Category Archives: BBC bias

Remember the sneers and gloating from various parties when the first planes and buses from Bulgaria and Romania didn’t bring in swarms of migrants in a first mad rush?  Seems they were wrong…as most people knew they were…and Migration Watch, which predictied a probable 50,000 immigrants a year from these two countries was spot on, as always…

53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) citizens immigrated to the UK in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase and almost double the 28,000 in the previous 12 months.

We also hear that net migration is at a record high of 330,000…but that doesn’t tell the real story, it hides an uncomfortable truth…that the real foreign net migration into the UK is in fact 379,000 once the British citizen figures are removed form the statistics…..

Net migration of EU citizens showed a statistically significant increase to 183,000 (up 53,000 from YE March 2014). The increase in non-EU net migration to 196,000 (up 39,000) was also statistically significant.

In other words 379,000 foreigners came to live in the UK last year….the 330,000 figure, bad as that is, conveniently hides the reality.  Any wonder housing, schools, the NHS and the roads are all nearing crisis levels?  How can you maintain a cohesive society when the very fabric of that society is being ripped apart…the unity of the people, the common sense of being part of one nation, the common values and cultural references that make communication and relations easier, the trust and the willingness to accept the principles of the welfare state…all being eroded by a massive inflow of people who don’t respect British values, culture or history and come essentially for the money.

The BBC is indulging itself with a two day examination of why immigrants want to come here….what an utter waste of time….we know why they want to come here…but then the BBC knows this and has deliberately chosen this line of discussion in order to push the more emotive narrative of immigrants fleeing some horror in their own country and the ‘fact’ that they all want to work and will benefit the UK.  The real question that should be asked is should they be allowed to come here and what are the effects, not just on businesses but upon the whole of society…and that includes cultural, social, legal, political values and beliefs as well as the pressure on the infrastructure. The BBC likes to avoid such discussions as the effects of migration are more often than not negative despite the BBC’s gleeful assertion that Britain’s favourite food is the curry….we like curry, therefore immigration must be good.

The BBC has been spinning the immigration figures today and added in various narratives to the mix that reinforce the BBC’s own preferred line of being pro-immigration and anti-Tory…..and if you want to hear a classic sneer from a BBC reporter listen to Ross Clark when he is talking about migrants (09:43) who are ‘trying to get into ‘our country’ if you like’.(09:44:40)  ‘Our country’ said in a tone suggesting there is no such thing as ‘our country’ and it is rather baffling that anyone should think of it in that way…it should be open to all to come and go as they please and take all the benefits they please.

The BBC has been attacking Cameron and Co for their abject failure to reduce immigration, curiously I don’t remember the BBC being similarly aggressive when Labour flung open the borders and the migrants started swarming in, far, far more than the 13,000 figure Labour lied to us about.

R4 going for an “immigration controls are too strong” line at the top of the news. Bizarre call.

Another attack line is that businesses are demanding more immigration…apparently Cameron is ‘punishing business’ with his limits on immigration….not sure how they get that when immigration is at a record high.  They claim that the alleged block on immigration means they just can’t increase productivity.  A limit on skilled migration is clearly only imposed upon non-EU citizens….are these businesses seriously suggesting that they can’t get these people from inside the whole of Europe or upskill their own workforce?

Is a reduction in immigration really a block on productivity?   The BBC’s favourite meme since 2010 has been that the ever increasing employment numbers have been a ‘puzzle’…well it wasn’t a puzzle…it was the result of businesses being able to employ more people due to low wages and cheap imported labour.  Then the BBC switched its line of attack to the ‘productivity puzzle’….remarkably at the same time it became a Labour Party concern.  The BBC just couldn’t work out why productivity was so low.  Of course that is also the result of low wages and the mass importation of that cheap labour….all of which makes it a bit of a cheek for these businesses to now claim that reducing immigration will reduce productivity when it is their own use of cheap, immigrant labour that has held down productivity per worker.  The BBC fails to raise that anomaly or the point that perhaps the businesses should get off their arses and train their workers, invest in better machinery, become more efficient and sell more if they want to improve productivity…not by importing more cheap labour.  Maybe their defintion of productivity is somewhat different to everyone elses.

