A Biased BBC who tuned in to “Any Answers” writes to me with this comment..

“There was a disgraceful intervention by Jonathan Dimbleby in todays Any Answers. Only minutes after saying that the cultural/racial issues of the Rochdale paedophile trials are properly discussed on the programme and there was no attempt not to discuss the real issues he interrupted one contributor who wanted to discuss how the teachings of islam and the example of Mohamed was unhelpful as a role model. Mr Dimbleby told the contributor that he could not say that as someone might be offended. Is this allowing open and honest discussion?”

I have to say that I very rarely endure Any Questions or Any Answers but for those courageous souls who do tune in, wonder if you have comment to make on the above?


A Biased-BBC reader notes with regard to the BBC’ s “Any Answers” broadcast on Saturday 5th Nov;

“Did anyone notice that the first subject: the Unions strike for Nov 30. All the callers, around six, were on the side of the unions There were none against, even though the majority of the population feel that civil servants are being much better treated that those of the private sector. Did the BBC recieve no calls against the strike?”

Questions and Answers

Last night’s Any Questions panel spoke for multiculturalism, women, and the Arab Spring. The solitary male member, if you’ll excuse the expression, was Jehangir Malik OBE, UK Director of Islamic Relief, who was roped in to opine on behalf of the Arab World.

The panellists still spoke elegiacally of the Arab Spring, which, for them still heralds the dawning of a new age of enlightenment. It’s just as if they’d never heard of the disconcerting rise of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or listened to any of the creeping doubts that are beginning to emerge everywhere but in their own consciousness. They seem a bit like the befuddled fugitive who hasn’t discovered that the war he’s been hiding from for the last decade ended years ago.

In this vein, they expressed undiluted optimism over the Arab Spring, and deep joy at the diversity and multiculturalism in the UK.

The thing that was omitted from the discourse was, of course, Islam.

Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial. I myself am diverse. Variety is the spice of life, and variegated skin-colour, racial origin, a multiplicity of traditions and customs are all jolly good ingredients when added to the mix in correct, proportional measure.

But political correctness ignores the essential truth, which is that the benefits immigration might bring to the UK must outweigh and not overwhelm the very things that make it an attractive destination. There comes a point where those who ‘flock’ from far and wide to partake, begin to resemble tourists who, by sheer numbers, wreck the beauty and tranquility of the tourist attractions they visit, robbing them of their attractiveness in the process. Before people recognise what is happening, too many are profiting from the status quo, so don’t want to admit there’s a problem.

The Islamic faith may well be beneficial in potentially volatile Islamic regimes which are kept on an even keel by people we consider tyrants and despots. They control populations by fear, as do religious leaders who stunt the imagination by persuading vulnerable people that this life is a mere preparation for the next.

Refusing to get to grips with the fact that a functioning democratic society requires the population to be reasonably free from constraints that interfere with the ability to think, is a huge handicap. That’s what political correctness does to us. It won’t permit open discussion, and explains the puzzling tyranny of the P.C. edict, which proclaims ” to be good, one must be non-judgmental.” That leads to moral equivalence, which in turn might explain the frequent appearance on our screens, courtesy of the BBC, of Abdel al-Bari Atwan. Mr. Atwan has been endorsing last week’s attacks near Eilat in which Israelis were murdered.

‘The Eilat operation, as I see it, corrected the course of the Arab revolutions and refocused them on the most dangerous disease, namely the Israeli tyranny. This disease is the cause of all the defects that have afflicted the region for the past 65 years…’

CiFWatch, the watchdog website that monitors the Guardian’s increasingly overt antisemitism, is concerned about Atwan’s frequent contributions to Comment is Free. The Guardian represents the intelligentsia, many of whom have travelled so far to the left that they’ve gone right round the back and out the other side, having picked up radical Islam along the way, like a burr on your woolly jumper. How did that happen? It’s inexplicable to many of us, and apparently to them. At least, I haven’t heard a convincing explanation so far.

The BBC’s fondness for hiring Abdel al-Bari Atwan is clear. He’s never off our screens. Opining on this and that, his eyes bulging preternaturally, he’s regarded as an authority on all things Arab. Springs, Uprisings, and Resistance? Ask Abdel. His speciality is demonising Israel and fantasising about it being nuked.

Is he impartial? Is he sane? Are his prejudices balanced on the air, in the short term or the long term, by opposing views? Are his views given undue respect and credibility?

Why does the BBC give inflammatory, racist, antisemitic and warmongering individuals the oxygen of publicity on programmes like Dateline or Newsnight? We know the BBC is mischievous and likes a bit of a barney for the ratings. But this is serious. They might want to try and make sparks fly, but sparks have a habit of getting out of control if they’re given free rein.

Any Questions? Here’s one. Does the panel think the BBC is after a conflagration?

A caller has phoned in to Any Answers to self-flagellate over our colonial past, and has invented a new despot named ‘Dugaffi.” I despair.


I happened to catch the News Quiz on BBC Radio 4 earlier today and was instantly reminded why I don’t listen to it if at all possible. It’s the usual little cabal of smug left wing “comedians” droning on about all their pet subjects. So, for example, the victory of Scott Brown over in the Massachusetts election gave Jeremy Hardy and Sue Perkins (yes, quite) reason to indulge in puerile mockery – with Hardy somehow concluding that these were really Republicans that had voted in the truck-driver – condescending, uninformed and brought to you care of forced tax. They then had a go at Sarah Palin before sharing solidarity with Obama. The “humour” is always in the one direction, profoundly biased and never changes. I managed to turn this dross off – but then caught the line up for Any Answers – with Comrade Bob Crowe being eulogised. The off button was located and pushed!


I happened to tune in to the BBC’s “Any Answers” a little earlier today. It was fascinating to hear caller after caller demonise the UK banking sector, demanding an end to bonus culture and the possible arrest and prosecution of senior bankers. There was also a call to stop the payment of bonus payments in the private sector. (No mention of the huge bonus payments the BBC have been awarding themselves for years now, oddly enough) It appears that the banks have been solely responsible for our current economic predicaments. Then the telephone hordes got stuck into Carol Thatcher with virtually 100% support for the brave BBC decision to get rid of her for the use of the word “golliwog” in a private conversation. Little short of her public execution would have satisfied some of these moonbats. It’s remarkable how so many of the people who get through the switchboard are so overwhelmingly supportive of the BBC, isn’t it?