Category Archives: BBC bias

Sir Bradley Wiggins was the guest editor on the Today programme on Tuesday….the BBC can certainly pick ’em.

Wiggins wanted to know more about cycling and politicians…or so we were told.  First we had a couple of minutes insulting the cycling Boris [potential next Tory leader] as sweaty and smelly because he rides his bike wearing a suit, goshdarnit!

Nick Robinson suggested this demonstrated the BBC’s impartiality…as the programme turned to an interview with Jeremy Corbyn.  As it happened this interview actually had very little to do with bikes or cycyling, that just being an excuse for Wiggins to get his favourite politician on the radio in an interview designed, it seemed, to ‘personalise’ Corbyn and make him seem a lovely little chap…curious how that every time I hear Corbyn I get the creeps…..he is a fanatic desperately trying to suppress the fact that he is a fanatic and this ‘interview’ was meant to help with that lie.

Wiggins said he wasn’t interested in politics and was ‘disengaged’….curious that ‘when Gordon Brown was PM, he met ‘Le Wiggo’ at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. According to one witness, Wiggins told Brown: ‘I know you aren’t too popular right now, mate, but I hope you beat those Tories in the Election.’’

Sounds familiar.

The BBC must be surprised at the turn of events and that yet another of its guest editors turns out to be a socialist.

BBC radio 4 today was busy this morning running another propaganda piece of behalf of “refugees”. Around 6.45am there was an item that told us “many” of the “Syrian” refugees were children and it told us the story of one “child” who desperately wanted to get to Finland. He has no idea where Finland was, of course, he just wanted to get there and that was good enough for the BBC.

Makes me wonder WHY the BBC choose to ignore these two relevant facts?

1. UNHCR data confirms it: 75% of the so-called refugees arriving in Europe are MEN.
2. Four out of five migrants are NOT from Syria

In partial mitigation, the “child” refugee was from Somalia. Via Syria?

Here’s another open thread to tide us over the flood of BBC bias…..pull up a sand bag and tell us all about it….

The BBC have been plugging away at the narrative that the Tory government has been neglecting t’North and favouring the South…..keep hearing that leeds city council leader, Judith Blake, thinks the North has been abandoned…

‘Real anger’

A thousand homes have flooded in Leeds, but the leader of the city council, Judith Blake, said the flooding had been a “preventable disaster”.

She said the North had not received “anywhere near the support that we saw going into Somerset” – which flooded in 2014 – and there was now a “real anger growing across the North”.

What’s curious about all the BBC news on the radio and this web report is the essential clue as to why she might be saying that….she is a Labour councillor.  Just as the BBC reports the criticisms of government by Labour PCC’s without mentioning the fact that they are being ‘political’ in their criticisms the BBC uses the same tactic to push a Labour narrative whilst pretending it is merely the words of a concerned and impartial city councillor.

Guest editors

Monday 28 December – Michael Sheen

Tuesday 29 December – Sir Bradley Wiggins

Wednesday 30 December – Miriam González Durántez

Thursday 31 December – David Adjaye

Friday 1 January – Baroness Campbell

Saturday 2 January – Lord Browne

The BBC’s Guest Editors are off and running, actor Michael Sheen being the first one…

Cyclist Sir Bradley Wiggins is to guest edit an edition of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme over the festive period.

Actor Michael Sheen and Miriam González Durántez, a lawyer married to ex-Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, will also take the reins of Today during the week.

The guest editors will be live in the studio and will take responsibility for about half of the programme’s output.

Sir Bradley, who won the 2012 Tour de France, said he wanted to shine a spotlight on “stuff that interests me”.

Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP, architect David Adjaye, and human rights campaigner Baroness Campbell of Surbiton will also each edit a programme.

Former No 10 adviser Rohan Silva, a tech entrepreneur, will take over the role of business editor across the week.

Sheen (Unicef ambassador) wasn’t exactly controversial despite the Radio Times suggesting he was….though I couldn’t quite make head nor tails of what Sheen’s target was….is he pro foreign aid or against it?…

“A lot of the talk today has been about, ‘Where does charity begin?’,” Sheen said. “Does it begin at home? Why should we be helping children and people from other countries when there’s so much suffering and challenges going on in our own country?

“And it is absolutely true. There is terrible, terrible poverty in this country; there are terrible conditions for certain people. And I can understand why people get so worried about giving money to other countries, but of course 0.7% of the national income goes on foreign aid.

“That is about being a member of the global community, taking that responsibility seriously. 99.3% of course goes on what goes on in this country. And the argument, the false dichotomy of pushing British people against foreigners, or shirkers against strivers, it’s a false argument. And it allows other people who have certain interests to get away with it.

