Category Archives: BBC bias

 

 

Our reporting should resist the temptation to use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident.

We must challenge our own assumptions and experiences and also those which may be commonly held by parts of our audience.

These can present some of the most difficult challenges to asserting that the BBC does not hold its own opinion.  Care should be taken to treat areas of apparent consensus with proper rigour. 

Lord Patten, ex-BBC Trust panjandrum, gave us the benefit on the Today programme the other day.  You have to laugh.  I quote….

STU­DENTS who want to ban ob­jec­tion­able ideas on cam­puses should go to uni­ver­sity in China, Lord Pat­ten said yes­ter­day.

The Chan­cel­lor of Ox­ford Univer­sity said so-called ‘no­plat­form­ing’ poli­cies, which seek to ban cer­tain ob­jec­tion­able speak­ers, are in dan­ger of sti­fling free­dom of speech in the same man­ner as au­thor­i­tar­ian regimes.

The for­mer Tory Cabi­net min­is­ter told BBC Ra­dio 4’s To­day pro­gramme: ‘Can you imag­ine a uni­ver­sity where there is no­plat­form­ing? A bland diet of bran to feed peo­ple is an ab­so­lutely ter­ri­ble idea.’

This from a man who oversaw the no-platforming of climate change sceptics on the BBC, guided of course by Roger Harrabin [activist/journalist] and his mate Joe Smith [climate activist] about whose influence within the BBC is looked upon by some as less than desirable:

From an insider…

‘Following their lead [Harrabin and Smith’s] has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

This is the narrative that Harrabin and his mate wanted to promote….

Harrabin and Joe Smith of the CMEP have worked out  a devious scheme to sideline sceptics…don’t talk about the science…talk about risk or how to stop the world warming…..

‘Climate change should not be responded to as a body of ‘facts’ to be acted upon (with the IPCC acting as prime arbiter). Instead it should be considered as a substantial and urgent collective risk management problem. Projecting climate change as a risk problem rather than a communication-of-fact problem helpfully deflates ‘debates’ about whether climate change is or is not a scientific fact.

My point is: lets not get stuck on the science. Climate change is a vast and widening body of investigation and debate: science is now barely the half of it, and in terms of political outcomes it is not the thing that counts.….a line that is designed to work for people who have ideological wax blocking their ears: ‘don’t get het up about communicating science – talk about clean American energy and jobs in a new efficient, competitive economy’.’

And let’s not forget the extremely biased Professor Steve Jones who did the science review for the BBC and made recommendations on how it should present climate change to the world…essentially by not allowing sceptics on air….apart from being very pro-climate change he also owed his living to the BBC having been washed up as a scientist…by his own admission.

The latest example of the silencing of critical debate is of course the Quentin Lett’s programme about the Met. Office.

You may recall that the BBC Trust stated that ‘The programme would not be repeated in any form.’

So much for free speech, open debate and challenging authoritarian regimes.

You can of course read a transcript of the programme here.

The sheer hypocrisy of the BBC is, ironically, illustrated perfectly by the head of the BBC’s very own climate Inquisition, Roger Harrabin himself, who said of the Met. Office:

“The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office.”

From the Telegraph:

Roger Harrabin, an environment analyst at the BBC, told the Radio Times: “The trouble is that we simply don’t know how much to trust the Met Office. How often does it get the weather right and wrong. And we don’t know how it compares with other, independent forecasters.

“Can we rely on them if we are planning a garden party at the weekend? Or want to know if we should take a brolly with us tomorrow? Or planning a holiday next week?

“In a few year’s time hopefully we’ll all have a better idea of whom to trust. By then the Met Office might have recovered enough confidence to share with us its winter prediction of whether to buy a plane ticket or a toboggan.”

Is that not exactly what Quentin Lett’s was saying in a more humorous manner?

