Category Archives: BBC bias

‘I happen to think this brief glimpse of the truth was the most important political revelation of our time.  We have been betrayed.’  Peter Hitchens on Labour’s secret immigration policy

David Goodhart, the lefty academic who ‘self-radicalised’ as he studied mass immigration and the effects of Islam upon Western society and, as his eyes were opened, came to the conclusion that neither was to our benefit, has revealed to the world, in the Sunday Times, the philosophy behind so much of the BBC’s reporting and of those who support the EU…no surprises here….

At an Oxford college dinner six years ago I told my neighbour – Gus O’Donnell [one of the BBC’s goto voices for  pro-EU pitch dressed up as sage, impartial civil servant advice], then in his last few months as cabinet secretary, the most senior civil servant in the land – that I was writing a book about immigration.  He replied:  “When I was at the Treasury I argued for the most open door possible to immigration….I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare, not national welfare.”  [His job?  Thought he was there to do the bidding of his political masters not make policy himself]

I was surprised to hear this and asked the man sitting next to him, Mark Thompson – then director-general of the BBC – whether he believed global welfare should be put before national welfare, if the two should conflict.  He defended O’Donnell and said he too believed global welfare was paramount.

Is it healthy for a democracy when such powerful persons hold views that are evidently at odds with the core political intuitions of the majority of the public?

Further reading…

David Goodhart in 2004…

Too diverse?

Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state?

The nation state remains irreplaceable as the site for democratic participation and it is hard to imagine how else one can organise welfare states and redistribution except through national tax and public spending. Moreover, since the arrival of immigrant groups from non-liberal or illiberal cultures it has become clear that to remain liberal the state may have to prescribe a clearer hierarchy of values.

Goodhart has critical views about Islam as revealed in this BBC programme….

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

David Coleman, professor of demography at the the University of Oxford, said:

“Many of the consequences of large scale migration are damaging.  We do not need up to 13 million more people by the mid century.   Almost all that increase will be immigrants and their children.  It will not make the UK a happier or richer place.  Crowding and congestion will have entirely negative effects, increasing pressure on schools, hospitals and particulary housing.”

Simon Ross, director of Population Concern, said it was time people looked at the consequences migration had on quality of life.

“There’s a lot of people with vested interests in immigration, the universities and employers for instance….People talk about the taxes that migrants pay but that is a short term view. Migrants have children and get old and we need to take account of the services they will eventually use.  We should not reduce migration simply to a taxation issue.  We should talk about its effect on British society including the need for more housing which effects the green belt and transport infrastructure.  These are quality of life issues.”

The Government knows all this because it studies the consequences of world affairs…but ignores them, or refuses to deal with the difficult questions..such as is Islam compatible with Western democracy?  Western society is heading for implosion and war [many migrants have already joined the war against the West and Western ideas] as immigrants are allowed to flood in, immigrants who don’t hold the same values and beliefs….

You may want to read this forecast from 2007 of what the future may well bring….and indeed has…

Identity & Interest – Potential Implications
While citizenship and physical security will remain important, individual loyalty to the state and state institutions will become increasingly conditional, based on personal identity and interest.
Nationhood and ethnicity in certain countries will continue to influence human behaviour and international relations.
Diaspora communities and their networks will be dynamic and unpredictable features of the political, demographic and economic aspects of globalization.
Physical and cultural origin will continue to be significant to identity, but will be employed increasingly selectively, based on their utility in context and in relation to personal interest.
Communities will increasingly form around the pursuit of common interests.

The expansion of global media and Information Communications Technology (ICT) will
heighten the sense of grievance and marginalization between ‘haves and have-nots’,
nationally and internationally. This is likely to lead to populism, human crises and
confrontations, typified by inter-communal and inter-ethnic conflicts at local level, but,
when related to access to strategic resources necessary to sustain developed or
developing economies, may increase the incidence and risk of international confrontation.
Communicable disease will continue to be a feature of human life; while familiar diseases
will be eradicated or mitigated through prophylaxis or cure, others will emerge, of varying
intensity and impact, alongside the constant risk of low incidence, but potentially high
impact, pandemics.