We also hear that migrants aren’t coming for the benefits….they come to work…

Meanwhile, Jamil Dhanji an immigration barrister told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme migrants were not coming to the UK to claim benefits.

“Migrants I see are not coming to this country for that reason,” he said.

They do come to work, or most of them do…but of course they know that they will also receive in-work benefits…not to mention a free health service, an education for their kids and all the stability, security and infrastructure that a country like the UK can provide….in other words they get an awful lot of benefits, not all of them coming in the form of cash payments.

No society can sustain the massive levels of immigration that are being forced upon the UK….even if they were all people who loved fish and chips, played soccer and drank warm beer, the figures still wouldn’t be viable…..but add into the mix huge numbers of people who have no interest in maintaining British society, and many who in fact intend to take no part in it at all and will seek to undermine that society, and you can guess that the future is not bright.  The BBC did a survey of Indians who wanted to come here a few years back and the result showed that the majority had no intention to integrate…naturally the BBC didn’t publicise that part of the survey.

The BBC is supposed to be helping to maintain civil society and citizenship…as far as I can see they are doing the precise opposite campaigning for open borders which will result in the break down of the fabric of society and the end of the welfare state with all that that entails.

Time the government took a good look at the BBC’s politics and did something about it.  Fraser Nelson at the Telegraph suggests Cameron is too complacent, too idle, to do so.  I think he’s right.

Once upon-a-time, we are assured, there was a young lad in Spain, of Moroccan descent, hardworking, nice, never violent and never spoke of politics. He travelled to France to work but having found a job was ‘let go’ after two months.  All alone and jobless in a strange foreign country what’s a boy to do?

Apparently what you do is get yourself an assault rifle, a pistol, a knife and some petrol and plan to slaughter as many passengers on a train as possible.

The BBC thinks this is a reasonable narratve to spin for us. (41 mins 30 secs)  A freelance reporter (unsaid if commissioned by the BBC) headed straight for the parents of the train terrorist so that we could ‘find out about the man himself’.

We hear that the father is a humble man, a broken man, bemused by his son’s actions…he has no idea what could have happened to turn that lovely lad into a potential mass murderer…well, actually he did have an idea…it was all the fault of that French company that let his son go.

We hear that there was never any talk of politics in the house….but we are told the terrorist was very religious…as was his brother…who held a post at a mosque…which Spanish police said was a hotbed of radicalism…and yet no politics was ever mentioned at home.

Kind of reminds me of the BBC’s reporting from the West Bank when a suicide bomb goes off and they head straight for the suicide bomber’s family to get his side of the story…just what did drive him to do such a terrible act?  Those damned Israelis!!!  Oh yes…and never mind the families of the victims of the bomber.

Or indeed after 7/7 in this country when the BBC rushed to find excuses for the bombers asking ‘Just what did drive these young British Muslims to do this?’….suggesting of course that it was the fault of British society…the racism, the Islamophobia, the discrimination….only to have to wind their necks in as they realised this line was highly inappropriate and unpopular….but it could wait.

And wait they did until finally they commissioned a film to be made examining the background to the bombings and the motivations of the bombers.

The film was to be called ‘The London Bombers’.

It was never made.  Shelved by the BBC.  The findings did not align with the BBC’s own preconceived narrative of why these ‘young British Muslims’ were driven to do what they did.  The film, in telling the truth, was ‘islamophobic’…..as Nick Cohen in Standpoint relates….

The London Bombers, one of the most thoroughly researched and politically important drama-documentaries commissioned by British television. A team of journalists, at least one of whom was a British Muslim, reported to Terry Cafolla, a fine writer who won many awards for his dramatisation of the religious hatred which engulfed the Holy Cross school in Belfast.

