Category Archives: BBC bias

Originally I was going to say this video about the EU funding highly political oganisations such as Oxfam was purely one posted for interest which had nothing to do with the BBC but on reflection it has everything to do with the BBC.

The BBC, as we know, itself receives fairly large sums of cash from the EU...£20,152,022 (€24,435,906) to be precise. That is the sum dispersed to the BBC from EU funds between 2007-2012 inclusive.

Astonishingly Oxfam has received over €326 million from the EU between 2007 and 2013….last year it received €82.8 million.  Oxfam doesn’t just use this to feed or educate the needy it uses it to lobby and pressurise governments to adopt policies that Oxfam wants them to adopt.  Oxfam is highly political as you can see here…

Europe is facing unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality. Instead of putting people first, policy decision making is increasingly influenced by wealthy elites who bend the rules to their advantage, worsening poverty and economic inequality, while steadily and significantly eroding democratic institutions. Austerity measures and unfair tax systems across Europe are skewed in favour of powerful vested interests. It is time to reverse the course of poverty and inequality in Europe, putting people first. 

Ironically Oxfam discards all thoughts of European security and stability when on another hobby horse...Oxfam Position Paper for EU-Africa Migration..

With the latest figures showing that over the last 15 years at least 31,000 people have died or gone missing while trying to reach Europe, the EU must let human rights be the focus at Valletta and not prioritize the EU’s own agenda of tightened borders and increased state security.

Oxfam is calling for greater commitment to human security and human rights, sustainable development and prevention of violent conflict. Increased securitization of border control, and greater criminalization of irregular migration, will only increase human suffering and the risks to people’s safety. 

As  with the BBC’s finest Oxfam buries its head in the sand when it comes to assessing the impact mass migration of very different cultures into Europe will have.  It talks of security, poverty and inequality in Europe in one breath and then tells us we must allow in unlimited numbers of immigrants in another.

Oxfam’s, and the BBC’s, naivity and wilful blindness are not only ironic but highly dangerous.  A Europe that ends up destabilised and torn apart by immigration makes the whole world less safe because Europe is in the end the source of liberal values that speak of freedom of speech, of human rights, of equality and law.  If Europe as a set of cultures, not a political construct, collapses all those living in poverty and inequality in the rest of the world will have absolutely no chance.  Oxfam’s fine rhetoric takes no account of the reality of mass migration and its consequences that will only lead to conflict and even more refugees and more misery worldwide.

The BBC is no different.  It also of course receives a government grant, one that comes not direct from the British government but via the licence fee system which, due to its compulsory nature, is in fact a government gift given at arms length.  The BBC uses this money as it likes, more often than not to broadcast its propaganda slipped in under the radar into its children’s programmes, comedy, drama and soaps….and to pressurise the government on foreign policy and austerity.

The audience isn’t informed, educated and indeed rarely entertained as it has no choice as to what it hears….the debates are not rounded, balanced or honest.  The BBC pumps out one view on Islam, one view on Europe, one view on Climate Change, one view on the economy and if your views differs you are either mocked, ridiculed and scorned or shut out of the debate.

This is the direct opposite of what the BBC was intended to be as it now is nothing less than a propaganda machine that brooks no opposition and is in reality, despite appearances to the opposite, pretty much in the pay of government when it comes to issues like Islam, attacking the EDL and the ‘Far- Right’ as bidden by the Home Office, and climate, and now of course Europe as the government has adopted a pro-European Union position.

The BBC and the Left launched furious attacks on Murdoch because they told us he was buying influence and forcing politics to go the way he wanted….why the silence about the likes of Oxfam which rakes in a billion Euros a year and uses a lot of that to lobby governments and institutions on highly political matters?  Seems like one law for a ‘right-wing’ media mogul in competition wth the BBC and another for left-wing NGO’s, and the BBC itself, that support mass migration and massive spending programmes.

May I commend this item for your attention? It’s entitled “BBC completely ‘forgot’ about Communist Genocide”

The BBC likes to go with the stereotype that those opposed to mass, uncontrolled immigration are uneducated, old, male and pale whilst the pro-EU types are young, educated, go-getting cosmopolitan thrusters……guess they’ll have to reel back on that convenient labelling….

Here you go, on-time and awaiting your attention. Here’s where you capture the bias! The floor is yours…

One of the things that most annoys me about the BBC is how it is using the TODAY programme each morning to disseminate “Project Fear” propaganda from Cameron and his pals. This morning we were treated to the Editor of The Economist screeching that the UK could “only” ever hope to obtain a trade deal with the EU similar to that of Norway. It appears the simple economic fact that we are the UK’s single largest export matter has NO significance in terms of trade negotiations if you write for The Economist?

The BBC was very eager to nail the government on its supposed ‘misleading’ figures for death rates in the NHS at weekends [Not so keen to get to the real figures though] with a FOI request.

