Who, what, where, when, why.

Fairly basic journalistic principles.  Not for the BBC who when ‘reporting’ a shooting in a Canadian mosque fail utterly too bring us any information of any relevance other than this was ‘a terrorist attack on Muslims’ thus suggesting it was non-Muslims doing the shooting.  It could be.  But two minutes on Google and you find out first it is a Sunni Muslim cultural centre [so we can probably dismiss Sunni against Shia or Ahmadiya].

Second that those arrested are allegedly a Quebec citizen [ethnicity/religion unknown] and an ‘Arab’….

Un des deux hommes arrêtés dans le cadre de l’attentat terroriste survenu dans une mosquée de Québec serait d’origine québécoise et l’autre serait d’origine arabe

Third that witnesses say that the shooters shouted ‘Allah Akhbar’ [CBC News]…maybe a ‘false flag’..but unlikely as they must know they were likely to be caught and thus exposed.

This information has been easily available all night and yet the Today show mentioned none of them in its ‘report’ and markedly failed to ask ‘who’ the shooters were…a normal question of any journalist especially when the shooters had been arrested and thus something must be known of their identity…you suspect they didn’t ask because they knew the available information is rather inconvenient for the BBC narrative. The R4 news similarly censored what we were allowed to know….again telling us this was a terrorist attack on Muslims….indeed it was and yet the BBC approach is to insinuate that it is an Islamophobic attack rather than an inter-Muslim dispute of some kind which so far the limited evidence seems to point to.

The BBC website does a similarly limited report on the shooting, however the BBC is able to bring you information about something that didn’t happen last night but is intended to encourage you to think this was an Islamophobic attack…

In June last year the same mosque was the target of an Islamophobic incident when a pig’s head was left in front of the building, with a card saying “bonne appetit”.

Eating pork is forbidden in Islam..

Once again the BBC shapes the news in order to manipulate your views.

Here you go, on time and locked and loaded! Detail the shocking bias here please and don’t hold back.

Three very seriously and dangerously subversive anti-Western, anti-Trump narratives in one interview from Lyse Doucet to which I referred earlier but Craig at Is the BBC biased? [hell yeah] has helpfully gone to the huge effort of transcribing….

First, that terrorism is our fault and that any action we take to tackle it only angers Muslims more and radicalises them more.  Doucet says this is a ban on all Muslims [patently not as she later admits…paradoxically trying to use the fact not all Muslims are banned as a stick to beat Trump with] and that Trump is condemning a whole religion [again clearly not…just the violent fanatics whom Obama has already pinpointed…a fact Doucet misses out].  A narrative that is beloved of the Muslim radicals themselves…a win win…they win if you bow to their violence, and then they win if you bow to their non-violence..ie you do what they want because otherwise it would inflame the situation…otherwise known as blackmail.  Doucet also links Trump’s policy to the Far-Right in Europe in an incredibly grotesque and fantastical piece of journalism. [LOL]

Second, that the BBC fully intends, as always, to personalise immigrants’ stories in order to exploit the viewer’s emotions, manipulating their thoughts and perceptions towards being more sympathetic and less reasoned and logical about things….facts no longer matter here.

Third, that there is the claim that Trump is avoiding countries he does business with…as mentioned the countries targeted are those listed by Obama as of concern, those that are failed states with large numbers of Islamist terrorists roaming freely around them.  Pakistan [despite a long history of also backing the Taliban] and Saudi [with along record of backing IS, as has Turkey …a NATO member] are supposedly strategic partners and allies…hence not targeted…right or wrong…long term US, and UK, policy, not a Trump thing at all.

Shame Doucet, supposedly a professional journalist, cannot provide us with a proper analysis rather than conspiracy theories and prejudiced idiocy that passes for BBC journalism these days that itself fuels and supports the terrorist narrative….such as this…

