Category Archives: BBC bias

ISLAM

– Introduce a comprehensive ban on the religion of “Islam” within the United Kingdom. This ban will include the prohibition of halal slaughter, sharia courts, religious publications (such as the Koran, Hadiths), the operation of mosques, madrasas and “cultural centres” and the public preaching and / or teaching of Islamic scriptures and doctrines.

– Introduce a prohibition on the use of Islamic face coverings in public, such as the Burka.

– Anyone found to be promoting the ideology of Islam will be subject to deportation or imprisonment.

Britain First’s policy on Islam

 

The BBC likes to promote the idea that the Far-Right are a serious threat to Britain, equivalent or worse than the Islamist threat.  Complete nonsense of course.  They point to the murder of Jo Cox as evidence of the seriousness of the threat and yet forget the stabbing of Stephen Timms MP by a Muslim and naturally forget all the Muslim terrorism that has happened preferring instead to try and alarm us about the Far-Right on Twitter or Facebook….so dangerous.

Of course Twitter has banned ‘Britain First’ and Youtube looks to have tried to limit access to its videos…

Certain features have been disabled for this video

In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

But just how much of a threat or even growing presence is the Far-Right or groups so defined by the BBC?  Britain has been famously immune and resistent to ideologies either from the far-left or the far-right and despite fringe elements fanatically promoting them they have not prospered.  That changes of course when you import people who don’t have the same values and attitudes as British people and who are from birth inculcated with the ideology that they then carry with them and profess diligently throughout their lives wherever they are.  There are now millions of people, and growing in number, who adhere to an ideolgy that is intrinsically and radically opposed to western liberal values and beliefs…and yet the BBC shows absolutely no concern about that, and actually promotes it, and instead paints an alarmist picture of Europe turning into a Nazi plaything all over again.

Look at some ‘Far-right’ youtube videos and look at the views…hardly any.  This is the video that Jayda Fransen from Britain First was once again arrested for…..

Just over 2,000 views…look at the views Muslim attacks on her get.…nearly a million….and yet she is the threat to Britain?  Britain First certainly has strong view on what should be done to stop the Islamisation of Britain…but if you think Islam is a genuine and serious threat to British culture and society then that is the logical conclusion….which is why politicians, the BBC and even the security services refuse to say that there might be a problem with the growth of an ideology so radically opposed to British values….admit it and they would have to do something about it….what?  The very tough proposals of Britain First?  Never ever happen.

The Telegraph tells us of the truth about the Establishment response…

People in MI5 tell me that denying the connection between Islamism and terrorism derives from the belief that if you accept it, there’s no hope for a multicultural society in Britain: we would just have to recognise that part of the population is permanently liable to become terrorists.

Maybe some are more onboard with Britain First than they’d like to admit….

7/7 Met police chief calls for extremists to be locked up in INTERNMENT camps as he says MI5 and police cannot keep track of 3,000 terror suspects

And note, for the record, it is ‘Britain First’ not ‘Whites First’….they may be anti-Muslim but not racially prejudiced as the BBC likes to tell us…..the BBC’s positive discrimination beneficiary [surely!] Nihal today telling us that Britain First’s views were ‘repugnant’…but failed to spell out exactly what and why.

The BBC tells us that their message is ‘so dangerous that the authorities are trying to shut them down’…note the BBC trying to imply that Britain First is violent as it cuts to a clip of Britian First actually warning of conflicts that they say are likely to be the consequence of the political indulgence of Islam…not a surprise nor controversial as the Islamist threat to Britain is constantly in the headlines…and indeed four more terrrorists arrested today…but just what is ‘so dangerous’ about their message?  The BBC are quite happy to warn us that the Far Right are taking us back to the Thirties with all that entails…and yet Britain First’s warning about Islam is ‘so dangerous’….why is the BBC’s message not ‘so dangerous’?  Note the BBC suggest that there are only 100 or so followers of Britain First on this march….and EDL ‘rallies’ are now pretty miserable affairs by all accounts, barely getting into double figures…so that massive ‘far-right’ threat, where is it really?  Just the Establishment’s counter-propaganda narrative designed to build up the threat of the far-right so as to lessen the perception of threat from Islamism….the far-right threat is just as bad as the Islamist one thus we mustn’t be too critical of Muslim terrorism.

