Murder is wrong and the tragedy that afflicted the Lawrence family when their son Stephen was brutally killed cannot be underestimated. BUT it strikes me that the leftist media in general, and the BBC in particular, has elevated this to a level that is disproportionate to many other equally vile murders, such as that which happened t0 15 year old Kriss Donald. It does however enable them to advance their “institutional racism” meme and throw in the “institutional corruption” angle for extra points.  I wonder how you view their coverage of this latest twist to the Lawrence saga?

Friday arrives and so does this! Detail the bias here.

Perhaps I’ve missed something but does anyone really care about BBC 3?

Looking at its schedule its hard to see all that innovative and thought provoking programming we’re told it produces….what I see is 95% repeats…..or sensationalist tabloid type tat that it denounces the Daily Mail for…’Snog, Marry Avoid’ or ‘Secrets of South America….Generation Sex’ or the fascinating ‘Pop’s Greatest Dance Crazes’.

The ‘youf’ are gutted:

“I’m completely gutted, I think you’re completely ignoring our views,” said BBC Three fan Alice. “We’re not going to sit by and take it – we’re going to make a stand and try to save the channel.”

There’s a bit of infighting going on at the BBC just now……BBC 3 is to be re-shaped for the digital age, taking a pay cut along the way……

The BBC has announced sweeping changes to youth channel BBC Three, which will disappear from the EPG in autumn 2015.

…….so far, listening to the interviews, it seems that it is mostly other BBC staff who are upset.

The BBC tells us that…..

The problem for the BBC is that Three is viewed by 16 million people a week and they tend to be people the rest of the corporation struggles to reach – the young, the less affluent and more ethnically diverse.

Comedy producer Ash Atalla said the BBC had at a stroke made itself “whiter, older and more middle class”.

Not quite sure how they have come to the conclusion that it’s only ‘the young, the less affluent and more ethnically diverse’ who don’t watch the BBC…quite a sweeping statement…but why limit it to those categories?  Just how many others, the whiter, older, middle class, actually watch massive amounts of BBC1 or BBC 2, never mind 3 and 4?  Looking at the schedules it doesn’t look particularly inspiring viewing for anybody.

Possibly the problem with the BBC is that it has had too much money and has been able to indulge itself and spend without regard to quality, spreading itself too thin….

“They have ended up working in this culture which is buried in the last century, which is ‘we are the BBC, we do what we like, we don’t have to be too accountable’.

Not a great deal of money is being saved here….BBC 3’s budget is £85, it will be £25 m in future, but £30 million of the cut budget will be used to fund BBC 1 drama.

Possibly the ‘cut’ is a negotiating tactic for the next round of charter renewal talks……

‘The BBC’s director of television, Danny Cohen, even refused to rule out the possibility of closing another channel, saying: “We don’t know for certain what will happen for BBC Four in the future”.

“We can’t keep offering the same with less money,” he continued.

“If future funding for the BBC comes under threat, the likelihood is we would have to take more services along the same route.”

Strange though that the pruning of BBC 3 is being cast as the end of comedy and innovative programming…..wasn’t that the job of BBC 2 before the BBC got too big?…..

Happy Birthday BBC TWO

Jane Root, Controller of BBC TWO, says: “The most enjoyable thing about the channel is that it brings surprise, sophistication and innovation to a range of things.

“It has always been famous for creating both popular comedy and thought-provoking programmes.

 “That sense of variety has been there all the way though the channel’s history.”

A vast array of comedy, culture and highminded programming flooded out of BBC 2….The Young Ones, Ab Fab, Not the Nine O’clock News, The Ascent of Man, Life on Earth, The Office, Yes Minister…… never mind Monty Python…..etc etc…..

Here’s a list of just the comedy on BBC 2

And BBC One?