Unusually for journalists working within BBC groupthink, they didn’t find that the “root cause” of murderous rage was justifiable anger at the “humiliation” America, Israel, Britain and Denmark and her tactless cartoonists had inflicted on Muslims. They inadvertently confirmed the ideas of Ernest Gellner, the late and unjustly neglected professor of anthropology at Cambridge. In Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (1992), Gellner asked why a puritanical version of Islam was in the ascendant when godlessness was flourishing everywhere else. His answer was that Wahhabism and its ever more zealous theocratic variants could appear as modern as secular humanism. They represented the pure religion of scholars and the city, which would free Muslims from their peasant parents’ embarrassingly superstitious faith. Accepting fanaticism was a mark of superiority: a visible sign of upward mobility from rural idiocy to urban sophistication.

And so it proved in Leeds.

So psychologically convincing is the portrayal of macho loyalty and lure of barbarism that viewers can understand how these men turn into mass murderers.

Except that they can’t and won’t understand, because the BBC will not give them the opportunity to understand. This is a review of a drama that was never made.

The reporters convinced the families of three of the four bombers to cooperate. By the end, they agreed that the BBC’s account of their sons and brothers’ lives and deaths was accurate. Cafolla submitted five versions of the script. He was working up to a final draft when the BBC abandoned the project.

The official reason is that the drama didn’t make the grade. The script is circulating in Samizdat form, which is how it reached Standpoint, and every writer and director who has read it disagrees. The journalists, however, say that BBC managers told them they were stopping because it was “Islamophobic”.

Cohen concludes…

It makes no sense until you understand the moral contortions of the postmodern liberal establishment. In the past few years, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the West Midlands Police, the liberal press, the Liberal Democrats, the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all either supported ultra-reactionary doctrines or made libellous accusations against the critics of radical Islam. All have sought to prove their liberal tolerance by supporting the most illiberal and intolerant wing of British Islam, and by blocking out the voices of its Muslim and non-Muslim critics as they do it.

As the sorry history of The London Bombers shows, they have left us a country that cannot tell its own stories; a land so debilitated by anxiety and stupefied by relativism that it dare not meet the eyes of the face that stares back at it from the mirror.

The BBC knows exactly why these ‘young Muslims’ of whatever origin go on to commit these acts, the BBC just doesn’t want to admit it as to do so would raise an awful lot of uncomfortable questions about Islam, the sensibleness of continuing to promote Islam unchecked and the wisdom of allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries into Europe when it is clearly going to be the cause of much controversy and conflict.

 

“As for Dylann Roof? You —-! You want a race war —-? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE —-!!!”

The BBC is getting into its stride..it’s now found an angle to twist the narrative on the killing of two unarmed white TV reporters by a black man….he was angry about the Dylann Roof murder of nine black people in Charleston earlier this year….the BBC now seem to think, in this updated report, that it is safe to mention race as he is now officially a ‘victim’…however indirectly….

Police said his utterances on social media the previous evening suggested the attack was pre-planned.

ABC News has meanwhile revealed that it received a 23-page fax, apparently sent by Flanagan on Wednesday morning, in which he claimed his anger had been “building steadily”.

The fax said the attack was intended to avenge the Charleston shootings earlier this year – a suspected hate crime in which a white gunman killed nine parishioners at an African-American church.

The rambling fax also complained of racial discrimination, harassment and bullying in the workplace, and professed admiration for the perpetrators of gun massacres at a US school and university.

The question is though…is Bryce Williams, aka Flanagan, a terrorist?  The BBC was quick to ask such questions about Roof…..

Americans ask if Charleston suspect ‘terrorist’ or ‘crazy’?

Is the suspect in the attack which killed nine people at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina being treated differently because he is white?

That’s what many argued online. After the arrest of 21-year-old Dylann Roof, several images went viral comparing the way the case has been talked about – and how the suspect was treated by police – to other incidents involving black people accused of much less serious crimes. Here are some of the most shared.

