The BBC were quick to spot these trends:

Sydney cafe: Australians say to Muslims “I’ll ride with you”

And this:

#BBCtrending: The racist video that’s shocked Australia

Strangely not so interested in this trending video:

“‘How to Stab a Jew’ Going Viral on Palestinian Authority Social Media,”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS6BHBai2Ug

The “resisters of occupation in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem” are spreading on Arab social media a frightening video demonstrating tactics on how to stab a Jew to death quickly and efficiently.

The 1-minute and 13-second video, as seen below, shows the “teacher” calmly walking up to a “victim,” stabbing him, and walking away.

Is Lenny Henry racist?

Lenny Henry believes that the colour of your skin determines how you act and think.

That is racist.  Even Obama thinks it is:

There’s no “authentic” way to be black, President Barack Obama told a group.

Henry complains that ‘news in Britain comes from one perspective. A perspective that is almost exclusively white, and predominantly male.’

Henry is clearly a proponent of the belief that Blacks should ‘act, and think, black’.…and that alters the way they see world events.

Black people, apparently, have a different way of looking at the world, one that means a black news reporter would report a story in a different way to a white one.

This approach has long been one used by black activists, black race hustlers, to bully other Black people who they see as ‘acting white’.

Here a black girl tells us that Henry is wrong….there is no such thing as ‘talking white’:

He complains that the BBC is white and male…’British news is dominated by a white, male perspective.   There is a better way.‘   Never mind the Today programme he guest edited has two female presenters, one of whom is of Pakistani origin….and numerous black news readers and presenters on the BBC as a whole….not to mention the Asian network.

He tells us that ‘We’ve had one day of diversity on Radio 4. Now for the other 364’

Fascinating his idea of diversity:

No whites included in the ‘Henry Plan’.

Does his concern widen out into nationality, religion or ‘other’ gender, left handers or right handers, redheads and blonds….are there enough lesbian welsh newsreaders or Muslims with conservative views on the BBC?

And just who is ‘black’ or one of this new race created by the diversity industry…the ‘Bames’.  Just how ‘black’ do you have to be to be considered authentically ‘black’?

Does the news have to be delivered in a Jamaican patois, the Queen’s English being a sign of ‘acting white’?

Henry is just another celebrity who has jumped on the ‘protest’ wagon as a way of furthering their career and gaining some sort of street credibility and authenticity ala Russell Brand…both of whom the BBC has prostrated itself before and delivered up the schedules for their personal use to rant and rave about their personal pet hates, thinking not required.

Maybe one day we will have a guest editor from UKIP or the likes of Tommy Robinson..somehow I doubt it……only one perspective allowed on the BBC…..the one that is of real concern….the one Henry misses out, and the one that does in fact put him and others of his new race, the Bames, into prominent positions because of their race…that of being Liberal.

365 days a year we get the Liberal perspective rammed down our throats and anyone who thinks differently is not just sidelined as Henry claims Bameans are, but actively maligned and attacked by the BBC….how often does the BBC claim people with black skin are perhaps closet racists or nazis that want to shoot immigrants…or indeed joke about shooting people who have  ‘unacceptable’ views about limiting immigration or Israel?  When they start doing that you might have a point about discrimination and the BBC Henry old chum.

Publishers Harper Collins apparently wiped Israel off the map in atlases for sale in the Middle East, can’t upset those tolerant Muslims. Apparently Jordan is now Palestine according to the map……but we knew that anyway….funny no one objects to Muslim Jordan being created out of a large chunk of Palestine by the British.  Harper Collins claims it was a printing error.  Of course it was.

The BBC itself created a programme that prominently and pointedly displayed a map of ‘Palestine’ sans Israel…..the whole programme, The Honourable Woman, being a pro-Palestinian piece of propaganda that suggested it would be best for all if Israel didn’t exist……

BBC News is nowadays more a work of dramatic fiction and emotive angst than straight reporting making dramatic programmes like ‘The Honourable Woman’ almost redundant.

