Jonathan Dimbleby summoned up an alarming vision of Western Civilisation under threat as the dark shadow of a Tory government looms across the land intent on turning back the clock, if not to the ravages and poverty of the 1930’s then at least to 1984, a Western Civilisation under threat from the commercial Vandals and the predations of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies in Westminster, under threat from the People, the People, once patronised and denied a voice, now, thanks to the internet, able to find not only their voice but all the information that the Media for so long jealously guarded to ensure its own dominance.  Dimbleby does not like the People having a voice. Dimbleby told us that the BBC was all that stood between the end of Western Civilisation and those barbarians that want a free for all, a free world, a free press, free speech.  Dimbleby doesn’t seem to want any of that, not the bloggers, not the commercial rivals, not even the politicans were to be allowed a voice…he wanted the BBC to be the ‘one voice’ that spoke ‘truth’ to power and the People…countering the lies of government, Murdoch and the People.  The problem is that his highly misleading claims, his lies, his abuse of his position as a BBC Grandee, his extremely biased attacks on the ‘enemies of the BBC’ in the commercial sector and in government, all undermine his claim that the BBC and those who run it are trustworthy enough to be granted the supremely privileged position as that ‘one voice’ that alone could be trusted as the credible authority with the integrity to produce totally impartial, balanced and fair news and programming.  There is a credibility gap all too obvious when you hear the likes of Dimbleby making grand statements proclaiming the BBC’s worthy intentions and then look at the methods he employs to slate his enemies and  promote the BBC.

That credibility gap is all too evident elswhere, none so much as in the BBC’s reporting into the various child abuse scandals.

What is the BBC’s main concern?  Is it to investigate fully any child abuse claims, to explore the issues, to help bring to justice those who perpetrate such crimes?  Seemingly not.  The BBC’s main concern seems to be looking after the BBC’s reputation and scoring political points against its ‘enemies’.

We all know about the BBC’s slur against Lord McAlpine.…was the BBC all too eager to brand him a criminal because of this high ranking position in the Tory party and his close links to Thatcher….‘ a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years.”?  Were they desperate enough to try and smear Thatcher by association on the flimsiest of evidence?

Then there was Savile and the BBC’s attempt to sweep that under the carpet in a damage limitation exercise.  The journalists who exposed the BBC’s role in that farce have all been forced out…..and maybe we know why as BBC bigwig, Alan Yentob, is claimed to have called them ‘traitors to the BBC’.   I’m guessing this suggests he would prefer to hide the truth than allow the BBC’s reputation to be sullied by an exposé of that truth.

Now the Independent reports that Panorama is finally to broadcast its film about allegations of a VIP paedophile ring, originally scheduled for April.  It will now be screened on October 6th, during the Tory Party conference.  Go figure.  Even though the film apparently debunks the VIP paedophile ring claims, or at least those about murder, it is odd timing to broadcast it, the BBC undoubtedly knowing that the film will dominate the Media scrum and overshadow the Tory conference and at the same time have the Tory politicians cornered with every journalist undoubtedly only interested in one subject…definitely not how well the economy may be doing!  A cunning BBC plan?  Just maybe.

The Independent says:

Reports suggested that BBC executives were at loggerheads over the film, which is expected to cast doubt over allegations made by a witness known as “Nick”.  Executives within BBC News were said to be concerned that the programme would be seen as an “attack on the victims” and might discredit its own reports into the alleged abuse.

In other words it’s all about the BBC’s reputation….how the ‘victims’ would react towards the BBC and any subsequent bad publicity coming the BBC’s way.  And what of that curious statement that it ‘might discredit its own reports into the alleged abuse.‘  What are they suggesting, that the BBC’s reports on the VIP paedophile ring may have been less than balanced and trustworthy….seeing as they targeted mostly Tories?

Is the BBC more concerned about managing its reputation than getting to the truth, is it using the sex abuse claims to target the Tories, is there a huge credibility gap between the values the BBC proclaims and how it actually operates in the real world?

If you hoped he’d seek truth and spread a little enlightenment you’d be disappointed, if you believed in his integrity you’d be disillusioned, if you thought he’d bring balance and the judgement of Solomon using wisdom gleaned through decades of mingling with Kings and commoners you’d be disabused of that soon enough.

It is an unfortunate fact that Jonathan Dimbleby is as corrupt, as deceitful, as stupid, as intolerant, as prejudiced, as the rest of us may, or may not, be.

He talks grandly and urgently of freedom of speech, of troubling times, of voices silenced, of living in the darkest of times, he talks of intimidation and bullying, of the threat to British values, of witch-hunts and hate speech.  But it’s all a front, a fraud.  His moral grandstanding, his pious babbling is all a lie.  All this talk of values, of liberty, of freedom of speech is merely a vehicle to deliver his real message, one of course close to his heart and wallet, about the ‘threat’ to the BBC due its charter renewal and the dark forces that seek to detroy it.  This isn’t about freedom of speech and liberty and British values, it’s a tawdry exercise in propping up the BBC’s privileged, entrenched and powerfully dominant position in the media world.