From Newstime Africa, and why it paid Labour to import voters… 

Thousands of asylum seekers in the UK are to benefit from new rules set by the government to clear backlogs of about 450,000 applicants within the immigration system,

But African’s across the UK have welcomed the news and this will give a big boost to the Labour party in the forthcoming gen­eral elections as this would mean over a million family members who may not have been eli­gi­ble to vote as a result of their status would now cast their votes for the first time in the UK. We are urging all those who are set to benefit from this new rules to cast their votes for the Labour party as they have shown courage in the face of conservative adversity to make this positive move that will go down well in places as far as villages in remote areas in Africa whose loved ones have faced intolerable suffering in Britain as a result of touch immigration policies.

From now on this press would mount a ‘VOTE FOR LABOUR’ campaign in recognition and appreciation of this brilliant move by the labour government to make life much easier for African immigrants in the UK. This move is a clear indication that the Labour party is the party of the people!!

By Voting Labour you secure for yourself a bright future in the UK. The UK conservative party is not an option for immigrants; they simply don’t want to see us here!! At least the Labour government has granted 3 amnesties since they came to power.

My friend, just vote labour!!

Any interest from the BBC about this anti-Polish racism from a Muslim who tells him this is not your country and slags him off for eating pork…must be due to Brexit then…or Islam….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqDMjXC8_Ao

No BBC shocked outrage?  No calls to the Polish Ambassador? No linking this to the ideology of Islam asking if Britain has become a nastier, more racist place since Islam came to our shores?  No interest at all…which is funny when you consider how much effort the BBC puts into telling us how badly Poles are treated in this country and that they are fleeing back home because of the racism here #DuetoBrexit.

Looking back at a Biased BBC post from 2014 and we have this…which has now been confirmed by the video…

Was amused though to hear the reply of one Polish girl to Peter Allen’s leading question along the lines of….‘Do the Brits like you?’ (49 mins)

Her reply was interesting…she said she was always welcomed by British people…however when living in London…er..the people were different….but now she lives in Manchester and they are really friendly there.

Hmmm…could she really mean that multicultural London, where the Brits have been ethnically cleansed from, is less friendly than good old racist white Britain?

You can get a very good idea of the BBC’s wilfully misleading playing to the gallery attitude and its hypocrisy from two recent speeches, one by Lord Hall Hall, and one by James Purnell.

Lord Hall Hall outlines the BBC’s ever-increasing power bid as it seeks to spread its influence into every media organisation across the country and in many outside as well, and illustrates how the BBC’s ‘diversity’ plan is in essence just a tick-box exercise lacking that thing that Hall Hall claims the BBC is all about…diversity of thought, opinion and intellect.

Today I want to talk a little about why this is so important right now, about what we at the BBC can do to help and how the whole of the industry must come together to support a project that is vital to all our futures.

There’s too big a gap between the education sector and the industry. And as an older generation retires, the struggle is to find a new generation with the skills to replace it.

But the truth is, broadcasting in particular remains a relationship-based, ‘who you know’ industry.

Too often, employers offer placements and internships through networks or contacts. Of course, this marginalises those who don’t have connections, especially those outside the big cities, and it favours the well-connected and well-off from the South East of England.

A sector that, instead of being a force for social mobility, is too often a source of social exclusion.

At the BBC, this is a problem we take very seriously.

First, because it’s part of our mission to represent, and be representative of, the whole of the country. 

And second, because we’re really serious about being the most creative organisation in the world.

We know we can’t achieve this unless we draw on the full creative potential of the whole of the country – and allow no barriers to get in the way.

Getting the very best at the BBC means making sure we draw on all of the talent the country has to offer.

Ours is already one of the most diverse workforces in the UK…For me, one of the real priorities is to get more women, and more people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, into our most senior leadership positions.

And, let me say, this is not just about investing in top talent for the BBC – it’s for the whole industry. One of our first group of Assistant Commissioners, for instance, is now a comedy commissioner at Sky.

To truly address the problem, there has to be sector-wide leadership, and a collective response.

That’s where the role of the National College is so vital….

We want to open up the BBC to you – in every way we can.