“The argument needs to be, ‘What is our government doing for people in our own country?'” he said.

One moment the argument is a false dichotomy the next it is the argument we should be bashing government with.  Maybe I’ve just had too much Christmas spirit.

The other editors are as to be expected….Lord Brown though might provide some headlines as having been part of fracking company Cuadrilla and now at L1 Energy which may well be looking to frack here.   Has he been warned off climate change and any pro-fracking material as Quentin Letts was warned to not mention climate change in his Met. Office mockery?  I’m sure the Green green ink brigade are poised to flame the BBC should he dare to rock the orthodoxy.  Then again if he doesn’t what’s the point of the guest editors who are surely there to provide an antidote to the usual BBC fare we suffer.

And looking at the guest editors isn’t it interesting how all of them are the high and mighty so to speak…even Sir Bradley Wiggins who may provide the ‘common touch’.

Where are the common men and women?  They could just as well do what Lord This, Baroness That and the Wife of Nick Clegg could do…..where is the voice of the people?  Leave it to the BBC to pick and of course you’d end up with a single mother, a Muslim in a headscarf, a student rioter, a foodbank worker and an immigrant.

Why do you have to be a lord, a lady, a high flying business person or successful actor to get on the BBC as a guest editor?  An irony when they spent the whole of the last year talking about the gap between the privileged and the rest of us getting ever wider…the BBC just reinforces that privilege and the entrenched power of the ‘elite’ they pretend to disdain so much.

Isn’t it just the usual tale of a small, self-selected group at the top of the pile, all with the same vested interest, of staying at the top of the pile, patting each other on the back and doing each other favours?

The Today programme [08:52ish] had guest editor Michael Sheen talking to Jon Butterworth, professor of physics at University College London about the brain and this cropped up…..

Sheen:  ‘Scientists are not a blank slate are they?  If their brains have been somehow effected by their life then how they measure the world is going to be effected by that too…obviously.’

Butterworth:  ‘We try obviously…there are statistical ways of trying to quantify that bias… to remove it or minimise it….science is the best way of not fooling yourself and we [scientists] are the easiest people to fool…if you’re doing an experiment you want it to work…it’s that reproducibility and way of reducing the bias by striving for objectivity and also acknowledging there is the bias because pretending it’s not there is the way to remain biased.’

Scientists and BBC environmental journos…the easiest people to fool?….because they want to believe….as Prof. Phil [Hide the decline] Jones of the corrupted CRU said…

‘If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,  so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.’

Shame the BBC has implemented an official policy of silencing all those who might question if there is bias.

‘I feel very confident that what we do is unique to us, that writers and producers still want to bring shows to us because of the relationship they have with us and the risks we take. When you get it right, it really does bring a nation together.’

Miss Hill also said audiences would ‘hugely miss’ out on agenda-setting dramas if changes to the licence fee meant that spending on original programmes had to be cut.     BBC drama chief Polly Hill

The BBC is making great claims for itself, that it still produces those ‘watercooler moments’ where everybody is talking about a BBC programme.  This is of course nothing more than self-justification for the continuation of its massively privileged position to impose the telly tax upon everybody regardless of whether they watch the BBC or not.

As for those ‘watercooler moments’?  I was thinking about that and I can’t say I have heard anyone at work asking ‘Did you see on the BBC….?’.  Did you see on Sky, on Quest, on Discovery, YouTube and of course on Dave where all the best BBC programmes go to be reborn and even C4 but not the BBC.

The BBC is dead or dying for most people.  Twin Peaks, Homeland, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, Game of Thrones, 24, Spartacus and on and on and on….the BBC just doesn’t do the big, big series. It’s got rid of its jewel in the crown, Top Gear, and it’s left with the admittedly brilliant Sherlock, but that’s a pearl amongst the swine….oh, there’s Strictly….but now we know its fixed, like the GBBO?, perhaps that will lose its appeal.

The BBC is now more for women and London metrosexuals than for the general population.  It rarely produces shows that appeal to men and is steadily dumping sports.  The only thing left is the News, which is unfortunate as it peddles the progressive, liberal soft left message so beloved of those London metrosexuals rather than genuine news.

Is the BBC worth it?  Does it do enough to justify a compulsory tax upon us? Does it fulfill its remit to be impartial, accurate and balanced?

It claims to be independent of government but is in fact an arm of government providing ‘soft power’ that manufactures consent, or at least enough consent not to have the country up in arms, it suppresses or silences discontent…or indeed is happy to ferment discontent when it suits…student loan riots or anything to do with race, and especially Islamic issues, for example.  It is a propaganda vehicle for government…it does it openly via the World Service flooding foreign countries with pro-democracy, liberal ideas and via its Media Action group trains journalists to be subversives and political agitators.  In the UK it still perfoms those same exact services just less obviously.  Sure it has its battles with the government of the day but that is when that government isn’t toeing the liberal, progressive line that the BBC is there to enforce.