Dimbleby knows the BBC is under threat because…

News Corp and its ilk have a vested financial interest in reducing the BBC’s scope and influence in the hope that the edifice will tumble, leaving a gaping hole in the market for them to fill. They and their cronies in Westminster care not a jot for balance or fairness, but are doing their best to shape the outcome of the negotiations over the renewal of the BBC’s charter – effectively its licence to broadcast.

Oh yes, the old enemy…Murdoch and those ‘cronies in Westminster’…by that he means the ruling Tory government, just elected with a decent majority (against all the predictions of the BBC so-called political experts!) whilst of course Dimbleby has never been elected to his position from whence on high he lectures us all…..a Dimbleby dynasty, handed down from father to son(s)…so much for democracy and all that.

Dimbleby suggests that the power of the BBC is a good thing, a vital thing, when social media is an unregulated and yet powerfully influential player in politics and society now…

In this climate, public service broadcasting is arguably more important than ever but, ironically, under greater threat than ever.

The BBC has become the most influential public service broadcaster in the world. It sets a benchmark for all broadcasters – public and commercial. That is why you should be very worried about what is happening to it.

Now all that’s a bit odd really when you consider what the BBC gets up to…as just today Allison Pearson reports ….My Leftie hell on Radio 4’s Any Questions

She tells us that…

I soon realised with a sinking heart, however, that the audience in the school hall was outrageously biased.

How could it be, when almost all of Cambridgeshire and, indeed, East Anglia, is true blue that the Any Questions audience appeared to be composed mainly of Corbyn fans?

I do blame the BBC, which has to take some responsibility for broadcasting a current affairs programme which gives such an erroneous snapshot of the national mood.

After the recording, the show’s excellent host, Jonathan Dimbleby, sighed heavily and told me it was a constant problem.

He and the whole AQ team found it immensely frustrating that Tories simply did not show up on the night to add their voices. The producer said it would cost £5,000 a week to pay someone to assemble a politically balanced audience.

The BBC needs to take action so that its current affairs output better reflects the views of all of the people who pay its licence fee.

Oh the irony…a BBC programme run by Dimbleby that has an audience packed out with hard-left activists and Dimbleby has the cheek to say that the BBC is an essential bulwark against such manipulation of the media sphere by very vocal and aggressive groups.  The fact is the BBC is the default goto organisation for anyone with a grievance against British society…be they Irish or Islamic terrorists or embittered left wingers who hate the nasty party or black race-baiters….you want a platform to air your grievance, however unjustified?, the BBC’s the place to go.

All the more ironic as Dimbleby says this..

In institutions across the western world, the “hecklers’’’ veto is growing in frequency and volume.

Remember this is a BBC that essentially banned Lord Lawson from the airwaves because he didn’t submit to the intimidation and bullying of the climate alarmist ‘consensus’, the BBC supinely crumbling after being bombarded with complaints from foam-flecked climate ‘hecklers’… a BBC that allowed itself to fall under the spell of climate activist Roger Harrabin and his mate Dr Joe Smith who effectively silenced climate change sceptics and drove them off the BBC airwaves.  So much for freedom of speech and respecting the right to be heard.

Dimbleby goes on to build on his claims about the threat to the BBC…

Today its enemies are more powerful than ever. Some are ideological, some are commercial. The former are to be found at their most ferocious on the backbenches of the House of Commons. Then there are the enemies in the media, who are not so much driven by ideology as profit. Principal among these is News UK, owned by News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

He goes on to whinge that the culture secretary has dared to raise the question of BBC reform…

The culture secretary, John Whittingdale, produced a green paper (open to public comment) that made his agenda pretty clear. It asserted that today, “the BBC is just one voice among many” before going on to ask if the corporation has “become too big, and if so, should it be more focused?” This is what a lawyer might describe as a leading, and a loaded, question.

Dimbleby finishes on this note…as ‘western civilisation is imperilled’...

In this dysfunctional world, the BBC, like other public service broadcasters across Europe, has a vital role. It is a unique forum. It would be a tragedy if any government, wittingly or unwittingly, were so to tamper with the BBC as to turn it into merely “one voice among many”.

Oh, by the way, when he talks of ‘western civilisation being imperilled’ he doesn’t mean by millions of Muslim migrants, terrorism and the looney left but by the Tory government and its alleged attacks on the rule of law,  freedom and democracy. 

Interesting though that Dimbleby believes that the BBC should be the single most important media voice in Britain and not merely a ‘voice among many’.

Fascinating that, arrogant, imperial, just a touch fascist maybe.  The BBC über alles.  No wonder the BBC seems so in awe of Frau Merkel and her migrant miracle message.

I would imagine, well no, facts prove, that the BBC itself is one of the major threats to western civilisation, a civilisation that it seems to hate and seeks to undermine and malign at every opportunity.  Dimbleby and his dishonest and self-serving tract illustrate perfectly the conceit, arrogance and delusions peddled by the BBC as it seeks to protect itself from scrutiny and accountability.

You have to ask how it is that a major BBC figure, one so very senior within its ranks, is allowed to pen such prejudiced and biased comments that attack not only commercial rivals who have to earn their pay and not have it handed to them on a plate, and also attack the government itself.  If that does not breach just about every code on bias and impartiality I’m not sure what would.