The Telegraph reports, the BBC doesn’t,  what the ‘manifesto’ to ABC News from Williams actually said:

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15,” he wrote in what he described a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family”.

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” he wrote. “And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

“As for Dylann Roof? You —-! You want a race war —-? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE —-!!!”

Bryce wants a race war and he presumably killed these two white people as his own little part in that.  He’s a terrorist just as Roof was.

I’m guessing the BBC will come down on the ‘crazy’ verdict for this one…or we’ll find out Williams is actually white…just like George Zimmerman is…not…..and the two white victims are actually black…just like blond, white skinned Rachel Dolezal.

Corbyn increasingly likely Labor winner. Seems only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong.

An endorsement of Corbyn by that Australian Devil incarnate, Rupert Murdoch…..Just as he supported New Labour is he now coming out for New Old Labour?

An evil mindf**k for the Lefties!

The question is why such a senior BBC figure as Alan Yentob was engaging in such OVERT politicking whilst feigning neutrality in his day job?

Alan Yentob warned ministers that parts of Britain would ‘descend into savagery’ unless they gave Kids Company £3million, it was claimed last night. An email he allegedly signed also said there was a ‘high risk of arson attacks’ on government buildings if the grant was not approved. The message was sent to the Cabinet Office as the troubled charity – set up to help ..coughs …the vulnerable..”

Somebody on my Twitter line suggested that “revert” might be more apt than “descend”…

‘

Stop the presses!’   The BBC would love to do that wouldn’t they?  Perhaps they should hold their own Frontpage instead of stuffing it full of self-promotional guff from TV-land luvvies.

Anyway…frontpage news on the BBC…is the BBC…..

Armando Iannucci: Britain needs strong TV industry

Comedy writer Armando Iannucci has called for an industry-wide defence of the BBC and British programme-makers.

However it does seem that Iannucci considers himself one of the BBC’s people…

Iannucci suggested one way of easing the strain on the licence fee was “by pushing ourselves more commercially abroad”.

“Be more aggressive in selling our shows, through advertising, through proper international subscription channels, freeing up BBC Worldwide to be fully commercial, whatever it takes.

Iannucci also spins an old falsehood that the charter review process will not have any ‘creatives’ in it…

In July, the government issued a green paper setting out issues that will be explored during negotiations over the future of the BBC, including the broadcaster’s size, its funding and governance.

UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale appointed a panel of eight people to advise on the charter renewal, including former Channel 5 boss Dawn Airey and journalism professor Stewart Purvis, a former editor-in-chief of ITN.

Iannucci bemoaned the lack of “creatives” involved in the discussions.

That’s simply not true…the panel itself includes many ffom the TV industry and the BBC and the BBC Trust will have major roles to play in the review.  Not only that but many experts and interested parties will be called upon to give evidence and their opinion on the review.  So hardly the bean counters in charge, not the hit squad of ‘gravediggers’ for the BBC that we are led to believe.…

Firstly is the Panel the sole source of information and reference for the government?  No.  The BBC itself, through Hall and his executives and via the BBC Trust, will be having a huge say in what goes on and the Trust will be gathering information and data to support whatever case it decides to proffer….

One of the creations of the last Charter was the BBC Trust – set up to represent the licence fee payer. The Trust will, in thisrole, also be consulting on proposals for the future of the BBC. We will take full account of the Trust’s work and work with them on a range of public and industry events to explore in detail the important issues in the coming months.

The Public and whoever else is interested and concerned are also invited to contribute their views and opinions…

Reviewing the BBC’s Royal Charter is not just a case of publishing a consultation. We want to engage with the public and with industry to make sure that all views are given proper consideration. This is why we are engaging with people across the UK in a number of ways to make it easy for everyone to respond.

Not only that but other experts will be engaged to provide comment and relevant expertise…

There are also some areas where studies, reviews and research are needed – to add technical expertise or independence from Government. We will be commissioning these in the coming months.