The best way to undermine the BBC is to open peoples’ eyes to the fact that the BBC is that arm of government, a tool used by government to control them…it is almost literally the ‘Thought Police’ defining what can and can’t be said or thought.  It is no coincidence that one of the first things to be taken over by revolutionaries is the broadcasting stations.

How long an the BBC maintain its grip on the political machinery of Britain, on its cultural identity, on its very thoughts…how long can the BBC be the ‘Thought Police’?

Break the BBC and we may well see a resurgence of thought and ideas, a blossoming of political and cultural thinking and activity that has long been suppressed by the BBC propaganda machine.

Perhaps it is time for the BBC’s very illiberal and intolerant boot to be removed from the British throat.

What’s your New Year’s Revolution?  Sorry…resolution.

Curious that this story has vanished from the frontpage and worldpage of the BBC website when it would normally be frontpage for days…

Muslim prayer hall attacked in Corsica

The Mail tells us….

Up to 600 French protesters desecrated a Muslim prayer hall in Corsica in a revenge attack prompted by the wounding of two firefighters and a police officer.

The furious mob smashed the prayer hall’s glass door, ransacked the interior and left around 50 partially-burned Korans littering the street overnight.

Chanting ‘Arabs get out!’ and ‘This is our home’, protesters marched through the streets of the French Mediterranean island’s capital, Ajaccio.

So ‘up to 600’ protesters attacked the mosque.  However the BBC paints an entirely different picture….the vast majority of the protesters weren’t against the Muslim/Arab migrants they were merely  ‘supporting’ the fire and police service…only ‘a crowd’ attacked the mosque and ‘a small group’ tried to burn the korans……..

A crowd has vandalised a Muslim prayer hall in Corsica in apparent retaliation for an attack on firefighters in the French Mediterranean island.

Officials say a small group of protesters also tried to burn copies of the Koran in the capital, Ajaccio.

Overall, several hundred people gathered in the city to express support for two firefighters and a police officer injured on Thursday.

Firstly the BBC are obviouly unsure how to handle this as the ‘Arabs’ attacked the fire and police men…..this may give people the unwanted idea that immigration from Arab countries isn’t such a good idea….not a good thing whenn the BBC is busy heavily promoting pro-Syrian etc mass imigration to Europe.  The BBC therefore hides the story away as fast as possible in its unread backwaters.  Second the BBC tries to downplay the anti-Islam/Arab nature of the protest…it was really all about support for the fire and police men.  People actuall love Islam don’t you know?

News you can trust?  Not from the BBC.

In 2014 the US refused to issue over 1.6 million visas to non-immigrant tourist and business travellers [categories]….and yet the BBC thinks a family from Walthamstow, one of whose members put up a Facebook page promoting Islamic terror groups, is being discriminated against.

As the Guardian said:

If you share such a link [on social media for instance], then it is a pretty reliable sign that something is awry. If you do it more than once, even more likely that you are a terrorist. Or a sympathiser.

The BBC has failed entirely and wilfully to do any real journalism on the story of the Walthamstow wanderers…instead the BBC peddles a one-sided tale of anti-Muslim discrimination and has also used it to attack its other enemy…Trump.  Where are the BBC reports looking at US visa requirements and rules on entry, where are the visa figures that could illustrate ‘discrimination?…for instance they show 100% of San Marino category B applications have been refused ….are they Muslims?…no, RC.  Turkey has 7.1% refused whilst Sweden has 15.4% refused….Canada has 48.7% refused!  Inconveniently not the anti-Muslim narrative that the BBC wants to spin.

After assaulting our perceptions with a barrage of one-sided speculation and wishful thinking relentlessly over the course of one day the BBC suddenly went silent on the sad tale of a group of Muslims barred from the US….could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that a Facebook page was reported, linked to the family home, which made positive references to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and linked to an ISIS praising website...Islamic Thinkers?

Here’s an example of the ‘Islamic Thinkers’ thinking…

You can understand why the US was reluctant to admit this family days after the San Bernardino murders especially as the relative in the US the family were visiting attended the same mosque as one of the killers.

The BBC has finally worked out how it wants to handle this new information and as usual it seeks to downplay its significance and still prefers the narrative that the US is discrimnating against Muslims and it is all Trump’s fault.  It is perhaps an irony that they use this headline...’UK Muslims ‘barred’ from US – what we know’.   An irony because ‘what we know’ is precisely what the BBC doesn’t want you to know.