Why is it permissible to attack political ideologies but something like Islam, which is more political than spiritual, and which the establishment of which has serious consequences for British society, is off limits?  Why does Jayda Fransen get arrested when the police refused to arrest those Muslims exposed by Dispatches’ ‘Undercover Mosque’ programme….the police in fact outrageously trying to prosecute C4?

However ‘repugnant’ [©Nihal] Britain First’s message might be how is it that they are treated so vastly differently than those who promote the Isamist message which may be equally, or more, ‘repugnant’?

Why are Charles Moore and Boris not ‘so dangerous’…their messages pretty similar to Britain First’s…

Charles Moore:

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

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.

Boris Johnson:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken.

‘Christmas bomb plot’ broken up by dawn raids in Sheffield and Chesterfield

Armed police have seized four men in a series of dawn raids to break up a suspected Christmas terrorist bomb plot.

Police raided four addresses in South Yorkshire and Derbyshire after intelligence suggested the men were planning to build or acquire a bomb in an Islamist plot to strike a target in the UK.

Oh the irony as the BBC promotes #MuslimChristmas.

The BBC is pushing hard the narrative that Muslims love Christmas and are just like ‘us’ and Islam is completely harmless and essentially an exotic version of Christianity.  Shame one on Adrian Chiles[11:50] suddenly burst out into a rant about Muslims not being able to become students [lol…so many Muslim extremists are in fact students…it’s a well known recruiting arena] and then went off on one about Britain having a lot to anwer for due to its foreign policy ruining the world.  Hmmmm…might suggest it was Muhammed in the 7th century who has had the most baleful and damaging effect on world history turning the Middle East and so many countries into cultural, scientific, industrial and artistic deserts….not to mention what is basically an Islamically inspired terrorist world war against non-Muslims now in progress.

And why is the BBC promoting #Muslimchristmas?…as if Christians don’t mind Muslims hijacking their major religious festival and trying to make it all about Muslims as they do with everything else.  Then again what’s new…The warlord Muhammed hijacked Christianity claiming Moses and Jesus were Muslim prophets……and that everyone is Muslim except they just don’t know it…hence any ‘converts’ are called ‘reverts’.  He did this of course to make his ‘religion’ sound familiar and attractive to Christians so that they would join him and his war machine as it plundered and conquered the Middle East.

Maybe about time Christians hijacked Islam…#ChristianEid….let’s take over the Koran and rewrite it so that all the violence, misogyny, anti-semitism, homophobia, Kufar hating, slavery promoting bits are removed…..not much would be left….lol.

Would the BBC promote that?  or #SikhChristmas, or #BuddhistChristmas or #HinduChristmas or #Jewish Christmas or #JediknightChristmas?  Doubt it somehow.

So Ofcom is to investigate the BBC for bias….on Brexit or on Trump, or how they reported the election?  No…on an interview with Lord Lawson on climate change.  The BBC friendly Ofcom is playing to type as expected.  After all the endless pro-climate change propaganda that the BBC has pumped out year after year after year, after its all too close association with climate change promoters and lobbyists, after its decision that the ‘science is settled’ when that is far from the truth, Ofcom has decided that the bias it must investigate is a blink and you’d miss it interview with Lord Lawson.  As Gary Lough might say ‘What a f***ing joke!’

Is the science settled…is it science at all?  You might think not as Delingpole notes….

Environmentalists have discovered the two new things most likely to turn the planet into a molten orb of glowing red climate death.

Yep. They’re not joking. Bitcoin and porn are the two latest things which, experts tell us, are causing “global warming”.

Liberals are great believers in the power of central banks and the expertise of Neo-Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman. They do not believe in cryptocurrencies because they are much more of an anarcho-capitalist thing, beloved by people who are in to stuff like Kek and Pepe the Frog memes. Ergo, liberals have missed out completely on the crypto-currency goldrush. Ergo, they are feeling sore and will do anything to diss Bitcoin.