I’m aware that a National College needs a national orbit. And as the only employer in our sector who’s everywhere across the UK – I want to throw open our doors.

Can we help you develop regional centres around the UK and widen access to training?

Can we host students at our base in Birmingham, for example? Or in Salford at MediaCity?

We want to put our expertise at your service.

Yep…putting the BBC’s expertise at other meida organisation’s service…and making sure a BBC ‘ethos’ is spread along with that ‘expertise’.

Purnell gives a fine example of the anti-Brexit hypocrisy as he argues for ever-increasing BBC dominance to ‘protect our culture’….

The future of broadcasting isn’t the only thing that will shape the future of our culture. But it matters.

We may not realise what an important thing we could be losing. That in a very English, informal, un-strategic way we lose control of our culture. No one wills it. Nor has it happened yet. But if we don’t act soon our culture could soon be mostly baked on the other side of the Atlantic.

The one thing we do know is that if we get it right, the future of our culture will be supported. Because we will have British institutions, telling British stories, so that we continue to be able to shape our way of life, our customs, ideas and beliefs.

That matters for our culture and OFCOM should have the power to intervene in on-demand environments, not just linear ones, as now to secure prominence for public service content.

Purrnell’s speech is in effect a massive land grab, a power grab that aims to keep the BBC on top, dominating the media landscape as he demands special treatment for the BBC as it is being outgunned by the [American] commercial sector…Purnell wants government intervention to ensure the BBC remains on top as it moves into the digital realm….note his moan about how the media has become less democratic…emm…as the giant BBC is elbowed out of the way by the consumers choosing to watch the massive ‘giant media oligarchs’ such as Amazon or Netflix or Google and Facebook…so more consumer choice is less democratic?  Seems the BBC is just a bit jealous that it has competition for its long held almost monopoly of the media scene…,.

In creating the BBC, Britain gave an example to the world of how the right application of new technology could democratise culture.

Britain managed to develop a model that had the best of all worlds.

A thriving market alongside ambitious public provision.

An openness to American imports made possible by our confidence in our own creative industries.

We never tried to keep Hollywood out, because we were confident that our stuff was good enough to compete – and it was.

That success was built on two foundations – investment and distribution. We funded wonderful work. And we made sure audiences could find it.

But today, we have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that both of these are under threat. The good news is that there’s a way to rescue them.

The Economist reported last month that this is a golden age for couch potatoes.

Netflix’s revenues have tripled in five years. Its annual content budget is more than the BBC’s entire income.

There are 350,000 podcast strands available on iTunes. 13 million individual episodes. It would take around 50 lifetimes to listen to them all.

So, this is a Golden Age for consumers.

British talent benefits, as well. The BBC’s House of Cards got remade as Netflix’s first blockbuster drama, while the Night Manager and the Crown shared five awards at the Golden Globes.

But here is the rub. The Crown cost over £100 million. That could have funded BBC2 for three months. Sky and BT spend as much on the Premier League rights every year as BBC One and Channel 4 do on programmes.

As The Economist also said “entertainment has in some ways become less democratic, not more. Technology is making the rich richer, skewing people’s consumption of entertainment towards the biggest hits and the most powerful platforms. This world is dominated by an oligarchy of giants, including Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and Disney.”

Every single one of them American.

If our media became dominated by a few American companies, however innovative and well-intentioned, how would that affect our culture, and its ability to evolve?

So, yes this is a golden age for British industry and talent. It is a golden age for consumers. But will it be a golden age for our culture?

the position is precarious.

If investment in British content continues to fall, our cultural success will be in jeopardy.

How do we avoid that? How do we get the best of all worlds again?

First, we need to grow. That will be mainly down to us, the industry. And it’s starting to happen….Thanks to tax credits, an extra £2 billion has gone into films and television programmes.

The BBC’s role is the same today as it was in 1922. It is to bring the best of everything, to everyone.

To do that, as Tony Hall said in January, we need to reinvent public service broadcasting, for a new generation.

To continue to deliver our public purpose, we need to stop this decline by investing.

And in education, we’ll explore new ways of reaching audiences too.