After a lot of background before we eventually get to the important information, the real reason they were stopped…

Why were they stopped?

According to ITV News, a Facebook page claiming links to radical Islamist groups was set up by someone living at Mohammad Tariq Mahmood’s postal address. But, the broadcaster said, it appeared to have been set up as a joke.

Mr Mahmood said no-one in his family had any connection to it: “That could be anything, maybe a mistake.”

He told reporters the ban could also have something to do with his brother Mohammed Zahid Mahmood once being denied entry to Israel.

Note the BBC goes to ITV rather than CBS which actually broke the story…is it because ITV suggested it looked like a joke thus dismissing it as such whilst CBS didn’t?  Why would the BBC prefer that narrative?

The BBC also quotes this little chap:

Imam Ajmal Masroor said he received similar treatment when trying to travel to the US on 17 December, and was only told his business visa had been revoked.  He said he had never had any problem travelling on that visa before, and feared the US was targeting Muslims.

“This is absolutely discrimination. It is not acceptable and playing into the hands of the terrorists,” Masroor said.

Now we’ve already had a look at this story and shown that Masroor is a nasty piece of work to coin a phrase…why is the BBC quoting him when it is clear he is a Muslim activist especially when he has threatened both politicians and journalists who don’t toe the Islamist line?

The BBC wants us to think that the Facebook page was a joke and therefore not to be taken as a serious indication of any Islamist intent…but it obviously wasn’t a satire intended to rubbish and mock Islamic terrorists, it was intended to promote them, to show that the page-maker was in sympathy with them…it showed his ‘Islamic State of Mind’….and if it was a joke why hide your real name?  He hid his real name because it wasn’t a joke and he knew there could be consequences…such as a missed trip to Disney.

We also hear this…’He told reporters the ban could also have something to do with his brother Mohammed Zahid Mahmood once being denied entry to Israel.’  What we’re not told is that he went to Israel with a group of other Muslim ‘lads’ and was held for 8 days before being kicked out.  Not as if British Muslims haven’t got a record of striking at Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD2k533hIY

As for the US banning Muslims…it is letting in 10,000 Syrians…and ‘An examination of State Department records by American Enterprise Institute researcher Justin Lang found that since 2001, the State Department had denied visas to just 2,231 individuals because the applicant was suspected of terrorist ties or activity.’

In 15 years or so the US has only denied entry to 2,231 individuals due to suspicions of terrorist ties or activity and the BBC pushes the narrative that ‘there is a pattern forming’ and that there is a ‘”growing problem” of British Muslims being barred without explanation.’

Why does the US bar people?….(3) Security and related grounds. -….This being the probable relevant section in relation to the Facebook page…

(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

Or maybe this…

(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

You may be interested to know that it is not Muslims who are banned but Communist Party members or anyone in  a totalitarian organisation…

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-

(i) In general.-Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

What ever the exact ruling was it is hardly surprising just days after the San Bernardino killings that there was a heightened alert and care taken…after all AQAP has just declared America to be their main enemy…...AQAP leader says America is the ‘primary enemy’

The BBC refuses to accept that and instead insists this is ‘racism’ against Muslims.

It’s not as if postings on social media are unknown hunting grounds for intelligence services…and the BBC itself tracks them for news stories….and that there are legal consequences for posting anything that could be construed as relating to the promotion of terrorism.

Here’s the Mail listing the words you can’t say without the NSA come sniffing your PC…

Revealed: Hundreds of words to avoid using online if you don’t want the government spying on you

The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.

The intriguing the list includes obvious choices such as ‘attack’, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘dirty bomb’ alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like ‘pork’, ‘cloud’, ‘team’ and ‘Mexico’.

And here’s the Guardian last year revealing a similar theme…..

‘You’re the bomb!’ Are you at risk from the anti-terrorism algorithms?

Does the stuff you post on the internet make you look like a terrorist? Is the rhythm of your typing sending the wrong signals? The government wants sites such as Google and Facebook to scan their users more closely. But if everything we do online is monitored by machines, how well does the system work?

Share the wrong link

It’s pretty hard for machines right now to know exactly what we mean when we talk, so it is much easier for them to look for some kind of absolutely reliable flag that content is suspect. One easy solution is to use databases of websites known to be connected to extremists, or child abuse imagery, or similar. If you share such a link, then it is a pretty reliable sign that something is awry. If you do it more than once, even more likely that you are a terrorist. Or a sympathiser.

Here’s hoping all our readers and commenters have had a Christmas to remember and will have a good new year.

Hope you got one of these subversive devices under your Christmas tree…

Or a link to the Kodi download site where you can get the software for free to put the ‘device’ on your PC.