The Honourable Woman though has its place in the BBC battle order…..it is a ‘weapon’ of war as much as any gun or bomb…it is a ‘smart bomb’ delivered into thousands, if not millions, of homes around the world bearing not high explosives but a poisonous message….a message delivered by the BBC on behalf of Hamas, Fatah and all those who wish to ‘wipe Israel off the map’.

That explosive message is that Israel, the ‘Jewish state’, should be dismantled and the Palestinians allowed to take the land of Israel….needless to say the BBC glosses over what would happen to the Jews, merely implying that all would be peace and harmony as the love and understanding flowed between the two peoples.

 

The BBC continues this theme, pretending Israel doesn’t really have a right to exist in this subtle piece of de-legitimisation:

The Jews of Arabia

Interesting first paragraph:

The Jews may have originated in the Middle East but they were long ago scattered far and wide – to the Gulf, among other places. Few now remain, except in Iran.

 

So the Jews were cast out of the Middle East, the BBC means ‘Palestine’, long ago….a subtle allusion suggesting they therefore have no claim on a land called ‘Israel’?…….So we are told few remain in the Gulf States and few, if any, now remain in the Middle East as they were ‘long ago scattered far and wide’ from there (which presumably doesn’t include the Gulf States in the BBC’s mind as the BBC has for some reason limited its exploration of the existence of Jewish communities to those Gulf States) …..except in a place called Israel where there are several million, unmentioned, Jews.

The BBC lists places where Jewish communties existed but misses out any historic connection and community in ‘Palestine’ itself merely mentioning obliquely that ‘ the State of Israel was declared in 1948 ‘  as if the Jews moved in their without any link to the region at all.

Curious the BBC misses out the Jewish population of over 400,000 in ‘Palestine’ as noted in 1938 with only about double the number of Muslims then there….

Whether by design or a casual approach to the relevant facts the BBC has managed to produce another article that subtly undermines Israel using an argument long used by ‘Palestinians’.

If there was no Jewish link to the region could they claim a right to live there?

Here is that argument set out in a piece by a Jewish writer as he puts his counter argument to it:

According to this view, Jews had been absent from the land of Israel for too long to claim their right to return. In their absence, another group of people had come to occupy the land, and thus the Zionist movement could succeed only at this people’s expense. The West, embarrassed by the horrors of the Holocaust, had founded the State of Israel to clear its conscience, and the Arab residents of Palestine were forced to pay the price. The creation of the Jewish State was thus an outrage, so the argument goes, because the very settlement of the land by Jews was illegitimate.

From the Daily Mail:

47,000 Bulgarians and Romanians enter UK in a year

Here is Migration Watch’s estimate of the likely numbers of migrants from Romania and Bulgaria:

Our central estimate is that immigration from these two countries will add 50,000 a year to the UK population for the next five years of which about half is likely to be captured in the immigration statistics.

The Daily Mail gets its figures from a recent report from the supposedly neutral Oxford Migration Observatory  but the OMO seem to be spinning a line that there has been no ‘surge’ in immigration from these countries…a line taken up by the BBC.

In actual fact the BBC seem to be rather coy about these figures…at least on their website.  I can see no mention of this story on the website at all despite it being in the papers since Tuesday morning.

The Guardian does have a report but it plays down the numbers….

No surge of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants after controls lifted

It reports this statement from the researchers…..

Madeleine Sumption, the Migration Observatory director, said: “The growth in the Romanian and Bulgarian population of the UK has been steady for the last seven years, despite transitional controls that limited their access to the labour market and welfare state in the UK. The end of these controls do not seem to have had a very significant effect.”

 

…but as you can see later, this conclusion, that “The growth in the Romanian and Bulgarian population of the UK has been steady for the last seven years”,   is completely false.

5Live did have a report on it  (16:42:45) but whilst spinning the same line of ‘no surge’ seemed to know the figures don’t really support that conclusion and gave a rather lacklustre report telling us that immigration grew at same rate as in 2013….therefore there was no significant increase in migration when restrictions relaxed….no predicted influx of migrants…..Phil Mackie said there was no significant increase year on year.