Definitely, though, if pornography causes global warming then liberals should be worried most. That’s because, at a conservative estimate, liberals consume approximately 150 x more pornography than young right wing males do.

And also, of course, as we would put it in Britain, because liberals are a bunch of grade A, copper-bottomed, ocean-going wankers.

Meanwhile, for those who need a reminder, here’s a handy list of all the other things which are responsible for causing global warming.

Take a look at this from WUWT:

The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming. According to data from NASA’s Spaceweather, so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots.

Across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, the sun’s output has dropped nearly 0.1% compared to the Solar Maximum of 2012-2014. This plot shows the TSI since 1978 as observed from nine previous satellites:

Look at the graph….does it not correspond exactly to how ‘warming’ has occured?  Most recently we have had the famous ‘pause’ from 1998…and then a pick up in the last couple of years [which the BBC claimed now showed we are having record heat]…you can see it in the graph.  The sunspot activity corresponds exactly to the global warming.  Now ‘man made’ global warming may have an influence on top of that but it looks ike there is no denying the influence of sunspots on global temperature…and there is still no proof that it is man-made CO2 that causes global warming….either the primary cause or any cause at all…the ice core evidence pointed to CO2 being a result of global warming.

Is the science settled?  Far from it.  Only at the Spanish Inquisition that is the BBC which has declared the ‘earth is flat and that’s how we like it’…anyone who says otherwise is a heretic and shall be excommunicated and flamed on twitter.

Russian attempts to influence the vote for Brexit amounted to just three paid advertisements that cost less than $1 (or £75 pence), and which were seen by two hundred people.

Who is more dangerous to British democracy….a supposed Russian troll whose subversion nobody has read or a senior political journalist on the flagship political programme of supposedly the most trusted and respected news organisation who knowingly spreads a massive lie with the intent of discrediting and delegitimising the Brexit referendum result in the hope that it is overturned?

Some journalists and pro-Remain activists in Britain this is about something else: An effort to undermine the vote for Brexit and tarnish the legitimacy of the referendum. This strips out human agency, presenting voters as blind sheep that are pushed around by foreign powers and who seemingly have no voice or beliefs of their own.

In reality, of course, most of the people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted Brexit.

The BBC’s Nick Robinson has been spreading such a lie for quite some time now, along with many of his esteemed colleagues at the BBC, that Russian interference altered the result of both the referendum and the general election.

Hacking the Vote

Highly sophisticated techniques to ‘micro-target’ voters, using personal data and demographics have been credited with contributing to the recent outcomes of both the Brexit vote in the UK and Donald Trump’s victory in America.

Trouble is that is a lie, complete horlicks.  I doubt anybody has been influenced in the slightest by Russian hackers…Leave voters voted leave because that is what they have always wanted to do….and all the massive dark forces of Project Fear arrayed against them failed to change their mind…so a few Russkies on Twitter?  Odd how Robinson is completely unconcerned about the interference of so many foreign busy-bodies who wanted you to vote Remain…not forgetting of course the BBC.

Doubt my doubt?  The truth is out there….from Matthew Goodwin, Professor of Politics at Rutherford College, University of Kent, and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House…..

No, Russia did not cause Brexit, Britain’s Eurosceptic tradition did

Nearly 18 months have passed since Britain voted for Brexit, and yet people are still struggling to come to terms with what actually happened on that fateful day.

Ever since 52 percent of the electorate rejected the advice from much of the political and financial establishment to remain in the European Union, the underlying drivers of this vote have been repeatedly misinterpreted.

One idea that has become increasingly prominent in recent months is that Russia-linked social media accounts played a significant role in the referendum and nudged a misinformed public to vote for Brexit. Yet the evidence for this claim is incredibly thin or, some might say, virtually non-existent.

This is reflected in new evidence released this week by Facebook, in response to requests from the Electoral Commission. The data from Facebook reveals that Russian attempts to influence the vote for Brexit amounted to just three paid advertisements that cost less than $1 (or £75 pence), and which were seen by two hundred people.

Reminder: Leave won the referendum by more than 1.2 million votes.