Strangely the BBC shows a marked reluctance to similarly nail the government when it comes to genuinely dodgy immigration figures that the government admits it won’t reveal because ‘ it might prejudice the outcome of the EU referendum. ‘  Yes we can’t have facts and information relevant to the debate interfering with the debate.

From the Telegraph:

Official figures published suggested that 257,000 migrants came to Britain last year, with a significant rise in the number of Bulgarians and Romanians.

Remember the time when diligent BBC reporters would plaster the BBC website with stories of the police dragging ‘innocent’ schoolboys off to be waterboarded?  How times change…not a sign of this tale of a white, non-Muslim boy beng so treated…

Outrage as school calls police after pupil looks at Ukip website in class

Teenager Joe Taylor was flagged up for political extremism by the deputy head after he used a school computer to click on the party’s website. 

The 15-year-old went online earlier this week to research immigration following a classroom discussion on the subject, logging on with his school username. 

But he was stunned when teachers subsequently reported him to the police, claiming he had raised welfare concerns by visiting “politically incorrect websites”. 

Amazingly he was referred to a specialist team whose usual brief is preventing vulnerable youngsters from being groomed and indoctrinated by Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis. 

The BBC has been telling us all day of the rise in rough sleepers and Labour’s outraged reaction.

What the BBC wasn’t telling us in its news bulletins was that 56.7% of rough sleepers are immigrants….

Total non-UK    4,201    56.7%

Only right at the very bottom of its website report does it make any such admission about immigrants…

Where nationalities were available, 43% were from the UK, and 36% from Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.

Why is the BBC not so keen for you to know that and isn’t it a bit of a cheek for Labour, who opened the floodgates to attack the government for something Labour’s immigration policy, and of course the EU, is mostly to blame for?

So the police get all the blame for Rotherham?

Yesterday, unfortunately can’t remember when, a BBC reporter admitted that he repeatedly heard tales that the Hussain family were involved in serious crimes but the police were ignoring them. So the police ignored these crimes….what exactly did the intrepid BBC reporter do to expose both the crimes and the police’s inaction?  Nothing obviously.

This wasn’t just a matter of the police ignoring things, the media and local government were also involved and turned a blind eye due to the ‘race factor’.

Why do we not hear the BBC admitting the media were also at fault?

Curiously the report about the convictions has vanished off the BBC’s front, UK and England page despite this being a major story from yesterday….you have to go all the way deep into the website to the regional area of Sheffield and South Yorkshire to find the story now and even there it isn’t prominent.  Almost as if the BBC doesn’t want you to see the conviction of Muslim men for mass rape and abuse….the cover up continues.

Dame Janet Smith spent three years investigating the BBC and Savile and then allowed what, half an hour or so for journalists to quiz her on her conclusions limiting each one to one question and a supplementary question?  Ridiculous as she strictly regulated what they asked and how long they had to ask it.  Surprised at the journalists who deferred to her and allowed her to get away with it.  She was there to answer questions not to get away with revealing as little as possible whilst strenuously defending her own reputation..

Her conclusion that the BBC, as a corporate body, was blameless as senior managers had no knowledge of Savile’s activities is complete nonsense.  She claims that the hierarchical nature of the BBC meant that such discussions never happened but anyone who has ever worked in any organisation knows that there is huge amounts of contact between the different levels and that ‘gossip’ of such a salacious nature concerning someone as famous as Savile, a person who was a major and important celebrity for the BBC, would have flown around the organisation at speed.

DJS even admits that in 1971 the allegations were in the newspapers but the BBC top brass were so concerned with the reputation of the BBC that they covered them up…how then does she conclude that management knew nothing?

She states that knowledge about Savile was limited to producer level and producers did not have the authority to tackle them…OK say that was true….Savile was carrying out his abuses over many decades so when those producers got promotion and rose up the ranks were they not then in a position to take things further and to take preventative action as they saw he was still employed by the BBC?

DJS said that there was a culture of fear that meant staff would not report Savile’s behaviour for fear of the consequences for their careers.  Surely then that is the responsibility of senior management?  There have been plenty of similar enquiries about other organisations, such as the Police, where the BBC has been happy to point the finger of blame at senior management for not managing such a culture.

As the lawyer for the victims said, this is an expensive whitewash that gives BBC management a clean bill of health when in reality it beggars belief that they could not have known anything.

Liz Dux, from Slater and Gordon, says:

‘All the Savile and Hall victims have ever wanted from this report is truth and accountability. Despite millions having been spent on the inquiry, my clients will feel let down that the truth has still not been unearthed and many will feel it is nothing more than an expensive whitewash’.

On the basis of reading through parts of the report, it’s difficult to disagree with her assessment.

Having said all that the BBC itself, at least on the shape of BBC Trust headshed Rona Fairhead, took the blame as she said that ‘No one can doubt the BBC failed the victims and it turned a blind eye.’