Not as if the Met. Office has been at all accurate in its long range climate change predictions:

Met Office: Arctic sea-ice loss linked to colder, drier UK winters

The reduction in Arctic sea ice caused by climate change is playing a role in the UK’s recent colder and drier winter weather, according to the Met Office.

And it did not predict the ‘Pause’.

Here’s what the BBC Trust complained of:

[The programme] indicated the Met Office’s position on climate change was controversial and did not make clear that its work – which used evidence-based observations alongside computer modelling – was in line with prevailing scientific thought. Criticisms made included that it was involved in political lobbying, failed to be impartial and that its claims about climate change were alarmist. The programme included contributors who spoke from a particular perspective on the subject, yet this perspective was not made clear to audiences. A representative from the Met Office was interviewed, but her contribution in the programme as broadcast did not adequately address the criticisms that had been made.

[We] considered audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme.

OK…so let’s look at what the BBC said in 2014:

Reply from BBC Complaints Team

Many thanks for getting in touch again about your concerns with our output on global warming.

We don’t actually have editorial guidelines on the subject but we treat it the same way we treat any controversial subject – in a fair and balanced way. We try to provide the information which will enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds and provide a forum for debate.

Across our programmes the number of scientists and academics who support the mainstream view far outweighs those who disagree with it. We do however on occasion, offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of our overall commitment to impartiality. The BBC Trust, which oversees our work on behalf of licence fee payers, has explicitly urged programme makers not to exclude critical opinion from policy debates involving scientists.

So global warming is ‘controversial’ and not settled and the BBC’s output is so heavily weighted in favour of the consensus that it is the BBC’s duty to provide a platform for dissenting voices…..seems the BBC Trust doesn’t agree despite the guidelines allowing one-off dissenting programmes like Letts’:

On long-running or continuous output (such as general daily magazine programmes, the News Channel, Online, etc.) due impartiality may be achieved over time by the consistent application of editorial judgement in relevant subject areas.  For instance, it is not usually required for an appearance by a politician, or other contributor with partial views, to be balanced on each occasion by those taking a contrary view, although it may sometimes be necessary to offer a right of reply. 

The BBC’s editorial guidelines are so waffly and convoluted that it is possible to make them mean whatever you want them to mean.  Due weight, due impartiality, accuracy, consensus, controversial, personal views and ‘breadth and diversity of opinion’ are all just words to the BBC Trust…look at how they interpret ‘Personal View’ programmes…

The BBC has a tradition of allowing a wide range of individuals, groups or organisations to offer a personal view or opinion, express a belief, or advance a contentious argument in its output.  This can range from the outright expression of highly partial views by a campaigner, to the opinion of a specialist or professional including an academic or scientist, to views expressed through contributions from our audiences.  All of these can add to the public understanding and debate, especially when they allow our audience to hear fresh and original perspectives on familiar issues.

Such personal view content must be clearly signposted to audiences in advance.

and… “retain a respect for factual accuracy” or “fairly represent opposing viewpoints when included”.

How can a personal view, consisting of highly partial views and opinion of specialists also be ‘accurate’ and impartial’.  Letts’ programme was clearly a ‘personal view’ programme as the Trust admitted:

Trustees considered that the BBC had failed to ensure that there was sufficient signposting to alert listeners that this was a “personal view” programme and had also failed to include adequate information about what constituted the prevailing scientific opinion.

I’m sorry…the Public weren’t alerted to the fact that this was a personal view programme?  The BBC Trust in the same ruling said this:

The Committee agreed that the series had a strong authorial voice. Trustees considered listeners would have expected that the programme would be broadly humorous and would include the author’s own ‘take’ on the Met Office and its operations. They considered that, to this extent, audiences would have expected the programme to be the presenter’s “personal view” of the Met Office.

So the audience did expect a ‘personal view’.  It looks very much like the BBC Trust is making the rules up as it goes to suit the climate fanatic’s narrative.