How about Mrs Brown’s Boys?……

Its opening in the UK won 16.4% of the ratings in its Monday night slot and was received well by viewers.^[30] Despite the critical reviews, 2.9 million viewers had tuned in by the third episode.^[31][32][33] The 2011 Christmas Special achieved 6.61 million viewers, winning in its 10 pm time-slot.^[34][35] Consolidated figures revealed that the 2012 Christmas specials were the most watched programmes on Christmas Eve and Boxing Day respectively: “Mammy Christmas” had 11.68 million viewers (41.3%) and “The Virgin Mammy” was watched by 10.72 million (38.7%).^[36] The episode “Buckin’ Mammy” was the most watched programme in the UK on Christmas Day 2013, with 9.4 million viewers.^[37]

Must have been a few ‘ethnic’ people, or young ones, or ‘not middle class’ people watching that….or Top Gear.

Perhaps the BBC should go back to doing a few things well rather than trying to serve every niche market or exotic cultural sector of the community with their own personalised channels.

The BBC made a huge fuss over its claim that the government was hiding a report that undermined a previous one upon which the government was basing its immigration policies.

Newsnight generated a massive amount of headlines that were damaging for the government and suggested that the government’s policies were wrong….the BBC got what it wanted regardless of the fact that their story was completely baseless.

The Newsnight story was hocum…..telling us that:

Downing Street has withheld publication of a cross-governmental report that suggests one potential impact of immigration is smaller than claimed.

This was considered potentially incendiary, BBC Newsnight has learned.

The BBC makes this claim about the figures in the new report:

The BBC understands the report suggests the number of UK workers unemployed due to non-EU immigration is well below the figure previously cited by ministers.

Problem with that?  There is no figure state in the new report….so the BBC made that up.

Newsnight continues to polish the turd that is their ‘scoop’…..

The report has now been published and here is Cook’s second stab at it:

Analysis

Chris Cook Newsnight policy editor 

[The new report which]  Newsnight revealed was being suppressed by Downing Street, showing a weaker link between immigration and unemployment than the government had claimed.

•  The new report, now published, says that there is “relatively little evidence that migration has caused significant displacement of UK natives… when the economy is strong.”

• While it does find “evidence of some labour market displacement, particularly by non-EU migrants in recent years when the economy was in recession“, it adds this is a short-term effect – one that is “likely to dissipate”.

Spot the difference with what the 2012 report said.….

• We find no association between working age migrants and native employment:    (i) in buoyant economic times; (ii) for EU migrants; (iii) for the period         1975-1994.

• By contrast, we find a negative association between working-age migrants and native employment:(i) in depressed economic times; (ii) for non-EU migrants;  (iii) for the period 1995-2010.

• We found a tentative negative association between working-age migrants and native  employment when the economy is below full capacity, for non-EU migrants and for the period 1995-2010.

• A ballpark estimate is that an extra 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native people employed.

• We estimate that EU migration had little or no impact on the native employment rate, even when testing the relationship over the periods 1975 to 1994 and 1995 to 2010 separately.

The report in 2012 states that there is a definite short term negative impact of immigration on employment…but, in theory, long term, the economy may adjust to improve things….but that is just, as yet, a theory.

The only difference is that the 2012 report states an actual number, tentatively, and the new one doesn’t.

And yet the BBC manages to claim that the non-existent figure is somehow less that the previous 2012 one.

The BBC has some explaining to do.

Making false claims about the contents of a report in order to bolster their own pro-immigration narrative.

Making false claims that the government actively hid the report because of its ‘incendiary’ contents….even today when the report’s innocuousness is apparent Cook is still claiming the government ‘suppressed’ it.

As you can see the contents are not at all incendiary and make the very same claims the 2012 report makes.

So the BBC has exaggerated, lied and slandered its way to an ‘exclusive’ scoop.

Tony Hall should start asking questions before people start asking questions of him.

And remember in 2012  the BBC said this about the MAC report:

‘The Mac report is arguably the most persuasive because it draws on in-depth analysis and research – and it just makes sense.‘

And here the BBC is fact checking itself yesterday and backstabbing Newsnight:

So the new report, when it comes out, may not disagree that dramatically with the original one from MAC.