We’ve got many of the world’s best cultural institutions…..The BBC is their loudhailer.

We’re also going to be working with our partners inside and beyond the BBC to create thoughtful content aimed at this audience. And we’re going to see how the BBC can help people consuming that content make even more of it, by learning more about themselves and showing them onward education journeys….We call this scheme of work Ideas Service.

The one thing we do know is that if we get it right, the future of our culture will be supported. Because we will have British institutions, telling British stories, so that we continue to be able to shape our way of life, our customs, ideas and beliefs.

We all need to reinvent radio, to make sure the next generation grows up with a radio habit.

But there is one more urgent thing Parliament can do.

In the 2003 Communications Act, Parliament took a far-sighted decision. It insisted that the Public Service Broadcasters should be at the top of the programme guide on satellite, cable and DTT. That reform has worked well.

But as audiences move to on-demand services like iPlayer that provision risks becoming less effective. New TV set-top boxes and Smart TVs only have a limited number of slots on their front page. If those places are filled by the content from the platform owners or from Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, or Spotify , that leaves little room for the Public Service Broadcasters.

That matters for our culture and OFCOM should have the power to intervene in on-demand environments, not just linear ones, as now to secure prominence for public service content.

Economic disaster stalks the land once more as the Brexit effect takes hold at long, long last, sighs the BBC with relief…remember though last September when we said this about the BBC’s reluctance to report almost record high PMI figures…

Just a few weeks ago the BBC was trumpeting the then latest PMI figures that had dipped below 50 and in the BBC’s interpretation this definitely showed we were heading for recession due to Brexit.  This ‘news’ was constantly and loudly broadcast on the day the figures were released.

How different yesterday when the latest PMI figures [53.3] were released showing that ‘the month-on-month increase in the PMI level was the joint largest in the survey’s 25-year history.’

The figures were released at 09:30, the BBC didn’t report this until around 21:00 and the radio news was totally silent all day on this remarkable turn around in contrast to the very high profile the figures received last month.  Odd that the BBC was not chomping at the bit to get these latest ‘good news’ figures that give the lie to the BBC’s scaremongering about Brexit.

It seems we have had an effect and the BBC has taken note….they now leap at the chance to publish the latest PMI figures…

UK economy ‘loses momentum’ as services growth slows

Growth in the UK’s service sector eased to a five-month low in February, according to a closely watched survey.

The Markit/CIPS purchasing managers’ index (PMI) for services fell to 53.3, down from 54.5 in January. However, it remains above the 50 threshold that separates growth from contraction.

The economy has “lost momentum” after “impressive” growth [ignored by the BBC] at the end of 2016, said Chris Williamson of IHS Markit.

Markit said the sector had been stung by the steepest rise in costs for more than eight years as a result of the weak pound.

Wonder why the BBC are suddenly so keen to report these latest PMI figures and do so in such a dramatic fashion….the economy ‘losing momentum’ as a headline?

The BBC tells us [35 mins]…

One of the UK’s leading food fraud experts is warning that a trade deal with the US will result in imports of lower quality food that the British public doesn’t want. Professor Chris Elliott, founder of the Institute for Global Food Security at Queen’s University Belfast, says that a trade deal after Brexit will mean accepting imports of food that is currently not sold in the UK because of current EU regulations. He warns that such foods will be vulnerable to mislabelling and food fraud.

What the BBC doesn’t emphasises is just how closely tied to the EU he is and how anti-Brexit he is as he scaremongers about it….

• Prof Chris Elliott‏ @QUBFoodProf Feb 27
  

  Sir John Major states ‘Brexit will be a historic mistake’. Couldn’t put it better myself .

And he says…

I still hope that the EU referendum result is a figment of my imagination, but as each day passes the horrible reality of what may happen becomes more and more real. All around the country, people, businesses and universities are all trying to work out what the implications are to their own lives and the functioning of their organisations.

It is my belief and hope that inside or outside the EU we will maintain the same degree of rigour in checking our food is safe and free from fraud. But like so many other issues around Brexit, we are jumping blindfolded by a Union Jack handkerchief into a shark-infested ocean.