As for not giving a right of reply to the Met. Office…just read the transcript to see just how much time was given over to the ‘consensus’ side.  Letts states that Piers Corbyn’s dissenting views are ‘not uncontentious’ and gives the many pro-Met. Office voices plenty of chance to speak….The Met. Office’s Helen Chivers was given maybe one quarter of the programme to reply to Letts’ questions…

Quentin Letts: I asked Helen Chivers how accurate the Met Office’s predictions were.

Helen Chivers: On average, we’re accurate – if you look at a great big basket of, you know, sunshine, rainfall, temperatures – round about 80% of the time.

Was there a claim of ‘political’ lobbying as the Trust claims?…

Peter Lilley: I suppose we do get lobbied by them. They come before the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, on which I sat, and tell us they need even more money for even bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in future.

Well…that’s not a claim that the Met. Office carried out ‘political’ lobbying, it’s a claim that the Met. Office panhandled for more money.

The BBC Trust is once again misleading us.

What else does it mislead us on?

The Trust claims that the ‘Pause’ was always predicted by the IPCC and the Met. Office….

Periods of hiatus are consistent with earlier IPCC assessments that non-linear
warming of the climate is to be expected and that forced climate changes always take
place against a background of natural variability. The current period of hiatus does
not undermine the core conclusions of the [Working Group 1] contribution to AR5 when put in the context of the overall, long-term global energy budget.

The Trust even quoted this…

The Met Office is […] widely recognised as a world-leader in climate prediction. However, we note that the climate model did not accurately predict the extent of the flattening of the temperature curve during the last ten years.

…and yet dismissed it completely.  And we know there was a pause and that it was completely unpredicted…and that the ‘consensus’ is in complete denial about it….

Phil [Hide the decline] Jones, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. July 5th 2005:

“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

 

Curiously the BBC has a guideline on how to treat a ‘consensus’…ironically as if it presented a ‘significant risk to the BBC’s impartiality’ ….

Consensus

There are some issues which may seem to be without controversy, appearing to be backed by a broad or even unanimous consensus of opinion.  Nevertheless, they may present a significant risk to the BBC’s impartiality.  In such cases, we should continue to report where the consensus lies and give it due weight.  However, even if it may be neither necessary nor appropriate to seek out voices of opposition, our reporting should resist the temptation to use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident.

We must challenge our own assumptions and experiences and also those which may be commonly held by parts of our audience.

These can present some of the most difficult challenges to asserting that the BBC does not hold its own opinion.  Care should be taken to treat areas of apparent consensus with proper rigour. 

What is really controversial but seems to get a bye in all the discussion about Letts’ programme is this…..

An early decision that the programme should not include discussion of climate change was not adequately recorded…The decision that the programme should not include challenge to the prevailing scientific view about climate change was mentioned at a meeting between the Head of Radio, Religion and Ethics and the Series Producer.

The BBC decreed that a programme discussing the Met. Office would not talk about climate change and the Met. Office’s role in advancing that theory?  Half of the Met. Office’s job is to deal with climate change and to assess what is happening to the climate in order to inform politicians on policy.  It is a highly important and critical part of the Met. Office’s role and the Met. Office’s poor record should not be hidden away.

Why did the BBC try to censor Quentin Letts and control what  he might say about the Met. Office?  Is it because they knew full well that, as Roger Harrabin admitted, the Met. Office’s record on predicting the climate is pretty abysmal and inaccurate and open to a great deal of criticism…which might then raise doubts about the Great Global Warming Swindle? Something the climate commissars cannot allow.

The BBC Trust’s blatant fixing of the evidence and the the convenient twisting of BBC guidelines to suit the climate change narrative is bad enough but the BBC’s attempt to silence Letts even before he began is the real scandal here.

Still, there are others out there who are more brave and honest……

Time for a new now of these, here is where you can detail the bias!

The BBC’s ‘simpleton’ [©The Guardian] reporter, Hugh Sykes, thought that Cologne was down to a Far Right conspiracy to trick immigrants into behaving badly…..but a more credible theory is that it was orchestrated by the dark forces of the EU….this ‘conspiracy theory’ is actually backed with evidence of intent….

EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

The EU of course didn’t get its hands dirty by openly inciting the attacks but it made them possible by its migration policies and it knew that the result of those policies was likely to result in conflict and the breakdown of the nation state….and they couldn’t care less.

And let’s not forget this…

Secret plot to let 50million African workers into EU

Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. 

The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.

The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. Ms Castex said: “It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration … it is not a new development, we must accept it.” The proposals include the creation of a “blue card” system, based on the American green card, that provides full working and welfare rights. 

Blue card holders would be entitled to move freely across the EU, setting up home in any of the 27 member states. 

Deluded and dangerous politicians given free rein to do as they please by the likes of the BBC who do not challenge such policies because they agree with them.

Merkel, taking her unilateral decision to swamp Europe with migrants, is just the latest example of that.

The Guardian naturally begs to differ…

The European Union is not a conspiracy against democracy

Interesting choice of photos by the BBC to illustrate its reports…

On the upset caused by a change to a Spanish festival.….a story that had absolutely nothing to do with refugees…..

And a photo from a report about the anti-Christian ‘Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life’s’ witterings….

Why illustrate such a report, which is really about Islam, with a picture calling Hindu Indian PM a terrorist?  Of course such belief is rampant at the BBC which attacks the Hindu leader at every opportunity.

As George Walden once wrote in The Times, “Morality minus practicality is pious grandstanding, something best left to pop stars and theatre folk.”

And BBC journalists.

The BBC claimed on Sunday that no one knows what happened on New Years Eve….so just to confirm what everyone but the BBC knows here’s what happened…

Today, the minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, the German state where Cologne is located, admitted that people of foreign descent were responsible for virtually all of the violence on New Year’s Eve in the city. 

‘Based on testimony from witnesses, the report from the Cologne police and descriptions by the federal police, it looks as if people with a migration background were almost exclusively responsible for the criminal acts,‘ Ralf Jaeger, interior minister from the state of North Rhine-Westphalia told a special commission on the Cologne violence. 

‘All signs point to these being north Africans and people from the Arab world,’ he added. ‘Based on what we know now from the investigation, asylum seekers who arrived in the past year are among the suspects.’

Most sensible people know that the BBC’s beloved diversity where, not many many cultures intermingle and no one can dominate, but where two cultures compete for dominance, the end result is not culturally enriching or cosmopolitan but polarising and dangerous.

One imported culture has taken it upon itself to impose its ideology upon the rest despite still being a minority.  It uses every trick in the book to win or force influence for itself knowing that politicians and liberal-minded people will run scared of ‘offending’ them and will bend over backwards to accomodate their demands for fear of being labelled racist or Islamophobic…and of course the ultimate winning hand is the ‘terror card’, the frequently made threat that if they don’t so accomodate the demands the community will become marginalised, angry and radicalised.

Lord Parekh is Hindu and he spells out why Muslims are looked upon with suspicion…but he is also ultimately pro-Muslim…being one of the authors of the recent report that wanted to sideline Christianity.

Muslim community leaders know which buttons to press…..they have learnt their lesson well…

One lesson well understood in both Stalin’s Russia and Nazi Germany was that propaganda is most effective when it is backed by terror…Sir Alan Bullock.

Muslims frequently claim they are besieged and the BBC supports that narrative…indeed just last week after Pastor McConnell was found not guilty of being grossly offensive about the ‘Satanic and heathen’ Islam the BBC wheeled in the usual Muslim grievance card trumpers to say that very thing…and Peter Allen suggested we should keep quiet about Islam as it might lead to tension…and oh yes…that to be Christian was very unChristian.

We were told that Muslims were under attack.

Remind me just who is attacking who?