Not only that but as well as the eight people on the review Panel other people or groups will be asked to join the panel as when the situation requires it.

Hardly the cosy little stitch up by a government in hock to the Murdoch empire as excitedly claimed by Fowler, Patten and Lee & Co as they paint a doomsday scenario for the BBC.

Sky has a slightly different take on what Iannucci said about ‘creatives’…no link to the BBC and charter review…

“If Britain is at the top of its game in TV creativity, I think it is because we have the best audience in the world.

“It takes the difficult, and the idiosyncratic, and makes it popular. That’s why we in television should feel lucky to be born in this country.”

He added that the future success of British television will depend on broadcasters’ willingness to trust the “creatives” who know how to make good programs.

The BBC’s Director General is also involved, as usual, in scaremongering, stating…

…that further cuts to the corporation’s funding and remit could result in more than 30,000 job losses across the TV industry.

“New research shows that, because of the boost the BBC provides, if you cut the licence fee by 25% you’d lose about 32,000 jobs across the whole economy,” said Hall. “These aren’t just jobs at the BBC, but across the TV industry – at independent producers, suppliers and studios up and down the country.”

“A strong BBC also contributes to a strong UK economy. A strong BBC will help deliver a strong Britain”.

---

This [H/T  Craig at Is the BBC biased?…no, apparently not] is also highly relevant…and somewhat not unexpected from the cowardly Tories:

The BBC’s ‘nemesis’ John Whittingdale has been speaking at the Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival.

Here are some of the things he said, as quoted by the Independent and the Guardian:

This idea that there is an ideological drive to destroy the BBC is just extraordinary, the people rushing to defend the BBC are tilting at windmills, they are trying to have an argument that has never been started, certainly not by me. 

Britain’s image abroad is enormously strengthened by the success of the BBC. 

Do I think there is general bias towards the left? No. 

For the moment, the licence fee or something like it is the best option.

It always amazes me the sort of thing that so concerns the comrades at the BBC. This…as way of example. Is this the sort of drivel that requires £3.5bn per year to churn out?

Is it OK to dress up as Cecil the Lion’s killer or Caitlyn Jenner?

The BBC gives every appearance of outrage because the Ulster Unionist Party is walking OUT of the Stormont Executive now that is has been confirmed the IRA remains intact and still murdering. The BBC, ageing the Government and PSNI line, suggests that murder is not the same as terrorism so technically all is well. In this way, the UUP are being portrayed as the villains of the peace because they refuse to stomach Sinn Fein duplicity over something as basic as MURDER.

Biased BBC reader Robin writes…

What’s the Point of Britain’s existence?

Tell a BBC type and liberal/left person that the Foreign Office should be reduced by 95% and Britain should give up its Security Council seat at the UN ( India as a replacement ?) and see them be speechless for a minute .

It does work I can vouch for that .

For what you are doing is advocating diminishing their Rightful Place in the world , which is the one time you see them being – hold your seats – nationalist . A word they hate unless Scottish or Irish precedes it . To be fair they are not nationalistic in those two more honest sense of the word . The liberal / left have to sophisticate any patriotism they have in the greater scheme of internationalism while maintaining their Rightful Place .
Their Rightful Place is to have power in world events and to do this they need the British state to have ” influence ” .
The BBC have never asked why Britain should have influence . Why Britain and not say Indonesia, Brazil or Algeria ? There has to be a reason – so what is the reason ? Is Britain superior to others or conversely are the others inferior to Britain ? The BBC never say or ever ask , would the answer be embarrassing to the liberal/left ?
As the liberal/left don’t like Britain as it was or as it is now why do they want it to excist ? I can only conclude they want the British state and some of its institutions to ;
Levy taxes
Initiate equality programmes
Equalise wealth
Social engineer
Be a base for organisations that work to do the above
To do the above in the wider world via British ‘influence’ .