As perfect example of the BBC mindset as you’ll find anywhere surfaced today on 5 Live Daily today(11:15 ish).  Discussing migration a UKIP representative, an MEP, said that a major problem was that freedom of movement within the EU meant that as 100s of thousands of EU citizens came to the UK there was less and less room for refugees and asylum seekers who may be in genuine need.

The BBC’s Clare McDonnell dismissed his statement by saying it was an argument put forward by the Right-Wing and presumably in her mind, therefore not worthy of any consideration.

Firstly it’s not an ‘argument’, it’s not philosophy or an abstract notion….it’s the truth.  Vast numbers of EU immigrants means there are fewer resources to deal with refugees and far less will in the country to accept them here.

Secondly it’s not a ‘right wing’ attitude…it’s one that is the prevailing view in the country….77% of people want less immigration…because….we’re full up.

McDonnell then gave us another insight into the BBC’s mindset as she declared that ‘We’ll move on from migration and talk about housing now’.

Her attitude, that the housing shortage has nothing to do with immigration, is typical of how the BBC approaches this subject, sweeping under the carpet the uncomfortable truth that if you have 330,000 people a year swarming into the UK, or is it over 550,000 last year now?, it should be apparent to anyone that they need to live somewhere and therefore a housing crisis is the likely outcome of importing so many people.

But no, the BBC wants to separate the issues because it supports uncontrolled immigration regardless of the consequences.

The BBC, power without responsibility.  Perhaps the Charter Review panel should start taking a good look at the BBC’s politics as well as its size, scope and structure.

And as we’re on the subjects of the EU, migration and the ‘Right wing’ let’s ask if Germany is going to be the cause of yet another war in Europe..this time, ironically, as it tries to use the EU itself, an organisation supposed to force peace upon us all, to bully and intimidate its neighbours into doing what Germany wants…Germany has unilaterally decided to take in a million migrants, mostly Muslim, but found it couldn’t cope and now is demanding we all do as she tells us…or else.

The Express reports a gloomy future as predicted by various people...

“Our borders are in danger. Our way of life where we respect the law is in danger.

“The whole of Hungary and Europe is in danger.

“The migrants are blitzing us.”

 “We’re on the march to war. History is repeating itself.

“It’s a repeat of the 1930s. The crash of 1929, the Great Depression, currency wars, trade wars, world war.

“We’ve got the panic of ’08, the Great Recession, currency wars, trade wars and now we’re seeing the refugees of war sweeping on the shores of Europe.”

He said another big terror attack on society will see an emotional outpouring across the Western world that will then transform into a catastrophic thirst for revenge.

Mr Celente said: “They are leading us to the next great war. All it is going to take is a terror attack and people will be tying yellow ribbons around everything that doesn’t move, waving American flags and we’re off to what Einstein called the whole war scenario.”

“This is chilling. People should be scared to death.”

Now you could just write that off as so much hyperbole and over-excited doom-mongering but it is a scenario that could all too readily come true and is one that should definitely be discussed in relation to the flood of immigrants storming Europe…not just now, or tomorrow or for a few weeks but everyday, every week, every month possibly for years to come an endless tide of humanity seeking ‘a better life’….but what baggage do they bring with them?

The BBC was quite prepared to loudly and repeatedly warn us of an apparent Far Right rise in Europe, ironically whilst at the same time refusing to acknowledge, and in fact doing everything it could to downplay, the very real and growing threat of Muslim radicalism inside Europe. Why is it so reluctant to ‘warn’ us of the threat to our culture, values, beliefs, societies, politics, welfare structures, schools and health services that is posed by the migration of millions of people who have beliefs, values and cultures that are directly opposed to ours?

If you’re a UKIP MEP your views are unwelcome on the BBC but if you’re an Islamic terrorist you must have your reasons, here’s a platform on the BBC to justify your violence.

Now that the BBC has become the unofficial voice for encouraging unlimited muslim immigration across Europe, and hoisting the flag for Comrade Corbyn, the bias is replete across the spectrum. A new open thread to detail the bias.

The BBC clears the ariwaves to report that a Palestinian schoolboy in Israel who, with creative genius, built an electronic clock and took it into school one day where teachers mistook  it for a bomb and called the police. The boy was arrested, charged, found guilty and sentenced to be beheaded and crucified by the Israeli authorities for intention to commit terrorist acts.  The BBC are all over this story.

Or did that really happen?….Was the clock really a bomb or just a clock and did the Israelis merely jail the boy for a couple of hours?… the BBC wouldn’t let the facts spoil a good anti-Israeli story.

In fact, of course, none of that is true.  But you can imagine all too easily the furore that would erupt were the Israelis to execute a boy on trumped up charges never mind merely arrest and jail him.

But there’s no such furore, oddly, from the BBC for a Shia Muslim being executed by the Saudis…this week his sentence of beheading and crucifixion was confirmed and may be carried out within days.

As far as I can see the BBC last reported on this story over a year ago and nothing since.  Which is amazing really, a Shia Muslim boy being beheaded and crucified by Sunni Muslims, after probably being tortured into signing a false confession…and it’s all based on his religion.