They did admit there were 250,000 Romanians and Bulgarians now working in the UK.

Whilst mocking the ‘exaggerated claims of a surge in immigration from some’ what was noticeably missing from 5Live’s report was any mention of Migration Watch’s prediction which turned out to be entirely accurate, as is so often the case.  The BBC calls Migration Watch a ‘pressure group’ but doesn’t label the Oxford Migration Observatory in the same way.

Are any of those conclusions on 5Live merited by the figures?

Not really.

Here is what the OMO told us:

The overall population of A2 migrants in the UK in Q3 2012 was 160,000; this increased by 45,000 to 205,000 by Q3 2013 and then increased by 47,000 to 252,000 in Q3 2014. By way of comparison, the A2 population grew by 163,000 between 2007 and 2013 – the years during which transitional controls were in place.

 

It claims these figures show no spike in migration…and Mackie said they showed no ‘year on year increase’…..

…… the existing data suggest it is more likely to show continued steady growth rather than the ‘significant spike’ some predicted.

But that clearly isn’t true….yes 2013 and 2014 were similar…but before that migration was an average of 27,000…somewhat different to 47,000….very selective with their choice of figures to base their conclusions on.

The ONS told us that:

32,000 EU2 citizens immigrated to the UK in the year ending June 2014, a statistically significant increase from 18,000 in the previous 12 months.

 

A graph from the ONS shows the dramatic change in Bulgarian and Romanian immigration….note the large ‘surge’ in 2013..

5Live admitted that there were 250,000 Romanians and Bulgarians in work now…. in January and March 2013 the figure for Romanians and Bulgarians in work was only 140,000:

According to the latest official figures, the number employed in the UK between January and March actually fell. It was 140,000, down 4,000 on the final three months of 2013.

 

The BBC were then crowing that this ‘fall’ in numbers in january and March proved there was no influx of immigrants.

Note that most of these ‘in work’ are actually claiming to be self-employed…and can claim increased benefits based on that status:

The University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory said its analysis showed 59.1 per cent of workers from the two former eastern European states said they were freelance, compared with just 14 per cent of the native UK population.

The figure was also far higher than the 15 per cent of self-employed people from the eight former Communist states – such as Poland – which joined the EU in 2004.

Distinct lack of ‘outrage’ at David Blunkett’s comments on Romanian neighbours:

I’d find it a challenge if Roma gipsies moved into my street, admits Blunkett – the Home Secretary who opened Britain’s borders to new EU members

No job offers from the BBC to the Mail’s Jenny Awford who writes the report unlike the less than honest James O’Brien whom the BBC decided was ‘one of them’ when he conducted a kangaroo court in which he concocted a pack of lies in order to malign Nigel Farage when he said he wouldn’t want to live next to a house full of Romanians, and on the basis of that offered O’Brien a job on Newsnight.

No interest, or outrage,  at all from O’Brien who seems obsessed by UKIP on his Twitter feed.

Also lack of interest in Migration Watch’s report on the benefits, or lack of, of migration:

Response to UCL paper on the fiscal effects of immigration to the UK – Press Release

The BBC made a lot of noise about the UCL report which claimed that EU immigrants produced large benefits for the economy…why the lack of interest now when Migration Watch tells us that the figures actually show?:

Net tax contribution by Eastern European migrants probably negative

Remember, the UCL report was produced by the same man who helped Labour engineer their immigration opendoor policy…he has a huge vested interest in telling us that it worked to our benefit….not something the BBC told us whilst still denouncing Migration Watch as a ‘pressure group’.

Well, we are almost at the end of this year. Hope you all enjoyed Lenny Henry’s sustained whinge on BBC Today this morning. It seems selecting presenters purely on the basis of their ethnicity is fine by the BBC and Saint Lenny. Open Thread for you …NOW!