1.  This would provide fodder for recruitment, it would give more fuel to the fire – and, literally, they are fires in the Middle East caused by the so-called Islamic State fighters and this proves their point. So it is a very, very dangerous, a very potent weapon, in the hands of a so-called Islamic state. And I think the distinction has to be that former president Clinton, former President Barack Obama, Western leaders, have talked about about the need to fight against those elements who used Islam, the religion of Islam, for violence, for political reasons, But it is not the same thing as condemning a whole religion on the basis of religion. But we’ve seen now, not just in the United States but across Europe as well, far-right leaders, populist leaders, using this as a political weapon to tarnish an entire religion because of actions carried out by those…and those who know the faith well say that it is a distortion of of the religion.
2.  They say it’s racist, it’s illegal and it’s a huge black mark on the United States. So, and I think, as more and more stories continue to come out of people stopped at the airport, people whose lives will be torn apart. The stories you’re hearing now are heartbreaking. People have waited years and years for their green card or to be accepted as refugees now literally been turned back.
3.  You can find now on the internet the maps which show the countries which had been banned and the ones which haven’t, and some other countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, are places where Donald Trump does business.

It’s not just a BIASED broadcaster, it’s disreputable and a menace. BBC coverage of President Trump’s first week has been a scandal and as I write this it is foaming at the mouth about a non-existing ‘Muslim Ban”. Just about EVERY BBC presenter (including, lamentably Andrew Neil) is hostile to Trump and their studios are full of “experts” who come to damn Trump. There is NO pretence at balance, this is pure narrative and it sickens my stomach. You?

Thanks to Guest Who for this…

Of course one assassination attempt has already been made on Trump, by a Brit, undoubtedly influenced by the BBC’s sensationalist and scaremongering fake news stories that constantly labelled Trump a racist, a sexist and an Islamophobe and repeatedly built on the idea that Trump would bring about the end of the world as we know it with a rise in racism, fascism and war.

If Knight is not arrested and charged why not?  The police might also consider bringing in Lord Hall for questioning…..

President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these “domestic propagandists” were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

The ‘domestic propagandists’ that work at the BBC are genuinely dangerous, the real enemy within that fuels terror and incites hatred and division between races and religions.

The BBC has trotted out the usual narrative that Trump’s temporary ban on people entering the US from certain countries of concern to Obama will fuel terrorism.  I might suggest the sensationalist, mendacious and false reporting of the BBC actually fuels terrorism as it gives unwarranted credibility and justification to the radical recruiters and terrorists.

Others have similar concerns about the likes of the BBC’s pro-terror narrative...from Terra Incognita…

Looking at the BBC frontpage there are endless reports linked to the Trump immigration action and yet not a lot of actual facts.  Pretty much a fact free zone…much like this story about Mo Farrah….a full-on British citizen so really should have no trouble entering the US…but the BBC works it into a scandal…Mo is upset…he’s an ‘alien’…

“On 1 January this year, Her Majesty The Queen made me a Knight of the Realm. On 27 January, President Donald Trump seems to have made me an alien.”

The BBC is telling us that Trump is banning ‘Muslims’…but fairly obviously he is not…just stopping people from certain countries, as defined as being of concern by Obama, from travelling…and it is not a ‘ban’ fullstop, but a temporary, as we always knew, measure that is intended to allow more secure vetting to be implemented.  The BBC is once again involved in stirring up Muslim anger and deliberately creating a narrative that invents a grievance that will be exploited by terrorists.

Obama already restricted travel from these countries but in a below the liberal radar deception and he deported thousands of immigrants back across the border…from ABC News….

Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President

President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the “Deporter in Chief.”

Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who “self-deported” or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection

And note…91% of those removed in 2015 were criminals…in other words Trump was correct when he complained about criminals coming across the border as migrants…

In fiscal year 2015, 91 percent of people removed from inside the U.S. were previously convicted of a crime.

Obama set in motion the travel ban from certain countries for refugees….

From WND:

Although the Obama administration currently[2015] refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.

The terrorists were not taken into custody until 2011. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department stopped processing refugee requests from Iraqis for six months in order to review and revamp security screening procedures:

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

Trump’s law refers to Obama’s definition of which countries are of concern….

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.

Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you…

In February 2016 “The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” It was the US policy under Obama to restrict and target people “who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions).” This was text of the US Customs and Border Protection in 2015 relating to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. The link even includes the seven nation list in it: “Iraq, Syria, Iran, SUdan, Somalia or Yemen.”  And the media knew this back in May 2016 when some civil rights groups complained about it. “These restrictions have provoked an outcry from the Iranian-American community, as well as Arab-American and civil-liberties groups, who say the restrictions on dual nationals and certain travelers are discriminatory and could be imposed against American dual nationals.”