‘Amazing’ because a Muslim boy in America who was arrested on suspicion of making a bomb and quickly released has really caught the BBC’s imagination and resulted in endless stories from the BBC about him…..none of which actually get anywhere near the truth as to what really happened…funnily enough.  Why so much attention on what is essentially a non-story and why, in complete contrast, the lack of interest in a Shia Muslim actually being tortured then executed by Sunnis on trumped up charges?

Does the BBC have an agenda?  Is the BBC only interested in stories that show Muslims as ‘victims’ of white oppression and Islamophobia?  Looks that way doesn’t it?

The BBC’s interest in a boy about to be beheaded is minimal to nil, the BBC’s interest in Muslim Clockboy is phenomenal in comparison….

Texas teenager arrested after a homemade clock was mistaken for a bomb

Ahmed Mohamed: No charges for boy, 14, arrested over clock

‘Clock boy’ Ahmed Mohamed’s huge invite list – Facebook, White House, Twitter

Ahmed Mohamed: Homemade clock boy quits Texas school

Oh yes, and then there’s this story….

Who’s behind the campaign for Ahmed, the young Muslim clockmaker?

Who indeed is behind the campaign for Ahmed?  Is it really just a concerned Muslim girl shocked by America’s Islamophobia or a hard-core campaigner on Islamic issues?

The BBC merely tells us that ‘A Texas college student wanted to show her support for Ahmed Mohamed. Twenty-four hours later, her hashtag has started a movement. …Those on social media who feel that the event was unjust and racially motivated have used #IStandWithAhmed to show their support.  The hashtag was created by Amneh Jafari, who wrote, “If his name was John he would be labelled as a genius. Since its Ahmed he’s labelled as a “suspect”. #doublestandards #IStandWithAhmed.”  Jafari, a 23-year-old psychology student at the University of Texas Arlington (UTA).’

Who is she really?  She is a Palestinian who champions the ‘one Ummah’ (you do remember the Islamic State’s single finger salute…one god, one religion, one mosque, one Ummah?) and her other hashtag is #HandsOffAlAqsa

• Amneh Jafari ‏@AmnehJafari 7 hrs7 hours ago

  InshAllah at 8:30 am I’ll be doing an interview with @KhaledSafi from Gaza, Palestine about #IStandWithAhmed http://www.alaqsavoice.ps/live/ 

Oh yes…she’s also a good friend of the extremist Islamist group CAIR’s Texas representative…...’Alia Salem, a friend of mine, and the executive director of CAIR-Texas Dallas Fort Worth’.  That’ll be CAIR who are coordinating a campaign in Ahmed’s name…

Remarkably the BBC seem entirely unconcerned about investigating the actual events that led up to the boy’s arrest and rely purely upon the boy’s own narrative…and that of his new friends.  But how true is that?  In this video you can see the BBC absolutely lapping up CAIR’s narrative and even adding the BBC’s own twist to it….suggesting that unless America sorts itself out it runs the risk of alienating young Muslims…which, completely without irony, we are told could ‘be problematic in the future’...does he mean radical Muslims with bombs?

First, the narrative that this is Islamophobia based upon the fact that the boy was a Muslim….well yeah, it was precisely because he was a Muslim…why?  Because Muslims are around the world planting bombs that get people killed.  The ‘clock’ looked nothing like a clock and looked like what everyone would suspect a bomb to look like.

Consider this was just after the 9/11 anniversary as well and the boy refused to explain why he had made the clock, why he had brought it into school and what it was for….the police, on that basis, arrested him for making a hoax bomb.  The school is also apparently just 25 miles away from where two Muslims attacked the Mohammed cartoon exhibition recently….why would people not be on the alert?

The boy was told not to show it to other teachers and yet he did, and in one class set the alarm to go off….which concerned the teacher enough to make her report him to the headteacher…..what would anyone make of a container full of electronics like that?

Did he actually ‘invent’ or otherwise create the clock himself?  Seems that he actually just took the guts out of a digital clock and put them into the case……hardly genius at work here…

Also thanks to David Brims for this video which gives a perspective the BBC doesn’t bother with:

And there’s this video which also takes a critical look at the issue and tells us of other, non-Muslim school children who have been treated in a similar, if not worse way…

The BBC has just taken this story and run with the Islamophobia narrative put out by the Islamist activists.  It hasn’t made the slightest effort to examine either the story or the supposed issues surrounding it as to whether this was ‘Islamophobia’ or a natural and cautious, sensible reaction in light of the serious terrorist threat in America right now…as we know there have been scores of arrests recently in the US related to the Islamic State.

The video in which the BBC hands over the airwaves to CAIR and actually sides with them, adding to CAIR’s own narrative of Islamophobia and Muslim victims, demonstrates perfectly how the BBC cannot be trusted to report on issues surrounding Islam and Muslims with the slightest degree of honesty and openness….another example of which was Jon Sopel’s astonishingly bigoted, biased pro-Muslim rant against Ben Carson which we looked at yesterday…..a story to which we can add to with this comment by Carson himself…..(H/T gb123 in the comments)

The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded “I would not advocate for that” and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.

I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced…I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

…I also can’t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.

But here’s a thing…one of CAIR’s declared enemies, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), run by Muslims, according to its 2011 IRS filings states, “AIFD’s mission is to advocate for the preservation of our U.S. Constitution’s liberties and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.” ‘….therefore if a Muslim refuses to compromise on his beliefs he cannot be President and still defend the US Constitution….just as Carson said.