I suppose the EU regulations and control stopped a massive EU wide horse meat food fraud from happening?  Oh..no…It didn’t…funny how he fails to mention that on the programme…or anything about what he has been tweeting about so recently…illegal use of pesticides…the EU not stop that then?…

Eoghan Daly‏ @Eoghan_LDN Mar 1

• Prof Chris Elliott‏ @QUBFoodProf Mar 1

  PIckled beets turn up in Germany laced with illegal Rhodamine B industrail dye http://www.cleankids.de/2017/02/10/gesundheitsgefahr-rhodamin-b-in-sauer-eingelegte-rueben-von-tugra/63083 …

• Prof Chris Elliott‏ @QUBFoodProf Mar 1

  UK Police warn about illegal pesticide use. Link to organised crime in parts of EU.Not here? @iffnmanchester http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/police-warning-about-the-dangers-of-illegal-pesticides-1-4378088 …

 He attacks the US for chlorine washed chicken…of course we”ve heard that peddled by BBC correspondents before, the chlorine is in very low dilutions and you probably go swimminbg regularly in chlorine filled pools, swallowing much of it.  And yet you still live.  He mentions growth hormones but has to admit that they pose no health risk…unless they are used incorrectly, a qualification you could add to any food stuff or product…not just imports from America.

It seems he is solely concerned in reality with anti-Brexit propaganda and the BBC welcomes him on with open arms of course.

I wonder, did he raise such objections when the EU were negotiating the TTIP trade agreement with the US when others were raising exactly the same concerns?

Concerns have also been raised that TTIP could lead to the erosion of protection offered to European regional food specialities.

Chlorine chicken, hormone beef? European fears over American ‘Frankenfood’ imports

TTIP trade deal could see poorly regulated American food hit British tables

So whether we have Brexit or not we could have the same trade deal problems..if that is what they are.

So nothing to do with Brexit then?

And never mind…

Leading European food safety authorities have determined that several US practices in contention — such as sanitizing poultry in lightly chlorinated water — are safe.

So nothing to do with food safety then?…

French President François Hollande has openly backed the trade deal. But in an interview with The Washington Post, Matthias Fekl, France’s new secretary of state for foreign trade, said he could not envision any deal that opens the door to controversial US foods.

“This is about lifestyle, about way of life,” Fekl said. “Nothing will force us to expand entry into Europe of chlorinated chicken or hormone beef.”

 

It’s really about paranoia, anti-Americanism and anti-Brexit alarmism.

The BBC has jumped all over the Sessions story in the States, sensing more blood. It acts as a mouthpiece of the Democrat Party, entirely partisan, 100% anti-Trump. Simply not worth watching.

This erudite article is worth your attention

“When it comes to inaccurate, hopelessly biased “reporting” on immigration, Americans are spoiled for choice. Advocacy journalism is now more the rule than the exception and so rebutting and correcting the deluge of crooked immigration “reporting” is something of a Sisyphean task. Consuming a steady diet of mainstream media immigration “reporting” is akin to relocating to a toxic waste dump — after a while, you barely even notice the stench.

But every so often, I stumble across an immigration piece or segment so odious, so egregious, so hopelessly partisan in nature and execution that I can hardly digest it without retching. Sometimes, dear readers, journalists distinguish themselves with something so foul that they deserve to be named and shamed. This nine-minute, 16-second propaganda piece on the origins and impact of the sanctuary city movement in San Francisco, broadcast on the BBC “Witness” program on February 10, is just such a creature.

As the weekend beckons, here is a NEW Open thread on which to detail the bias. Over to you,

Sadiq Khan [The man who made being ‘Mooslim’ an election issue in the Mayoral election] claims the SNP are racist..

“In that respect there’s no difference between those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English or Scottish, and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion.

“Now of course I’m not saying that nationalists are somehow racist or bigoted – but now, more than ever – what we don’t need is more division and separation.”

