC not ask the families of the US soldiers whether they are happy that the war ended as it did and their sons came home from the war?
I met a remarkable young man in Hiroshima the other day. His name is Jamal Maddox and he is a student at Princeton University in America.
Standing near the famous A-Bomb Dome, I asked Jamal whether his visit to Hiroshima had changed the way he views America’s use of the atom bomb on the city 70 years ago. He considered the question for a long time.
“It’s a difficult question,” he finally said. “I think we as a society need to revisit this point in history and ask ourselves how America came to a point where it was okay to destroy entire cities, to firebomb entire cities.
“I think that’s what’s really necessary if we are going to really make sense of what happened on that day.”
What if Jamal had visited Nanking or the Solomon Islands or Okinawa where so many American soldiers lost their lives? Would he still have reservations about the use of the bomb? We shall never know because that’s not on the BBC agenda. It is incredible how ‘Jamal’ is now the BBC poster boy, one man’s opinion, taken on the hop, being used to rewrite history and erase the real narrative behind the necessity for the use of the nuclear bombs in favour of the BBC’s preferred one of trying paint the Allies as the real war criminals in order to justify the BBC’s continued assault against the West, its history and its place in the world as it seeks to relativise everything and sell us a narrative that says there are no good or bad societies, no good or bad ideology, no good or bad cultures. We should not judge how other people want to live their lives, unless you happen to be white and western, then it’s open season for the BBC.
This approach plays out back in the UK where Islam is given a free pass. It is not intolerant, oppressive, authoritarian, misogynist, homophobic, violent, backward or unpleasant, it is a lovely, tolerant, peaceful and spiritual religion despite all the evidence being that it has never been that, and certainly isn’t today. Mishal Husain feels free to denounce Christianity as backward and unpleasant on the Today programme but no such vilification for her own religion.
The BBC’s hand-wringing, angst driven approach to reporting the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is motivated by its anti-Western agenda, its hatred of what it sees as the European/US, white dominance of history, its kneejerk cultural cringe and guilt-ridden fawning towards other races and cultures by its white reporters and a gleeful free for all from its ethnic reporters who take a great deal of pleasure in attacking the West and its values whether they have lived here all their lives or not like a school child being rude to their teacher.
The BBC of course would be entirely sympathetic to the notion that Japanese war criminals were in fact victims themselves..how often have we been peddled this exact same narrative for terrorists and criminals by the BBC?…
‘Many Japanese reacted to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal by demanding parole for the detainees or mitigation of their sentences. Shortly after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, a movement demanding the release of B- and C-class war criminals began, emphasizing the “unfairness of the war crimes tribunals” and the “misery and hardship of the families of war criminals”. The movement quickly garnered the support of more than ten million Japanese. The government commented that “public sentiment in our country is that the war criminals are not criminals. Rather, they gather great sympathy as victims of the war, and the number of people concerned about the war crimes tribunal system itself is steadily increasing”.’
Fedup2Feb 12, 07:57 Midweek 12th February 2025 In the states Elizabeth pucahuntes warren has a net worth of 12 million dollars on a salary of 200 thousand…
ZephirFeb 12, 07:54 Midweek 12th February 2025 Yep and off to the cabinet meeting. Lammy’s already walked into the bathroom by mistake and got lost, and Rayners…
Fedup2Feb 12, 07:41 Midweek 12th February 2025 Today The BBC is still in denial – the Trump administration is on fire changing stuff in the US -…
Guest WhoFeb 12, 07:32 Midweek 12th February 2025 Right Scoop: An Associated Press reporter complained on X about their White House reporter being denied access to the Oval…
Guest WhoFeb 12, 07:28 Midweek 12th February 2025 Julie of American Petulance seems off pace. Another booty? BBC TNI partner?
Guest WhoFeb 12, 07:24 Midweek 12th February 2025 Are they elected, or appointed? If the former, makes voting redundant. If the latter, makes democracy a sham.
andyjsnapeFeb 12, 07:20 Midweek 12th February 2025 Goldman axes diversity rule that has ‘served purpose’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gwvxn5377o Goldman Sachs’ international boss has said the bank ditched an internal…
BBC Radio 4 Today 