Sarah Montague interviewed Ta-Nehisi Coates on Today (08:50) concerning a letter he wrote to his son preparing him for life in ‘racist’ America, a land in which the Blacks are still oppressed.  Never mind having a black President and all that.  A rare form of oppression one might think.  The letter came out in July and Coates has a long history of such racist whimpering.  You may suspect that the letter to his son was nothing more than a device to catch the media’s attention in a way that a race baiter talking up the usual anti-white rhetoric wouldn’t…wrap it up in a sentimental coating and it becomes a heartfelt plea, a meaningful spotlight on a cruel and racist America.

Montague played along and offered up Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as evidence of America’s white racism…never mind Martin was shot as he tried to smash the head of an Hispanic American into the ground and Brown was a thug and thief who attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun, punched him in the face and charged at him when told to stop….that’s why he was shot, not because he was black, because he was a dangerous, dumb-ass thug.

Then we get to the real meat of the interview, one suspects what Montague really wanted to address all along….Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson stating that a Muslim should not be President of the USA.

Coates denounced him as a bigot.  Montague said nothing to contradict that view.  In fact she didn’t put into context what Carson said and why he said it  thus deliberately leaving it open to interpretation that he was a bigot….an ‘Islamophobe’.

So now we know…America is racist, black men get gunned down by police for absolutely no reason whatsoever and blacks are put in jail just for the crime of being black [If you believe frothing mouthed liberal rants such as this where mass murderers and rapists are being treated ‘unfairly’ by racist America….”The imagery haunts, and the stench of slavery and racial oppression lingers through the 13 minutes of footage.’] and Republicans are Islamophobes.

Jon Sopel joins in the condemnation of Carson in this blatant piece of opinionated tripe he wrote for the BBC...Carson leaps over the line with his Islam comment.   This is not reporting but a one-sided piece of invective against Carson giving him no say to defend himself and which libels and labels him as a bigot and racist.

First though we have the usual BBC anti-Trump rhetoric which Sopel uses as a warm-up for his attack on Carson….

The slight trip across the line came from the aforementioned Mr Trump who failed to correct a questioner who alleged that Obama wasn’t American, wasn’t a Christian – but was a Muslim. Mr Trump, under fire, countered that it wasn’t up to him – he had no moral responsibility to stand up for the president. OK, but you can correct a downright lie. No?

That of course is purely subjective and not in the realm of a BBC ‘journalist’ to demand…Sopel calls the comment a ‘lie’ but what if it is a truly held belief or just a mistake?  To label it a ‘lie’ is a contrived way to put the person who made the comment in a bad light and Trump after.  Trump had no obligation to ‘correct’ him at all, and Obama was born a Muslim, his father was Muslim, therefore he may well be Muslim technically…in fact Muslims will tell you everyone is ‘Muslim’…you just don’t accept it…that is why they, especially the fundamentalists, insist on calling converts ‘reverts’…they revert back to their ‘natural’ religion….Jesus was a Muslim, as was Moses  and Abraham..oy vey!

Then Sopel gets to Carson and mounts his high-horse…..here sententiously, pompously, laying it out for us…

If you haven’t heard it I am going to reprint here the full exchange with Chuck Todd the interviewer, just so you can see that the comments aren’t being taken out of context.

TODD: Should a president’s faith matter? Should it matter to voters?

CARSON: I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America. And of course, if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

CARSON: No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

Sopel tries to set it up to suggest the context proves Carson is a bigot…hmmm…well reading it doesn’t seem to support that prejudiced and bigoted conclusion from Sopel who exhibits all the usual signs of being the BBC’s useful idiot in America ala Mark Mardell….it can’t be long before ISIL murders a group of people in America and Sopel comes up with the line that ‘This is a senseless tragedy….nothing to do with Islam’.

Reading what Carson said seems more to support the idea that he said this because his comments were based upon what the religion teaches, events from around the world such as in the war zone of the Middle East and events in Muslim majority countries in which Islam rules supreme guided by the word of God not man.

Is Islam compatible with western, democratic, secular, liberal societies that value free speech, liberty, tolerance and humanity?  Most people would probably say not.  I know of no-one who thinks Islam is a good and humane religion…the evidence is overwhelming that it seems to promote violence, intolerance and apartheid in societies around the world in a way that no other religion even comes close to…only in Islam does a holy book incite its followers to kill the unbelievers, to kill them until Islam rules supreme…nowhere in the Bible will you find Jesus telling followers of Christ to kill the unbelievers….

Quran (8:39) – “Make war on them until idolatory shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.’

Sopel emotes on behalf of Muslims in America…

How is it going to feel to have a serious political figure, someone who aspires to lead this nation, essentially saying being Muslim is un-American?

These people who day in, day out serve their communities, support their families, enrich the lives of fellow citizens and make America the successful melting pot that it is. Kids who recite the pledge of allegiance in the morning at their schools and go to their mosque or church or synagogue in the evening at the weekend? Isn’t that what America is all about? Which bit of “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” doesn’t Dr Carson get?