Anthony Reuben Head of statistics, BBC News

It’s perhaps a shame that so many BBC journalists just take the BBC’s shilling, keep their head down and hope to survive in a well paid, pretty secure job until they can rest easy on an ample pension…..and all the time conforming to the consensus, going native in the land of the Guardianistas…..

Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre,  has called it  ‘a closed thought-system, operating a kind of Orwellian newspeak … perverting political discourse, and disenfranchising countless millions, who don’t subscribe to the BBC’s world view.’
And Georgina Born wrote [of a BBC advert for itself]: The implication is clear and the message emotional and powerful; the BBC’s global services – and BBC World – speak truth, and it’s a truth that all can understand, whatever their colour, age or ethnicity. The BBC avows for itself a global role of truth-speaking. The ad is electrifying; I am utterly slain. But perhaps the message is too powerful, too propagandistic. Should the BBC use such Orwellian language? Should it dare to propose for itself such a universal role?

The BBC seem quite relaxed about Putin’s little invasion….can’t remember them asking this about any of Israel’s little incursions:

Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?

The BBC makes a lot of the status of ‘ethnic Russians’ inside the Ukraine….wouldn’t they be Ukrainian then?

The BBC always reassures us that Muslims are even more British than the British..as of course are all immigrants to this country who can’t wait to wrap themselves in the Union Flag.

How is that different for these ‘Russians’ then?  Do the same rules not apply?

Or can we expect the BBC to also justify it if Pakistan decides to fly in a couple of battalions and to cordon off Leeds Bradford airport if the EDL starts marching up there and they have to protect ‘Pakistani citizens’?

The Russian propaganda machine is pumping out material suggesting that the uprising in the Ukraine is a right wing coup….strangely this is also something that the BBC has been propagating as well despite many Ukrainians denying this.

Ukraine: Far-right armed with bats patrol Kiev

Undoubtedly the Far Right are in the mix….along with numerous other groups….but why does the BBC choose just to highlight the Far Right and do Putin’s job for him….the excuse he used to ‘protect’ those ‘ethnic Russians’?

How soon the BBC forgets:

Ex BBC journo Nick Jones.

If you want to exercise your eyeballs by giving them a good roll around their sockets listen to this from Jones on 5Live (23 mins)

The coal miner’s strike……It was the biggest story of his career and he’s never got over it.

He tells us that broadcasters were in danger of being the cheerleaders for the return to work…..Scargill , in the eyes of the government, had made it a political strike.

Hmmm….no mention that Scargill was at war with the government…and that the miners voted by a large majority not to strike.

He says…..Reporting should have been more in favour of the miners and their ‘plight’….the police and Mrs Thatcher couldn’t have won the war if we’d had Twitter and Youtube in the 80’s….the public would have been shocked by the way the police operated.

In other words we wouldn’t have got the real truth just highly selective, up close videos the truth of which you could never be certain…..

Home Secretary Leon Brittan, said that if there were no violent mass picketing and no intimidation, there ”would be no need for the police to be present.”

Makes sense no?

If only, Jones muses..there had been a negotiated settlement…we might have a coal industry today…who knows, we could be at the forefront of the coal industry now.

Yeah right dream on.  Has he never heard of massively cheap coal being imported…and Shale gas in the US has led to even cheaper coal and gas.

The National Union of Miner’s own website says:
Throughout the 1960s, with a Labour Government in office from 1964, the pit closure programme accelerated; it decimated the industry.

During this period, nearly 300 more pits were closed, and the total workforce slumped from over 750,000 in the late 1950s down to 320,000 by 1968. In many parts of Britain, miners now became known as industrial gypsies as pit closures forced them to move from coalfield to coalfield in search of secure jobs.

They were victims of madhouse economics.