Obama didn’t explicitly ban travel from these countries he merely imposed restrictions that meant travel might well be impossible…

Switched the radio on and 10 minutes in the BBC had already managed to disseminate a stream of ludicrous but toxic, poisonous, messages of hate towards Trump.  Guess I was just lucky to tune in at that time.  So unusual for the BBC to be spreading such venomous fear, loathing and hostility about Trump.

They took a gleeful pleasure in reading out the Observer/Guardian view of Trump along with Saira Khan’s careful and reasoned thoughts [perhaps she was actually talking about Islam?]…

The Observer concludes that the president “cannot be trusted” on issues that affect Britain, describing him as “ignorant, prejudiced and vicious in ways that no American leader has been”.

Sunday Mirror columnist Saira Khan describes Trump’s policies as “damaging, isolationist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, backward”, and likely to trigger an “economic arms race” of tit-for-tat tariffs.

The only ‘pro’- Trump newspaper quote came from Niall Ferguson, who was rabidly anti-Trump during the election and whose ‘pro’- Trump message was in fact a meaningless waffle that ended in ‘Maybe we shouldn’t judge quite yet..it’s early days’.  Really hard hitting stuff then.

Then we had Lyse Doucet, an immmigrant who is given carte blanche to spread her own pro-immigration prejudice on the BBC, who told us that the reason Trump didn’t stop travellers from Saudi Arabia was because of his business interests there…never mind he hasn’t blocked those from Afghanistan [and so many, many other Muslim countries]….despite no business interests there.  Hmmm…OK…so did Obama try to block the release of documents that showed Saudi was behind 9/11 because he had business interests there or was it due to geo-political considerations that meant the US weighed up the pros and cons and decided Saudi as an ally outweighed Saudi as an open enemy? Right or wrong, Trump and his advisers would have made exactly the same calculation…and the countries that are blocked are basically failed states that are rife with Islamic terrorists plus Iran which is openly a source of terror and anti-American aggression around the world.  Doucet fails to apply the same standards to Obama as she does to Trump in what is a fairly outrageous slander of him.  Funny how the BBC always dodges the huge amounts of money funnelled towards the Clintons by the Saudis as evidenced by the hacked emails that the BBC also refuses to investigate.

Doucet then articulated what is the BBC’s favourite tactic when trying to weaponise immigrants for the cause…personalise their stories…millions of immigrants are scary but ignore them and tell the tale of individual immigrants and pull the wool over the viewers’ eyes as to the consequences of millions of these people with their ‘heartwarming and compelling personal stories’ coming to a Europe near you.  I’m sure everyone is absolutely wonderful in person but as a group bringing an ideology that is radically opposed to nearly all Western values?  As a group the politics and dynamics are very, very different to what an individual might profess…they often put aside personal beliefs in the interest of the amorphous group interest…either through some inherent link to that group that generates an obligation or duty or by intense pressure to conform from the more determined and extreme which is impossible to avoid if you are in a ghettoised or closed off community.  The BBC knows that and smothers the truth.  Doucet thought Trump would come under pressure as more and more tales of personal suffering of those stopped from entering would hit the media…the BBC in particular no doubt….indeed as I type the BBC has a headline…

‘Trump has not seen our suffering’

Have no fear…the BBC will make sure it gets headline status.

The BBC naturally actively seeks to avoid the other side, the personal tales of the victims of immigrants…those murdered, raped, abused, robbed, assaulted or otherwise made victims of crime by immigrants.  Nor indeed the less dramatic but no-less important tales of the ‘natives’ who can’t get into hospitals or to see the GP, or can’t get their child into the school of their choice, or get on the housing ladder because of immigration, or whose wages are undercut or who can’t even get a job.

I’ve been searching the news sites but surprisingly have found absolutely no outraged cries denouncing the BBC because of its Islamophobia, racism, anti-Muslim bigotry, discrimination and misuse of licence-payers’ money to stoke anti-Muslim feeling with the blackest of racist propaganda from the usual sources such as the somewhat creepy Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Surprising because the BBC has been filming a series, Caliphate-UK, that portrays a Britain that has fallen to an Islamic invasion and is under the yoke of a monstrous, inhumane and fascist-like Muslim regime.  The actor Rufus Sewell, who plays an ISIS-like extremist given a position of command in the UK, says that ‘I think reducing Muslims to stereotypical extremists and headchopping radicals screaming ‘Allah Akbar’ as a kind of easy entertainment takes us away from the important fact that they were human beings.  Islam is not populated by all the evil people in the world.  Radicalisation happened to a lot of normal people…it could happen again.  It nearly happened here.  What’s vital is that you get the story of the human beings being sucked into an evil world-view without knowing it as Muslims often are.  That’s one of the things that makes it so timely what we are doing now.’