The BBC’s Today programme had the ex-governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King,  on as guest editor (08:55)….and used the occasion to try and rewrite the history of the financial crash by whitewashing Labour’s part in it.

King was asked about the crash and then led into the trap, Naughtie quietly asking about ‘the whole argument that there was light touch regulation that was in retrospect a terrible mistake’.

King, trying to be politically neutral, and no doubt partially to save his own reputation, at first said it had nothing to do with regulation but then admits it had everything to do with it saying the banks’ leverage was ‘absurdly high’….in other words they had been allowed to borrow vast sums at high risk..he goes on ‘we should learn the lesson from that in the future’.

Naughtie then tries to pass the blame onto the Bank of England….King says the Bank didn’t have responsibility for the regulations….so the regulation, the lack of, was crucial then….who did have responsibility?  The government…the Labour government.

Justin Webb then jumps in at the end of the interview and persistently tries to get King to say the Coaliton’s ‘Help to buy’ scheme was ‘unwise’…apparently it is a personal concern of Webb’s.

So whitewashing Labour and maligning the Coalition.  Just another day on the leftwings’ favourite political programme.

Must be an election coming.

Here’s the headline for the latest BBC report on US police ‘racism’:

Ezell Ford shot in back by LA police – coroner

The BBC chose a particular line there….clearly in a cheap attempt to generate some ‘outrage’ at police racist brutality…..never mind that the man was in fact shot three times in a struggle in which he tried to take the police pistol and was clearly shot during that struggle…in the side, in the arm and in the back….

So three shots….the one the BBC highlights is the shot in the back.

But the context is all important…clearly the police officer could not ‘aim’ the shots and the shot man would have been twisting and turning violently making any aimed shot impossible.

The BBC’s heading is designed to elicit a certain response from readers, that the US police have yet again brutally executed another black man…shooting him in the back this time.

More dangerous racist rabble rousing from the BBC.

Curioulsy the BBC is ignoring a spate of attempts to shoot US police officers such as this:

North Carolina Police Officer Survives Christmas Night Assassination Attempt

FIVE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS on Police and Firefighters since NYC Executions

The BBC though is in good company….and on the same page as Al Qaeda (What’s new there though?):

Al-Qaeda References Anti-Police Protests in Latest Magazine, Includes “Don’t Shoot” & “I Can’t Breathe” Slogans

More BBC ‘outrage’ about ‘racist outrage’ :

Rush Limbaugh and his ‘black Bond’ outrage

The prospect of Idris Elba eventually replacing Daniel Craig as the next James Bond went from hypothetical internet speculation to something more substantial last week, when the Daily Beast uncovered an interesting nugget in the piles of hacked Sony emails.

“Idris should be the next Bond,” Sony Pictures chair Amy Pascal wrote, reportedly to a fellow studio executive.

That was enough to set conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh into a tizzy. Bond, he said on his radio programme last week, has a distinct ethnic profile that Mr Elba, who is black, doesn’t fit.

 

The BBC are outraged at Limbaugh’s ‘outrage’…..was Limbaugh ‘outraged’ or was he just commenting?

The BBC continues with its exploration of this important issue:

Elba responded with humour – “Isn’t 007 supposed to [be] handsome?” he tweeted, including a photograph of him looking rather goofy in a knit cap – but some commentators reacted with flashes of anger that would make 007 proud.

 

Limbaugh is ‘outraged’ but cool Elba responds with ‘humour’.   I think I see what the BBC is trying to do here….note anger at Limbaugh’s comments ‘would make 007 proud’ apparently….So confirms where the BBC boy is coming from on this one….however Bond was always racist so the BBC are wrong on that and just doing the usual Beeb thing…passing off their own wishes and values as someone elses for a bit of credibility.

It goes on…..

In an interview three years ago, Mr Elba told NPR that if he plays Bond, he hopes his skin colour isn’t the sole topic of conversation.

“I just don’t want to be the black James Bond,” he said. “Sean Connery wasn’t the Scottish James Bond, and Daniel Craig wasn’t the blue-eyed James Bond, so if I played him, I don’t want to be called the black James Bond.”