This follows research at the universities of California and Swansea, which found that Twitter accounts based in Russia did send over 45,000 messages about Brexit, though the vast majority of these tweets (39,000) were sent after voting had finished.

Furthermore, some of those sent before the vote even encouraged people to vote to remain in the EU.

Some journalists and pro-Remain activists in Britain this is about something else: An effort to undermine the vote for Brexit and tarnish the legitimacy of the referendum. This strips out human agency, presenting voters as blind sheep that are pushed around by foreign powers and who seemingly have no voice or beliefs of their own.

In reality, of course, most of the people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted Brexit.

The BBC needs to apologise for the lies that its journalists are spreading and rein them in rather than letting them go freelance in the ‘populist press’ to try and influence Leave voters with yet more Project Fear propaganda and lies.

It’s completely normal for muslims in Britain to celebrate Christmas. Don’t even think about questioning that. If you go to a mosque on Christmas day they will probably be singing carols and marvelling at the christmas tree.

Nobody is surprised that Mary Berry’s Christmas Party featured a muslim guest, because we have come to expect such things. Reality and ideology clashed though because almost all of the recipes included either alcohol, or pork, or other non-halal meat. As a result poor old Adil couldn’t eat much more than a canape at the party.

OK. This is what has kept me so busy in recent times – I am pleased to announce that ALTNEWSMEDIA is now live on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Youtube and you can watch our launch trailer below. The web portal goes live in early 2018. I hope you will subscribe.

We have around 40 contributors from around the world, from Canada to Australia, from Singapore to the UK, from the US to Belgium.  We aim to produce written, video, audio and graphic content. The ethos of the site is that it is NOT about “right vs left” but “right vs wrong”

We live at at time when the legacy media is dying, that new media is emerging but it is also being shapened by vested interested (Check out the great Twitter purge). I am determined to provide a serious on-demand alternative. The channel launches in early January.

If you are sick of the biased BBC and its endless fake narratives, please support our new channel! Just subscribe to the channel here.

The real ‘fake news’?  From the likes of the BBC.  How do we know?  An insider reveals all…The BBC’s Amol Rajan:

Fake news isn’t the big problem in news. The big problem in news is…the news

I’ve written several blogs here about fake news, a phenomenon whose supposed rise has coincided with my time as media editor. Correlation not causation, let me assure you.

In summary: fake news is nothing new, though technology has allowed it to be disseminated further and faster than ever; its prevalence in Britain is unclear; and many of those who bang on about it, from politicians to the mainstream media, have an incentive to inflate the threat.

It’s also a distraction from the real issues, which are the editorial selections and judgements that comprise the news. Getting news right – choosing which stories to cover, and how to cover them – is a constant challenge. No programme editor ever goes to bed thinking “We got everything right today”.

But doing the stories that really matter, and getting them right, is a much bigger challenge to the integrity of news in Britain than the alleged threat from fake news.

Yep…editorial selections and judgements…all those choices of what to include and what to omit from the news, who to interview and how to edit and choose what to report from such interviews, how to not challenge post-truth truths such as ‘institutional racism’…know what that is?  Doubt it even though the BBC has been talking about it all day and happily declaring the death of an immigrant as due to such a thing.  Did we hear any of this from the BBC?…

Some neighbours accused Mr Ebrahimi of assault, harassment, drunkenness, being verbally abusive and sometimes intimidating. He was arrested on a number of occasions but was never charged with or convicted of any offence.

He was seriously attacked on previous occasions at different addresses [and the council moved him and provided accomodation]…you have to ask why that happened?  Was it racism or his own behaviour as ‘trouble’ seemed to follow him around.

Seems the police and council reaction was not due to racism but a ‘mistaken’ view of his behaviour…

The police and Bristol City Council shared information in relation to Mr Ebrahimi and the incidents involving him on many occasions. Initially, both agencies provided a degree of support and referred him to SARI, who supported him until 2011. However, latterly, evidence provided for this review indicates that the police and Bristol City Council wrongly began to see Mr Ebrahimi as the primary problem. There were two incidents in 2009 and 2010 in which Mr Ebrahimi was wrongly judged to have provided inaccurate

representations of events and his allegations seemed thereafter to be wrongly regarded with suspicion.