He then says this:

Indeed, how different are Dr Carson’s comments from previous generations of bigots, racists and apologists who would say there could never be an African-American as president, or Catholic, or any other minority you could single out.

So Carson is a racist, a bigot, an apologist for racists and bigots……but his comment was based not upon a physical characteristic but upon an ideology, one that clearly states what its tenets are….for everyone to read….and you can see those tenets being put into action around the world…and come to the conclusion that Carson did….are you a racist and a bigot if you oppose Communism or Fascism?  No, because they are ideologies not a skin colour.  Sopel doesn’t seem able to tell the difference.

Sopel quotes from the Constitution...

Article 6 is just about as explicit a statement as you’re ever going to find: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That though isn’t the issue…the issue is that it is Islam doesn’t recognise the ‘sovereignty of man’ and will not recognise the very same US Constitution that Sopel quotes from……which makes this command from the Constitution somewhat incompatible with  a Muslim being President…

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

As does this…..

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

How can a Muslim defend the Constitution when his religious principles oppose that very notion, that concept of man’s sovereignty not God’s, the very heart of the US Constitution?  Federal Law is the supreme law of the land, Sharia law therefore would be incompatible, it cannot also reign supreme.

Sopel’s failure to explain Muslim beliefs about politics and Sharia law whilst quick to quote Article 6 shows how biased his ‘reporting’ is on this issue.  Article 6 may not actually mean what he takes it to meant…that anyone, of any religion can be in public office….it is apparently taken as meaning no-one can be made to adopt a religion or belief…a slight but significant difference in meaning….it may not mean anyone is free to be President regardless of their ideology.

John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, in his Presidential campaign tackled a similar question….and his conclusions were…

If the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.

It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none—who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him—and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

I don’t believe any Muslim could make the same statements about the separation of religion and state, the guarantee of religious freedom, a state where religious law plays no part, where no faith school gets public funding and that he should have to resign if his faith and conscience should act against the national interest.

Sopel ends with this condescending and pompously arrogant sneer…

I was in California for the second Republican debate last week, and to be honest I thought Dr Ben Carson was sailing in a bit of an empty vessel. I couldn’t remember anything noteworthy that he had said. Well, we now see that there is something in that vessel, aside from him. And it is not very pleasant. It will be interesting to watch how much pressure there’ll be for him to walk the plank, or chart a very different course.

So Carson is also ‘not very pleasant’ and should be made to resign or be forced to change his views.

All in all a typically prejudiced, ill-informed and bigoted piece from the BBC that sets out to label anyone who criticies Islam as a racist and a fascist, someone whose views are ‘unacceptable’ and therefore can be maligned and slandered by the BBC…..and either silenced or forced out of their job.

Regardless of whether a Muslim could actually be the President and ‘protect and defend the Constitution’ Sopel has produced an incredibly biased piece aimed at Carson.  Sopel and his crew are the closest we have to the medieval thought-police of the Inquisition, the Gestapo in the 30’s or the KGB….this is a media show trial and just as in any show trial the defendant has no right of reply and his guilt is pre-ordained.  Carson was hung out to dry by Sopel for the crime of being truthful.

The BBC keeps telling us that the migrant crisis could be solved if the European countries could only come up with a unified plan to parcel out the migrants equitably. Of course what the BBC means by ‘migrant crisis’ is probably entirely different to what most people’s understanding of the term might be.  The BBC’s interpretation is that the millions of people heading towards Europe are not a migrant crisis, the BBC is in fact a cheerleader for this, the crisis is purely in the mishandling of the migrants once they get here and not in the fact that they come.  The BBC thinks that if only we could process these migrants faster and more efficiently and share them out between the different countries, regardless of where they want to go, then the crisis is solved.

You would hope that this is not what they actually think….many BBC reporters must be victims of group-think as well as pressure from their fellow reporters to toe the compassionate line…start reporting the truth and investigating the consequences of so much migration into Europe by totally ‘alien’ peoples and they would soon find themselves shut out of the BBC club and victims of the ‘consensus’.

The Telegraph is running a poll asking if Merkel has made the migrant crisis [a normal person’s understanding of the term] worse….when I looked 99% said she had made things worse…by unilaterally opening Germany’s borders, and hence Europe’s, without asking anyone else in Europe if they agreed…and then demanding ‘unity’ to solve the problem created by her own disunity.

The BBC has misjudged the Public mood, well, determinedly ignored it.  Which is ironic really because the BBC thinks it is Cameron who misjudged the Public mood when he refused to let in anymore Syrian migrants until the photograph of the boy on the beach surfaced….apparently when Cameron relented and agreed to let in more Syrians he was only then just catching up with the Public mood….obviously we all wanted more Syrian migrants.  You can hear the BBC’s wise words at about 4 mins 30 secs in this video…..

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

Hitchens, in the video, takes the view that the only sensible way to deal with this ‘migrant crisis’ is to improve the refugee camps in the areas surrounding Syria…he says the migrants coming into Europe are actually economic migrants and that they will transform the whole of Europe and that pro-immigant propaganda, such as the photograph of the boy on the beach, is used to silence people and stop critical, rational thinking about the migrants, there is a lot of emotion clouding judgement, a lot of emotive stupidity.