Jones makes a career out of these ruminations……

‘If only…’ Some soul-searching over the 1984–5 miners’ strike

“I do not see a need for low skilled migration from outside Europe”

Labour’s Liam Byrne

Odd how the BBC absolutely refused to report Andrew Neather’s ‘incendiary’ revelations about Labour’s immigration policy where they implemented a policy that would deliberately aim to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Britain of its white and British DNA and put British workers on the scrap heap, sacrificed for Labour’s own social and political ends.  Odd how they leap upon a report that hasn’t been published yet and relies upon anonymous ‘officials’ or unseen emails to cobble together a story.

Odd how they never make the connection between Labour’s importation of massive numbers of cheap labourers and the low wages now contributing to the  ‘living standards crisis’….one which began in 2003…..no coincidence that was when immigration really took off…..

“in general terms, the employment of migrants is a deliberate policy choice to employ a workforce at a lower cost”

The Migration Advisory Committee has always been a reliable source of information for the BBC when discussing immigration figures.

That seems to have changed….is there an election coming?

Apparently the MAC’s 2012 report on immigration has got it wrong. and its figures are not to be relied upon now.

Curious really as this is what the BBC said in 2012 of that very report:

‘The Mac report is arguably the most persuasive because it draws on in-depth analysis and research – and it just makes sense.‘
Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent, BBC News

So…..It just makes sense….drawing on in-depth analysis and research.

Hmmm…they’re now reporting that ….’According to emails seen by Newsnight, the old research cited by Mrs May was not considered sufficiently “robust” by either the Treasury or the Department for Business.’

So ‘in-depth analysis and research’ isn’t robust enough for the treacherous backstabber Vince Cable?

So just who did leak those emails?  No coincidence that Cable recently said he was quite happy with untold numbers of immigrants swamping the UK.

This is the Newsnight report….highly political and lacking in-depth research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfe5niwmZ_M

It tells us that immigration is one of the government’s ‘flagship policies’….which is why the BBC is currently flooding the airwaves with programmes about the ‘benefits’ of immigrants….apparently we’d have no entrepreneurs in this country if it weren’t for immigration….curious as always how the BBC doesn’t dwell on the downsides…say if you want a job, or a house, or a school place.

The language used in the film was no doubt meant to be ‘street’ and accessible….but was instead childish and came across as biased.

We are told that the MAC research was ‘pretty handy’ for a Home Secretary looking to cut immigration…..or it might just have been perfectly reliable and accurate.

We are told ‘It’s hard to make the case for cutting immigration on purely economic grounds.’

Really?  Most research says there is very little if any benefit from immigration economically….but that doesn’t stop the BBC from making the economic case for immigration.

Newsnight went on to say ‘a lot of people oppose immigration restrictions’……but failed to mention that far more support restrictions.

Newsnight told us that the government really ‘treasured’ the research that indicated mass immigration put Brits out of work….

..the problem is, Newsnight went on….‘it’s wrong’.

‘Wrong’ is it?  Where’s the proof of that?   Ah…this new report….why is that so much more accurate then?  And who produced that….was it by the very same MAC that the BBC is denouncing?….as this from the MAC in September 2013 might indicate:

Call for Evidence

Review of migrant employment in low-skilled work

In May 2013, the Minister for Immigration asked the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to advise on the issue of low-skilled work migration, the factors driving it and the resulting economic and social impacts. Specifically the Minister asked the MAC:“…to consider the labour market, economic and social impacts on the UK and specifically on British workers, drawing on and updating earlier work in this area. In particular, the MAC is asked to research the growth of migrant labour, distinguishing where possible between EEA and non-EEA migrants, in low skilled sectors of the UK economy and the factors driving this

Newsnight tells us that Downing Street has refused to let anyone see the new research as it is ‘simply much too embarrassing…Cameron’s team wants it to be hidden’.

Really?  Where did the BBC hear that then?  Any proof?  No..thought not.  It’s a lie then.

A highly political lie.