7/7 and an endless number of other attacks and attacks stopped by the security services, Muslim Sharia patrols on British streets, British school children force fed halal meat in secret, exams changed to suit Muslims, the Trojan Horse hijacking of schools [a plot evidence suggests was by the group that represents the most Muslims in the UK…the MCB], Christianity sidelined or hidden away whilst Islam is celebrated, rapes and abuse by Muslims swept under the carpet, judges allowed to serve on extremist sharia courts, never mind the relentless attacks on the media and government to blackmail them into toeing the Muslim line, or the bombs and terror attacks that push Muslim interests to the fore and are exploited to the full by the Muslim community who of course deplore such violence but suggest that it wouldn’t happen if only Muslims were allowed to do what they want to do and that British foreign and domestic policy be changed to be more ‘Muslim friendly’.

Just who is besieging who?

Maybe Churchill had it right…

What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced?

The vast quivering mass of tormented, bewildered human beings

Who wait in their cities and their homes

And scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror

With the sullen silence of despair.

But for the Great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean saving

Europe from ruin and enslavement

The Dark Ages would have returned in their cruelty and squalor. They may still return.

The salvation of the common people in Europe from war and servitude

Must be established on solid foundations,

And must be created by the readiness of

All men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny.

Let Europe arise.

‘Europe’ should certainly stand up for its own values, beliefs and culture and not allow aggressive, intolerant demanding immigrants intent on imposing their own ideology upon Europe to subvert society.

In a speech to the House of Commons on November 5, 1919, Winston Churchill said: “…Lenin was sent into Russia … in the same way that you might send a vial containing a culture of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world … With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State depended.”  

Any similarity to what Saudi Arabia does with its money and preachers?

The BBC prefers not to mention that if at all possible when otherwise producing selectively scathing reports about Saudi Arabia, the brave John Ware aside.

Hilariously, 10 days after the mass attacks across Europe and endless eyewitness and police statements, the BBC says…

Even now, no-one – and that includes the police – really knows what happened.

But of course…

“The police should think now about what they do to help us,” Michelle continued. “This is not a situation that’s normal in Germany or the Western world.”

But she worries. “It would be wrong to blame refugees,” she tells me. “They need our help.”

Well yeah…no one has a clue what happened…except those hundreds of eye witnesses who state quite clearly that mobs of ‘Arab and North African looking men’ attacked women in Cologne…and across Europe.

The police confirm it…

The BBC prefers a different narrative and reports that several arrests were made and that among them were some asylum seekers…others were ‘Germans’…and one American…..but just which Germans?  Were they German German or naturalised immigrant German?  The BBC is very coy about that as it tries to downplay or cover up the fact that the vast, vast majority of attackers were Muslim males.

The BBC knows it can’t really cover this up and so it tries to blame everyone other than the ‘refugees’ themselves’…and their ‘culture’.….as Sarah Khan says…

Here in the West, we need to stop burying our heads in the sand and accept that Asian, Arab and African men grow up in societies where misogyny is the cultural norm. We need to talk about it so we can change it.

Ignoring it, like the BBC did, is just condoning it. If we are allowing people to come in, we must also make sure that we are not blinded by some truths which are hard to swallow. 

It is a betrayal of the truth, of the majority of decent migrants and – most of all – of women who must not see progress turned back for the sake of accommodating a medieval world view.

Here the BBC adapts the Left’s latest meme…that ISIS attacks us in Europe in order to create division and hatred between Muslims and everyone else [Have to say Muslims seem to be doing a good job at alienating everybody else without help from ISIS]…and therefore we must not allow ourselves to react in a negative fashion against Muslims in response to the attacks…we need to do everything we can to make Muslims feel at home in Europe…including ‘more Islam’…er…exactly what ISIS [and the MCB] wants.

In this case the BBC has decided that ISIS may have orchestrated the attacks in Cologne and elesewhere themselves…..

Some analysts have suggested that IS has encouraged a link between refugees and terrorism in order to foster hostility to refugees in Europe, although it is not known if the latest attack was carried out in co-ordination with the IS leadership in Iraq and Syria.