They failed to react to his complaints because they didn’t believe him due to past events…not racism.  His murder due to him being labelled a paedophile and caught filming the children of the man who subsequently killed him….so…racism?

Mr Ebrahimi was killed because Lee James subjected him to a vicious attack whilst perceiving him to be a sex offender and angered that he had recorded his children on film and that he had continued to record material and be defiant to Mr James after having been confronted earlier. Lee James had not been involved in any incidents in relation to events before 11th July 2013. Lee James’ personal internal inhibitors were likely to have been adversely affected by his alcohol consumption and his understanding of a local negative perception of Mr Ebrahimi that might see support for such an attack on him. Although Mr Ebrahimi’s ethnic origin may have contributed to Lee James’ negative view of him, there is no direct evidence to establish this with any certainty.

So was it ‘institutionl racism’ or the usual institutional lack of joined up thinking and awareness and the usual bureaucratic sluggardliness?  The ‘key factor’…the ‘critical blocker’ to a proper response?…..racism or something else?…

The key factor that seems to have most adversely affected the responses to Bijan Ebrahimi by the statutory agencies is that a collective incorrect view was formed that he could be dishonest, that he was a nuisance, a time waster and difficult to deal with. Evidence available indicates that some became of the incorrect opinion that Mr Ebrahimi brought victimisation on himself because of his own behaviour. This appears to have been a significant factor in there being an absence of will to deal with the problems with which he presented, to take the side of others against him and to assess that it was his behaviour that was the problem that needed to be confronted. The lack of a professional and objective view of his situation was a critical blocker.

The claim of ‘institutional racism’ is tacked onto the end of the report with absolutely no evidence to back it up…as with the MacPherson Repoert there was no evidence of racism in individual behaviour nor  in the policies of the police or council…..

SPOTY…Sir Mohamed…institutional ‘racism’?

Paula Radcliffe insists husband Gary Lough did not call Sir Mo Farah’s SPOTY win ‘f****** joke*

Spot the BBC bias and list it here……

In these dark days, where we have to worry about “possible Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum“, perhaps we should look at other votes too?

Mo Farah has won the Sports Personality award. Did Russia try to exert influence on the vote in order to subvert democracy?

Well just look at this damning evidence. Suspicious Kremlin linked Twitter bot accounts have posted many tweets about Mo Farah. Perhaps we should have a second referendum Sports Personality Vote? Also, where’s our £350m?

When does Mo Farah race? Live stream information and more from London 2017 ahead of his final race https://t.co/ey60FgvqFl #Russia

— RUSSIA NEWS SERVICE (@EINRussiaNews) August 12, 2017

#Russia Mo Farah Falls but Hardly Misses a Step in 10,000-Meter Victory: The defending Olympic champion will … https://t.co/1AcYxaAiXS

— Russia (@RssRussia) August 14, 2016

Politics Mo Farah 'really excited' for Rio – Mo Farah says he's excited for Rio but feels bad that Russia's cle… https://t.co/mmTLwHke0v

— George R (@GRCONS) July 25, 2016

#WadaLeaks: Rafael Nadal, Mo Farah among sport icons exposed in results list https://t.co/N0X6RjjAQ7 pic.twitter.com/V86a6l7URE

— RT (@RT_com) September 20, 2016

You may have noticed, as we’ve pointed out, that the BBC refuses to mention the fact that the Iranians arrested Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe because of her work at the BBC’s Media Action.  The Chair of which is still the BBC’s new head of news Fran  Unsworth.

Will the BBC’s serious omission of dodging this inconvenient truth so as not to implicate the BBC in Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s plight be corrected now that we have someone who is so closely linked to the case?  Doubt it somehow….and don’t expect the BBC’s coverage of the EU to change either….Media Action received £9 million to peddle EU propaganda.

“Its work has absolutely no bearing on the BBC’s editorial decisions. The BBC’s editorial remit is to deliver fair, balanced and impartial coverage and we are satisfied that our coverage of the European Union does just that.”