The SNP’s whole independence campaign is in essence one based upon an anti-English narrative…it can hardly be one of political independence as they wish to tie themselves ever closer to the EU, thus it can only be an anti-English stance that drives them…a belief backed up so often by their rhetoric.  In contrast UKIP is purely about politics and sovereignty but that doesn’t stop the BBC defaming them as racists and Nazis…whilst totally ignoring the claim that the SNP is racist, in fact the BBC so often cheerleading for the independence movement…because of course that lessens the unity and power of Britain and allows the EU to pick off the smaller nation states like Scotland.

Now the BBC is interested…why?  Because a Muslim has piped up and a black, female feminist who backed Khan has fled Twitter in fear for her life because of the abuse she got.  As with Khan, who identifies strongly as Mooslim, she identifies as black, and proud to be British…and yet shouts about nationalism and the horrors of identity politics….She’s a student…“I’m studying to be a critical race theorist”.

Emma Barnett helpfully exposed [52 mins] what we always knew about the BBC and its view of ‘Nationalism’…she defined it thus…

By definition, historically, nationalism is always about there being an us and there being the ‘other’…an Untermenschen.

Yep, she really did equate nationalism with the very worst aspect of the Nazi ideology…..she wriggled as her interviewee, an SNP politician, told her that was outrageous…and he’s right of course….Barnett lied and said she wasn’t saying that about Scotland…but of course that’s precisely what she was saying.

Still, nice to have down in black and white what the BBC’s definition of nationalism is.

The mid-week open thread is all yours…..

Do you remember this, the outrage, the cries of anti-Muslim racism, the warnings that we are heading back to the 1930’s…surely you do?

Canada’s Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families

Unaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns

The federal government’s much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned.

Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program.

I don’t remember it, never heard about it in fact….not a whimper of outraged liberal angst from the BBC…and yet Trump puts a temporary halt of immigration from 7 countries due to security concerns, countries targeted by Obama, and all hell breaks loose….the BBC constantly insinuating this is a ‘Muslim ban’ by always, always adding ‘Muslim majority countries’ to their reports when Islam had nothing to do with the choice.

Even anti-Trump liberals are starting to object to the Media’s portrayal of Trump…

Is there not something faintly ridiculous about the media’s sudden re-imagining of itself as the last bastion and redoubt of democracy in a time of advancing darkness? Absolutely.

Trump’s demonization of the media is a cynical political ploy. But this only raises the question of why this anti-media position should be politically advantageous? Why is journalism one of the least trusted professions among Americans, vying with Congress, prostitutes, and used car salesmen for the bottom of the rankings? Absolutely no self-reflection from the media has followed the election of Trump, only an orgy of self-righteousness and blame-shifting…the media often interprets his comments literally so that they seem untrue and fantastical, even when reading them in context shows that what Trump means is something much less outrageous, or at least different.

And here’s an article [from Jan. 2016] on the problems we’re going to have as, what is basically an ‘army’ from Muslim countries, has been allowed to enter Europe…

Europe’s Man Problem

Migrants to Europe skew heavily male—and that’s dangerous.

According to official counts, a disproportionate number of these migrants are young, unmarried, unaccompanied males. In fact, the sex ratios among migrants are so one-sided—we’re talking worse than those in China, in some cases—that they could radically change the gender balance in European countries in certain age cohorts.  Years of research has shown that male-dominated societies are less stable, because they are more susceptible to higher levels of violence, insurgence and mistreatment of women.  66.26 percent of adult migrants registered through Italy and Greece over the past year were male, according to the International Organization of Migration.According to Swedish government statistics, as of the end of November, 71 percent of all applicants for asylum to Sweden in 2015 were male. 

Fear of terrorism might not be the only reason to be leery of highly abnormal sex ratios among the young adult population. As my co-author Andrea Den Boer and I argued in our book, societies with extremely skewed sex ratios are more unstable even without jihadi ideologues in their midst. Numerous empirical studies have shown that sex ratios correlate significantly with violence and property crime—the higher the sex ratio, the worse the crime rate. Our research also found a link between sex ratios and the emergence of both violent criminal gangs and anti-government movements.

While the humanitarian needs of the refugees streaming into Europe must be foremost in our minds at this time, policymakers in Sweden and other countries should also think of the long-term consequences of an unprecedented alteration in the young adult sex ratios of their societies.