Let’s take another paradox of the liberal/left . They believe inequality of wealth within the world is wrong , but then tell us that mass immigration into Britain increases our wealth !  Note they don’t condemn our increased wealth , they tell us it’s a Good Thing . Again something missed by the BBC .

I don’t know what the BBC want instead of Britain and the people here , and I doubt if they would be honest enough to tell us .

The normal process for a news story as it develops is that we get more information about events, the causes of them and the people involved in them.

The BBC seems to have reversed that process and looks to be removing relevant information from the news.

In the US a ‘disgruntled’, to say the least, ex-employee of a TV news station kills two other employees and claims that one of them racially abused him.

The BBC in this ‘what we know about the suspect’ report tells us that ‘Mr Flanagan also accused the murdered reporters of making racist comments and complained to human resources about it.’   Though in fact that is wrong, Flanagan [known professionally as Bryce Williams] only complained that one of the employees had racially abused him, the other had actually filed a complaint against Flanagan.

Curiously even that small mention by the BBC of the apparent, and kind of important, motivating factor [though it seems Flanagan had a habit of making such allegations and had anger management problems] disappeared in this later report about the shooting... now all we get is that there was ‘discrimination’ and no mention that Flanagan is black or that race might have been a factor…

The Twitter account of Flanagan, known professionally as Bryce Williams, suggested he held a grudge against Mr Ward, 27, whom he accused of lodging a formal complaint against him, and Ms Parker, 24.

And local media reported that he had filed a lawsuit against WDBJ7, alleging discrimination by the whole station and naming most of the staff in his complaint. The case is said to have been dismissed by a judge in July 2014.

Flanagan’s motivation is reduced to a ‘grudge’ against Ms Parker (the reporter he accused of racism) and that he alleged ‘discrimination’ against the whole station…….That’s a very round-about way of reporting this when there are already well established facts about the case.

Flanagan seems to have been sacked a couple of times for anger issues and had to be escorted by police from the WDBJ building when sacked in 2013…the network that the two dead reporters worked for. The BBC merely tells us that….

He left in 2013 according to his own LinkedIn account, which also listed several positions in customer service and a undergraduate degree in broadcast media from San Francisco State University.

Way back in 2000 he was fired for similar behaviour [‘ND’…News Director]:

• Heather Myers ‏@HeatherMyersSD6 3 hrs3 hours ago

  Our ND hired and fired suspected shooter @Bryce_williams7 in 2000 in Tenn. Fired for bizarre behavior and threatening employees. @SanDiego6

From San Diego 6 news:

Flanagan worked as a reporter in several different markets including Tallahassee, FL where he worked as a reporter for current San Diego 6 News Director Don Shafer.   “He was a good on-air performer, a pretty good reporter. And then things started getting a little strange,” Shafer said.   Shafer hired Flanagan at WTWC in 1999.  In 2000, Flanagan was fired by Shafer for what Shafer called “odd behavior.”Flanagan later sued the Tallahassee station, but the case was thrown out. 

Sky reports more details:

The man suspected of gunning down WDBJ news reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward during a live broadcast had a history of workplace wrangles.

Vester Lee Flanagan, who used the screenname Bryce Williams, was fired from WDBJ in 2013.

The CBS affiliate’s general manager, Jeffrey A Marks, said Flanagan was “an unhappy man… who quickly gathered a reputation as someone who was difficult to work with”.

Mr Marks added: “Eventually after many incidents of his anger coming to the fore, we dismissed him. And he did not take that well, we had to call the police to escort him from the building.”

 

Is the BBC a bit conflicted in this?  A black man, alleging racial discrimination, but who was likely fired for his own strange behaviour, who then shoots two white people, only one of them for ‘racism’, or discrimination as the BBC now seems to prefer.  Just what will the BBC narrative be?    Somehow the black killer has got to be made into the victim…it will be interesting to watch the BBC’s tortuous attempts to ‘blackwash’ this story….which already seems to be happening as noted above.