Maeve Dermody who plays Sewell’s Christian sex slave, says the rise in Islamic supremacist narratives across the world makes this warning from an imagined history unusually pertinent saying “We have such a diminishned sense of history.”

So yes…the Caliphate….a warning from history that we should do more than switch on as if it were merely the latest in historical, dramatic TV entertainment.

Oh, wait, my mistake, should have gone to Specsavers….the BBC is going to broadcast a new series depicting Britain under the jackboot of a Nazi regime…SS-GB, from a Len Deighton book from 1978…..naturally this is not timed nor intended to be a commentary on Brexit or Leave voters…the BBC is definitely not likening those who support Brexit to Nazis nor trying to imply that Brexit and opposition to the Liberal gangsterism that dominates now is leading to the 1930’s.  No, no, no.

However others aren’t quite so dishonest…

Rufus Sewell in the Sunday Times….

“I thnk reducing Nazis to werewolves and zombies and vampires and aliens, as a knd of entertainment, takes us away from the important fact that they were human beings.  Germany was not populated at that time by all the evil people in the world.  It happened to a lot of normal people.  It could happen again.  It nearly happened here.  What’s vital is that you get the story of the human beings being sucked into an evil-world view without knowing it.  That’s one of the things that makes it so timely that we’re doing it now.”

Maeve Dermody fellow actor…“The rise in nationalist sentiment around the world makes this warning from an imagined history unusually pertinent….we have such a diminished sense of history.”

The BBC is using licence money to pump out a viciously racist and political slander against Brexit and those who voted for it in what is the blackest form of propaganda.  Who are the real fascists?  They are making this BBC series.  Brexit an ‘evil world view’?  Only on the BBC.

President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race.

“Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting,” he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. “‘So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?’”

“Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself,” Mr. Obama said. “And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential.”

So vote Democrat, vote often and don’t worry…no-one’s checking?

The BBC insists that Trump had no evidence to back any claim about voter fraud…when of course he did have some evidence…of non-citizens voting and voter fraud elsewhere in previous US elections.  But what of the recent election?  Trump wasn’t talking just about non-citizens but the Washington Times reports Hillary Clinton may have received some benefit from them…will the BBC report this?  I’m guessing not….and even if they do it’ll soon be ‘forgotten’ and we’ll be back to the ‘no evidence’ mantra…..

Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens

Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

ased on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.
“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”

It should also be noted that US states count even non-citizens in their censuses and use that number to decide how many representatives that state will have…thus the more non-citizens there are, even if they cannot vote, that state will get more money and more political clout…and most immigrant states are Democrat…so the Democrats benefit even if there is no vote.  A wrinkle I’m sure the BBC is not keen to mention.

Or this…that Democrat cities want non-citizens to vote…at a local level for now…and indeed allow that…

Some cities are moving to expand voting rights to include noncitizens.

The latest is San Francisco, where the Nov. 8 ballot will include a measure allowing the parents or legal guardians of any student in the city’s public schools to vote in school board elections. The right would be extended to those with green cards, visas, or no documentation at all.

This is an interesting analysis which mirrors what happened almost exactly in the UK, even to the timing.  The Democrats used to be just as hard-line on immigration as the Republicans but that changed around 2002….and now the Democrats see flooding the country with immigrants, grateful immigrants, as a way of winning political power…it failed this time but when yet more millions of immigrants have slipped in to the US?

When the Chicago Council began asking that question in 1998, Democrats saw large-scale immigration no differently from Republicans. After 2002, that started to change, as the percentage of Democratic respondents expressing concern has steadily declined.

Democratic voters probably don’t sit around thinking that higher levels of immigration will lead to a commanding majority. But party leaders do, and devise their policies and messages accordingly.

Essentially the Democrats and Labour sold out and betrayed their country and their population in order to win office.