 

Trouble is that’s not true is it?  Craig was denounced for being the first ‘blond Bond’ and ‘ugly’ to boot…..

First blond Bond goes into action

And here is the obviously ‘racist’  Raghav Gajanan from a BBC comment thread:

A big let down. Not to take away anything from Craig’s acting abilities but he simply is not James Bond. The look, hair, height are all wrong. Bond has survived for 40+ years as a suave, polished gentleman who can be rough when the occasion demands. Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman would have clearly been a better choice, but it seems they must have been out the studio’s budget.
Raghav Gajanan, London

And then there was ‘Exodus’ which the ‘Left’ whinged about because the ‘Egyptians’ were played by white actors:

Rupert Murdoch defends use of white actors in Exodus: Gods and Kings

And then there’s good old Liz Taylor and Richard Burton….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WX17Gxs27w

If they can complain why not ‘conservative’ Limbaugh?

Lots of faux outrage and claims of ‘outrage’…..the BBC just see this as a chance to stick one to someone like Limbaugh that they don’t think should have a role in the Media…because he’s not black, left wing or gay…..the irony of that passes them by.

The government was castigated recently, not least on the BBC, for not deporting enough illegal immigrants.  Not natural territory for the BBC but it takes every opportunity to beat the Tories when it can.

One problem the government has of course is that every time it wishes to deport someone it comes up against the Human Rights Act and an army of pro-immigration pressure groups, lawyers,  activists and media commentators, including the BBC, that make every deportation a long drawn out affair.

The BBC has a favourite tactic of personalising the issues.  Rather than looking at the big picture and what the consequences of the policies on immigration it supports would be it tries to elicit public sympathy for the plight of every immigrant by reporting the supposed hardships they individually face in their own country, their love of the Uk, the terrible wrench it would be to leave the UK (No such wrench leaving family, friends, culture in their own country then?).

The BBC hopes that detailing the ‘misery’ and supposed precarious future of the immigrant to be deported will engender that sympathy for them, and by extension to all immigrants, and beyond that to the acceptance of an open door immigration policy.

Seeing as you could travel to any town in any country and find people living miserable existences that would mean, using the BBC’s critieria, that the whole world could come here…and be housed, clothed and fed, educated, treated on the NHS and be given Sky TV at our expense.  The BBC is pretty naive…or rather doesn’t really care about the downsides to mass immigration….most BBC types being well paid and cossetted by their BBC benefits package…..cheap immigrants benefit them and, despite the ‘BBC’s’ pious preaching about ‘The Poor’, welfare cuts and zero hour contracts and so on, they are prepared for you, you not them, to make that sacrifice so they can have cheap buuilders and not have to pay the real price for a cup of latte and a cinnamon bun.

Here is a classic example of the BBC’s  attempt to manipulate our emotions on the issue of immigration…..

Deportation story: One man’s journey from London to Zimbabwe

Last year more than 13,000 people were deported from the UK – but what happens if you can’t even pronounce the name of the place they’re sending you back to?

“More than anything I feel cheated out of my life. They’ve taken everything I had – my family, my friends, my dignity.”

A loud noise interrupts Shadreck Mbiru mid-flow on the phone from his new home; it doesn’t stop. I have to ask and it turns out it’s a very noisy cockerel, not something Shadreck was used to having around at his previous home in London.

The 26-year-old hasn’t yet adapted to life in Chitungwiza, a town in Zimbabwe around half an hour from Harare that the locals say he pronounces strangely. He left Britain on a plane from Heathrow escorted by UK border staff in November.

Shadreck has been deported back to the country in which he was born – a victory for the Home Office, which had been trying for eight years to secure his removal.

His life is not in danger in Zimbabwe – he concedes this.

I have been speaking to Shadreck since he arrived back in his “home” country – his mood a constant mixture of panic and disbelief interspersed with regular laughter at moments of comedy like the cockerel.