Evan Davis was so upset about the homeless migrants in Calais living hand to mouth in makeshift shelters that he cried all the way to his second home in France.

He could of course give some of them a room in one of his homes if he cares so much about them.

Next time anyone reading this is passing through Calais I recommend you hand out Evan Davis’ email address, along with his fellow pro-immigration advocate’s and tell the migrants to give them a call.

Don’t suppose Davis and Co would be all that keen on immigrants then…. the ones that take your job, your home, your kids place at the school, your place in the queue for medical treatment, the ones that rob and rape and kill you…they don’t mind so much about.

BBC employees like Davis are well insulated from the downsides of immigration with the money to keep the unpleasantry at a distance…though of course they do their bit for the immigrants by employing them…cheaply…at the expense of the local workers.

And no surprise the BBC often uses Davis to front its programmes and interviews on immigration.

I see the BBC are bigging up this welcome news.

Hundreds of people have taken part in a protest led by France’s leading Muslim cleric against the beheading of a French hostage by jihadists in Algeria. Dalil Boubakeur, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, told the crowd outside the main Paris mosque that the killers had no claim to Islam. He said French Muslims were united against “barbarism”.

However, the BBC seems unaware of this…

Up to 15 percent of French people said they have a positive attitude toward the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The share of ISIS supporters is largest among France’s younger generation,

So, maybe not ALL Muslims? I wish they would give us balance, but they won’t.

I see the BBC is playing down the fact that this was a MUSLIM who cut the head of a fellow worker having tried to convert others to the religion of peace. The name for this is Fort Hood syndrome.

A thread to take us across the weekend. Detail the bias as you see it HERE!

Well, it must have been such a tough one for the Comrades. I am referring to Red Ed’s absolutely woeful keynote speech at #lab14 and that unfortunate business of “forgetting” to discuss the Deficit and Immigration! How to spin THAT one, then? As we get closer to next May, the BBC are going to have their work cut out portraying Miliband as the next Prime Minister. It’s a bit like Michael Foot all over again.

How’s about THAT then, boys and gals?

The BBC’s Dominic Laurie laments the British union’s lack of commitment and fervour when compared to the Frenchies:(50 mins)

‘What we know is that workers for French companies are willing to go all out in industrial action and to prolong it and do it for a long time…Air France will have to back down if the pilots are this adamant.

As we know in the history of France when you strike for a long time you tend to win…it works!’

Peter Allen interjects….‘It used to in this country…we should remember that’.

Presumably Allen was looking back nostalgically to the era before Thatcher and the days when there was no legislation to control the wildcat strikes that destroyed British industry….good old unions in the 70’s…the interests of the workers at heart not their paymaster’s in the Kremlin….LOL.

It did seem that Laurie had just a little bit too much admiration for the French strikers and was more than a little bit rueful that such belligerent attitudes didn’t manifest themselves more here in the UK.

Good for the BBC…standing up for the oppressed and downtrodden worker!

Here is a new Open Thread for your attention and focus!

Oh…Just seen it…beats dancing outside Buck House I guess.

The BBC has been making up the news and doing it in a way that paints David Cameron in a bad light….

From the Telegraph:

BBC criticised over coverage of David Cameron’s Queen gaffe

BBC accused of ‘speculation’ after claiming David Cameron said that the Queen cried when told about Scottish Independence

The BBC is facing criticism after suggesting that David Cameron said it was great to hear the Queen ‘tear up’ after he told her Scotland had voted against independence.

Peter Hunt, the BBC’s Royal Correspondent, said on Twitter that the BBC’s “finest ears” believed he had said: “I’ve never heard someone tear up like that. It was great”.

Lord Stern is an ardent climate change proponent, never happier than when painting the doomiest, blackest, most alarming scenarios when predicting the future due to climate change…all so that we are ‘encouraged’ to jump aboard his band wagon and back the rush to renewables and the end of fossil fuels.

Stern is paid for his troubles by hedge funder Jeremy Grantham, who set up the Grantham Institute and is intent on combating all that sceptical climate misinformation defeating their efforts to save the world……though ironically he tells us that nothing is more important than the oil that funds his climate institute….

Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.

Stern is in a double act with the Institute’s media ‘communicator’ Bob Ward, who isn’t a scientist, and yet gets lots of time on the BBC…and was responsible for the attacks against Lord Lawson after his appearance on the Today programme.

So by no stretch of the imagination could Stern be called a climate sceptic.

Which was why I was somewhat surprised to hear Evan Davis describe him as ‘remaining pessimistic about the science of climate change’ when introducing him this morning on the Today show. (08:51)

Several issues with that….there is no way anyone at the BBC could come to that opinion that Stern was a climate sceptic, certainly not one of the BBC’s ‘top’ current affairs journalists on the BBC’s ‘prestige’ news programme.  You might conclude that the labelling of Stern in such a way might be deliberate in order to make the audience think..‘Well if such an eminent man is sceptical about the science and yet he thinks we should deal with it anyway…perhaps I should too.’

Call me cynical.

Another issue is that Stern is not a scientist, he deals with the economics just as Lord Lawson does…which is why Lawson’s think tank is called ‘The Global warming Policy Foundation’.  Therefore why is Lawson persona non grata whilst Stern gets a privileged place at the microphone?

Then there is the issue of Stern’s association with Jeremy Grantham and his institute which went unmentioned by Davis.  Grantham isn’t just supportive of the idea of climate change,  he is yet another fanatic and one who puts his money, millions of it, where his mouth is…funding attacks on climate change sceptics, such as Lawson, with the intent to shut them up…which, courtesy of the BBC, is what has happened and Lawson is in effect banned from the BBC’s airwaves.

And curiously that turns out to have been a probable motivation behind getting Stern onto the programme, his job to counter comments by Bjørn Lomberg, once a green guru but now more sceptical….an ‘old foe’ of Stern’s as described by Davis…whom, he ‘suspects’, Stern doesn’t much respect,  a curiously second hand insult there from Davis.

Lomberg said countries with high GDP growth have high emissions of CO2…cutting that CO2 will cut GDP and stop the lifting of millions out of poverty….China’s growth is based on coal.

Davis interprets…‘He’s saying the richer countries pollute more and produce more CO2…’

No, he didn’t say that.  He said those countries with high GDP growth…meaning those countries with developing  economies with high GDP growth, because they are growing…that is not the same as talking about established economies like those in the ‘West’ or Japan, Korea etc….China high GDP but per capita it is very poor….the government is rich, the people still poor.

Stern tells us that, well, Lomberg is not an economist (A good thing I’d suggest), and anyway he’s wrong about China.

Except he’s not.  China’s growth was based on enormous expansion of its coal fired power generation.  It’s famous for that, you don’t need to be an economist to know that….as the BBC told us in 2007…and China isn’t described as ‘rich’ then but growing…..

China is now building about two power stations every week…. Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow

It’s not just semantics…the developing nations charge for growth is more polluting than established economies trundling along at a steady pace..having already polluted to get there…but the way Davis phrases things it seems the ‘guilt’ is being firmly placed on those established economies…the ‘rich’ ones….China is of course still ‘developing’ but already the world’s biggest polluter…and now quite rich as a nation but, as said, per capita very poor….and so under Davis’ interpretation it is not rich and therefore not a ‘polluter’.  If you call CO2 pollution that is.

Some double standards from the BBC when it comes to who it lets onto its programmes to discuss climate change and an Orwellian approach to interpretation of many aspects from Davis.