So thousands of ‘refugees’ across Europe are then affiliated to ISIS?  The BBC slipped up there….destroying their own carefully created line that it is inconceivable that there are any terrorists hiding amongst the refugees.

However for some at the BBC, those predisposed to flights of fancy and self-delusion in their reporting [usually involving Israel], that is not the real answer…Hugh Sykes [H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased? and DB] continues to report as if high on something and babbles it is all a right-wing conspiracy…..

This is all very strange. Arabs and North Africans attacking German women in several cities, not just Cologne, is like a gift to PEGIDA and people like Tommy Robinson. 

And there are conspiracy theories in the air that the New Year’s Eve attackers were encouraged to make sexual approaches to German women, told that it was the normal thing to do on New Year’s Eve. 

If true, they may have fallen into a well-laid trap.

Sykes is not worried about the women and victims one jot, he is just concerned as to how it may effect the public’s acceptance of immigration…the BBC narrative….Sykes of course forgets the sad litany of sexual attacks within the refugee centres that the BBC has managed to avoid reporting for some reason, and the rape culture that has long existed in Sweden and Norway….since they let in the immigrants.

Is Sykes related to Sir Mark Sykes of the Sykes-Picot agreement which the BBC’s journalists seem to have such a poor grasp of?  Is Sykes feeling guilt for the supposed sins of his forebears and tries to make amends by destroying all borders including those across Europe?  Or is he related to comedian Eric Sykes?…only for the comic genius to jump a generation and miss old Hugh out altogether…oh he comes up with some laughable stuff but he ain’t funny, not one bit.

Sykes, like all BBC journos, thinks that to counter the arguments about controlling immigration all you have to do is to suppress the bad news and promote the line that immigration and everything immigrants do is good.

Even the Guardian isn’t convinced of that codswallop….

Only a simpleton – or, more commonly, person driven by instinct and emotion – thinks you can counter the uncompromising prejudice of “all immigrants are bad” with the uncompromising prejudice of “all immigrants are good”.

Sounds like our Hugh….but what else does the Guardian say?  Is this Guardian little joke, from the same person above, the source of Hugh’s ‘flight of fancy’?…..

Short of going full conspiracy-theory, and suggesting a) that rightwing German men have slapped on the fake tan in a fiendish effort to engineer a revolt against German immigration policy; or b) that rightwing German men have slapped on the fake tan and dresses, then made it all up, to the same end, there appear to be few uncomplicated ways to blame the right for all this.

Hugh, you are a dishonest nobber, to be blunt.

The BBC as a whole is equally daft….trying to divert attention from the real crimes towards ‘future crimes’ as it warns us again and again of the supposed threat of the Far Right on the march…..whilst of course playing up the fears of the asylum seekers and migrant community….fear generated it has to be said as a result of their own actions usually…..

The BBC’s Jenny Hill looks back on a week that has left both women and asylum-seekers feeling vulnerable.

Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, warned that anti-immigrant groups were trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred against refugees.

“What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women,” he said. “This is poisoning the climate of our society.”

The “anti-Islamisation” Pegida movement and the right-wing AfD have said the attacks were a consequence of large-scale migration.

But Cologne’s mayor said there was no reason to believe those behind the attacks were refugees.

And more….like the use of the word ‘seized’…as if they don’t have a legitimate point to make….

Right-wing groups, headed by the anti-Islam Pegida movement, gathered after reports emerged of a wave of sexual assaults on women on New Year’s Eve.

Anti-immigration campaigners have seized on the Cologne incident as an example of what they see as the failure of the country’s asylum policy. The prominence of the far-right Pegida movement was fading. It is now using the attacks as a propaganda tool.

[Critics have seized on all this as evidence that Angela Merkel’s open-door refugee policy has put German citizens at risk.  ]

On the other side of what is a widening chasm, established Islamic groups here have expressed fears that the actions of a few may jeopardise the future of many.