The BBC, as said, doesn’t see millions of migrants flooding into Europe as a crisis and keeps asking if we shouldn’t be taking more migrants.  Funny the direction in which the BBC pressure is always applied.

On Friday 5Live brought us Anna Holligan (46 mins) reporting from Croatia where she tells us that ‘We’ve all seen these pictures of razor wire, police using water cannon and tear gas to disperse refugees who came to the border to try and cross into Hungary…’

Several problems with that small sentence…first we have the ever-present use of the term ‘razor wire’ which the BBC uses as often as possible in what must be a deliberate attempt to make the Hungarians look as bad as possible and the ‘plight’ of the migrants really harsh….not that much different to the victims of the Holocaust…something that the BBC also alludes to frequently in regard to the migrants and their treatment, or alleged treatment.

Secondly the police didn’t use water cannon and tear gas to disperse ‘refugees’, they used them to stop migrants from attacking the police with extreme violence and attempting to storm the border by force….curious how the BBC never seems to mention the violence of the migrants when it mentions Hungary’s use of control measures.  And of course they are not so much ‘refugees’ as economic migrants.

She then admits that Croatia says it cannot cope with the numbers and might close its borders…odd how Croatia gets a sympathetic hearing but Hungary gets called a Fascist state when it says it can’t cope….such an approach seems BBC-wide and not just limited to Holligan as this example shows…

Croatia initially welcomed the migrants, but then said it was unable to cope with the numbers and moved them over its border with Hungary, which quickly ferried them west to Austria.

 

When that finding came out the BBC has had to find a new way to promote the idea that Syrians are supposedly the bulk of the migrants when the truth is they are not…the BBC now says the Syrians are merely the ‘largest group’ which doesn’t tell you that overall they make up only 20% of the migrants…..

The largest group arriving in Europe are Syrians escaping the conflict there, followed by Afghans, then migrants from Eritrea, Nigeria and Somalia, fleeing war and human rights abuses.

And yet it is the Syrians that the BBC concentrates on and uses as a means to try and induce guilt in the West by claiming the West is responsible for events in Syria in a way it couldn’t do for Eirtrea, Nigeria and Somalia.  They try to ramp up the sympathy or guilt for the migrant cause overall by exploiting the Syrian angle.

Have to say that Hungary proves that migration can be controlled and stopped despite the BBC saying it is inevitable and unstoppable….the border fence, and the will to stop them, forced the migrants to turn elsewhere…so the logic would be that similar preventative measures elsewhere would send out the message that Europe is not open to all the world and this would force potential migrants, the vast majority of whom are economic, to think again.  The BBC of course can be relied upon to seek out those who did attempt to come here anyway and ended up stranded behind the fences or on the beaches somewhere because they didn’t listen and the BBC would be working hard to ‘break down’ the fences and the political will to stop migration by looking for more ‘dead babies’ on those beaches to try and paint a picture of a continuing ‘migrant crisis’ and suffering migrants.

Peter Hitchens, echoing government policy, has the only sensible answer….improve the refugee camps and stop the war in Syria.  The solution is not merely finding a way to accomodate millions of people flooding into Europe in hope of a better life as the BBC’s campaigning supports.

The BBC is, as always, completely out of touch with Public opinon in the UK, and probaly the majority Public opinion across most of Europe.

Monday morning and time for a fresh Open Thread. Here is where you must detail that bias. What has the BBC been doing to annoy you?

As Syrian refugees flood into Europe what baggage may some bring with them?

This clip from Memri isn’t encouraging…certainly not if you’re Jewish…

The Highland Rebel in the comments brings us this apology from the BBC:

Shock over anti-Semitic caricature in BBC Proms programme

Classical music lovers were left stunned when they spotted an “antisemitic” illustration in a BBC Proms programme.

Gillian Stern, from Finchley, said she was shocked that a “hideously and very obviously antisemitic cartoon” of the violinist Leopold Auer appeared in the programme for a Proms performance of Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto.

Auer was a violinist and teacher of significance, and a number of composers, including Tchaikovsky, dedicated pieces to him.

Ms Stern said: “This image of Leopold had been printed large in the programme, with no full context or explanation of its questionable nature.

“Leopold was one of the most important violin teachers of his time. If you look him up you will see this fine man, and there are plenty of pictures of him available – but they have used what was at the time clearly a caricature.  “It is the most extraordinary thing. I can’t get my head around why they would have picked that.”
She added: “I was so shocked I tweeted it to them to complain, but no one got back to me.”

Surprised by the image was violin teacher Nigel Goldberg, who said: “It is an antisemitic cartoon and it is completely out of context. There is no explanation of the image at all. Anyone I’ve shown it to, Jewish or not, has been stunned.”

A spokesperson for the BBC Proms was unavailable for comment.

From Nicky Campbell’s good mate….

As Jews are once again being purged from Europe just for being Jewish, and the BBC looks on apparently with the feeling that they get what was coming to them, many people point out a few problems arising from mass immigration that the BBC is all too often not just reluctant to debate but actively seeks to hide and dismiss….denying and silencing truth.

The final image of Dr Jacob Bronowski, in his “Ascent of Man”, standing in the mud at Auschwitz is implanted in my brain. He wept and said that Auschwitz and, by implication, all the other hell-holes constructed by Man, is the unavoidable destination reached by the denial and silencing of truth.