Officials have warned that anti-immigrant groups have been trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred.

And again…..

Some suggested Germany’s media had been hesitant to report on the attacks for fear of stirring far-right sentiment, after the arrival of more than a million migrants and refugees in the past year.

The BBC has had no choice but to report on events in Cologne…however it is downplaying those and avoiding mention of similar attacks right across Europe….many apparently organised.

The BBC has decided that once again the important thing is to shore up the argument in favour of mass immigration and has clearly come to the conclusion that mass sexual assaults, including rape, and other serious crime should be covered up in order to do that.

Those liberal, progressive BBC journalists have sat down in editorial meetings and worked out a deliberate strategy to protect rapists, sex abusers, violent gangs of criminals whilst their victims are blamed or forgotten.

The BBC is blatantly lying about what went on across Europe on New Years Day.

Even the BBC admits there is a problem as the ‘elite’ try to cover up their massive mistakes on immigration…

In parts of social media the idea of a “lying press” has taken root. [Wonder how that happened?]

The question for Germany is not just how to protect women without curtailing their lives but how to restore trust with ordinary Germans that they are being told the truth.

It is a question that resonates across Europe. It is hard to think of a series of events so likely to feed the narrative of Europe’s anti-establishment and populist parties that an elite is misleading the people.

Of course it’s not just a ‘narrative’, an imaginary portrayal of events…it’s the inconvenient truth…one that may eventually blow Europe, as a political union, apart as people see they are indeed being lied to on just about everything.

Your daughters, your wives next?  Lord Hall Hall, Mark Easton, Evan Davis, Hugh Sykes and all those BBC journalists who grandstand about immigration and ‘it’s the right thing to do’ owe one very big apology to the women of Europe whom they have put at risk with their relentless and nonsensical cheerleading of mass immigration and open borders.

Cologne need not have happened. Sweden, Austria, France, Finland, Norway, and England need not have happened.

But they did, and Lord Hall Hall’s BBC is one of the major sources of the propaganda that has been used to promote the uncontrolled immigration policies and done so much to cover up the tremendous cultural, social and criminal damage that has resulted.

Terrorism, rape, social and cultural sabotage, cultural blackmail and British people cowed by a legal system that means they are afraid to live their lives in their own country without approval from the immigrants.

Hall and his assembly of low grade Goebbels have a lot to answer for.  One day maybe they will.

Rape Jihad? Labour at war with itself? No. Bowie is dead and the BBC are in mourning. Don’t get me wrong, I was a big fan too but I seriously wonder why this story is so big for the BBC. A cross dressing bisexual image (back in the day) probably gets BBC hearts a fluttering. Anyway, here is a new OPEN Thread. Fill it with bias in the same way as the BBC fills every news programme with unrelenting bias.

Nick Robinson, the man who was thought a likely candidate to make a good PR monkey for the Labour Party, [perhaps Laura Kuenssberg wasn’t available] and who wrote to his BBC colleagues to tell them to lay off Corbyn [as if they were ‘laying on’ him to start with] gave his local MP, one Jeremy Corbyn, a lovely little interview this morning on the Today show…nothing too hard or too controversial for a Monday morning…in fact when Jeremy asked Robinson to lay off he did…several times.  Must be nice to control what an interviewer asks you.

This was the same Robinson who later said the Tories were ‘slashing’ local government spending.  Now ‘slashing’ is a highly loaded term and comes at the issue only from one side…the Left’s.  This approach says only one thing…that there is no reason for these reductions in spending, it’s just a political decision.  Robinson doesn’t indicate that there are very good reasons for these reductions….due to Labour’s reckless gamble with the light touch, risk based regulation of the banks and its massive borrowing and spending spree.

I wonder why the man who knows Corbyn so well, who was alarmed at any hint of anti-Corbyn reporting, who has Corbyn as his MP, who was thought a good candidate to be a Labour spinner, would take that stance?