And no…Muslims are not the ‘new Jews of Europe’.  An irony that the BBC recently tried to invoke the Holocaust to defend Muslim immigrants and to label opponents of mass migration as something akin to the Nazis….whilst at the same time ignoring the real ‘Jews of Europe’.

There’s the Truth, and there’s the Truth as reported, or not reported, by the BBC…as Rod Liddle points out…

In Sweden there are riots…almost all the people doing the rioting were, to adapt Nick Robinson’s phrase, people of non-Swedish orign.  These were…are..race riots.

It was not the ordinary Swedes rising up against the oppressive Swedish state; it was immigrants.  Come on James – why not tell us the truth?’

From Boris Johnson:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken.

David Goodhart managed to slip this out on the BBC one day:

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

He told us that…

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

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

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

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi gave a speech on the occasion of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad on Jan. 3, when he called for breaking free from texts and ideas that were sacred centuries ago and that have become a source of anxiety for the whole world. In the presence of Tayeb, Sisi said, “How is it possible that the ideologies that we have sanctified for hundreds of years breed feelings of anxiety, danger, murder and destruction in the whole world and nation?”

“Moderate” Muslim Leader says all Muslims are “Radical” and “Extremists”

“Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they [the media] always come with the same accusations: This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports the death penalty for this crime or this crime or that he is homophobic, that he subjugates women, etcetera. I always try to tell them that it is not that speaker that we are inviting who has these ‘extreme radical views,’ as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has.

Every Muslim believes in these things. Just because they are not telling you about it, or just because they are not out there in the media, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in them.”

The measured and rational Charles Moore in the Telegraph voices some of his concerns about this influx of Muslims to Western Europe:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

Even the Mirror is dubious about Muslim agitprop…

WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL

AS the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it’s revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

The introduction of Sharia Law in Britain along with important religious days in the Muslim calendar becoming public holidays for followers of the faith should do the trick, or so claims the secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK and Ireland.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.”

This sounds perilously close to blackmail. Thus far the British people have shown exemplary tolerance in the face of terrorist threats.

There are enough wedges between us without introducing more in the form of Sharia Law or Muslim Bank holidays.

Nor should we feel it necessary to beat ourselves up because willing recruits, who happen to be born here, have signed up to become human bombs.

Some people, John Reid reminded us last week “just don’t get” the seriousness of the threat facing the West.

What will it take to understand? Ten planes destroyed and thousands of innocents dead while the family of the perpetrators weep into the cameras and say, “he wouldn’t do a thing like that”.

Oh yes he would. And believe me, he will.

Definitely a discussion people should be having about the consequences of mass migration from Muslim countries into a western, secular and democratic Europe.

On the other hand we could just have pictures of women and children crying at razor-wire topped fences and dead babies on beaches as the preferred narrrative as well as the labelling of anyone who dares to criticise that approach as racist nazis.

Your choice…oh no…it’s not…it’s the BBC  that gets to choose the narrative…..

The BBC, paying lip-service to the issue, does a body swerve around the problem by adopting the usual stance that it is not Islam but Islamism that is the problem and that of course it is ‘moderate’ Muslims who will suffer the ‘backlash’, that problem that the BBC is really concerned about rather than the activities that are the cause of any such ‘backlash’….

Across western Europe, liberally-minded societies are beginning to divide over how best to deal with radical Islamism and its impact on their countries, while governments agonise over the potential for a backlash against Muslims living in Europe.

Today, mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK and France have unequivocally condemned the killings, saying that terrorism is an affront to Islam.

But the potential backlash, including support for far right parties and groups, may well hurt ordinary Muslims more than anyone else, leaving the authorities and religious leaders in western Europe wondering how to confront violence in the name of religion without victimizing minorities or being accused of ‘Islamophobia’.

Muslims themselves hate the term ‘Moderate’ as it implies they don’t follow the true Islam and all its teachings…“Are you saying I’m only 50% Muslim? When someone says to me ‘you’re moderate’ it suggests to me they’re saying ‘you’re not fully Muslim’.”

Stop Saying “Moderate Muslims.” You’re Only Empowering Islamophobes.

 

Can we drop the term ‘moderate Muslim’? It’s meaningless

 

In fact, there is only One Prophet Muhammad, and there is only One Allah, and there is only One Quran, and there is amongst Muslims only One Islam, hence there can be Only One Muslim. A Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron because there is no such thing as a “Moderate Islam.” A Cultural Muslim

 

Turkey’s PM Erdogan: The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive — Islam is Islam

 

And of course Iqbal Sacranie, when head of the Muslim Council of Britain, stated that ‘There is no such thing as moderate or extreme Islam, there is just Islam.’

Islamists and normal, moderate Muslims?  The difference isn’t in the beliefs but in the way they try to impose them upon society.

The BBC weren’t so quiet  and in denial when it came to a Christian birthrate:

A Womb is a Weapon

First broadcast:

Saturday 18 May 2013

Across the world, and increasingly in Europe and the UK, a unique Christian evangelical movement is growing.

For some, encouraging larger Christian families is part of a project to outbreed other religions, particularly Islam, winning back the world for Christ one baby at a time.