The BBC tells us this:

The BBC’s Newsnight programme, which first reported the story, said it had been told by officials that No 10 had prevented publication of the report to avoid igniting controversy.

Again really? Who are these ‘officials’?  What axes do they have to grind?

Just a rumour until confirmed and credited to someone……a rumour to ‘treasure’…a ‘pretty handy’ rumour that serves to damage the government.

Or another political lie by the BBC to be more blunt.

All in all the Newsnight report was a half baked piece of Labour friendly polemic…..who produced the new research?  What are the new figures?  What did other reports say?

Here is what Nick Robinson tells us after Newsnight….

Although the estimated figure for the so-called “displacement” of British workers has not been disclosed, our political editor Nick Robinson said he understood it was “virtually negligible”.

So essentially exactly what the National Institute for Economic and Social Research said in 2012….. immigration had had little or no impact on the number of jobless benefit claimants….as reported by the BBC.

What did the House of Lords report say in 2008?:

In the short term, immigration may put pressure on the employment opportunities of young people. In the long run, the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population are likely to be fairly small.

What else did the House of Lords report say?…..

Immigration keeps labour costs lower than they would be without immigrants. These lower labour costs also benefit consumers, who then pay less than they otherwise would for products and services (including public services) produced or provided by immigrants.

Ms Irwin of the Royal College of Nursing suggested in her evidence on the employment of foreign nurses in the UK that “in general terms, the employment of migrants is a deliberate policy choice to employ a workforce at a lower cost”

The BBC of course don’t like the House of Lords report because it reveals there is no economic benefit from immigration:

Immigration has become highly significant to the UK economy: immigrants comprise 12% of the total workforce—and a much higher proportion in London. However, we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.

Not only that but arguments that claim immigration will solve the pension’s crisis are false……

Arguments in favour of high immigration to defuse the “pensions time bomb” do not stand up to scrutiny as they are based on the unreasonable assumption of a static retirement age as people live longer and ignore the fact that, in time, immigrants too will grow old and draw pensions. Increasing the retirement age, as the Government has done, is the only viable approach to resolving this issue.

The BBC today quotes from Jonathan Portes…without telling us he was working for Labour in the DWP when they were in government …..but in 2008 he said:

 “There clearly is a risk here that too much migration in some of the wrong sectors would indeed reduce the incentives [for training].” Mr Portes said that the Migration Advisory Committee will take this risk into account when “advising on which sectors migrants might help to fill in terms of labour market shortages”

What did Labour’s Liam Byrne say in 2008?…..

‘…he told us that there was a danger of immigration discouraging British employers from investing in training of local workers, particularly at “the low end” of the labour market.……

.……I do not see a need for low skilled migration from outside Europe”

And that’s the point…low skilled immigration especially from outside Europe….Theresa May was using research that was talking about the effects of non European immigration…here’s here speech:

Home Secretary speech on ‘An immigration system that works in the national interest’

‘…..a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK…..Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.’

But that was only a very small point in a very long speech, a speech which laid out very many more reasons why immigration should be controlled…..the BBC trying to suggest that this new research undermines the whole case for lowering immigration is clearly the BBC manipulating the news…..even Newsnight admits that saying at the end that….

‘Much of the concern about immigration is about culture not arithmetic.’

The trouble is the BBC refuses to talk about those other costs of immigration…the ones that effect culture and society…because the BBC values multi-culturalism and thinks, along with Labour, that Britain is too hideously white and British.

What the Newsnight doesn’t admit is that the numbers do count…but not merely in their effect upon indigenous workers…housing, schools, roads, welfare, the NHS all suffer from vastly too many people tryihg to use them…..but the BBC likes to hide that if possible…..how many times did you hear immigration being blamed for the pressure on housing and the need to build ion flood plains recently?  Never?  Probably.

You just can’t trust the BBC.

How the BBC’s silence on immigration damaged the country

Can we still trust the BBC?

The ‘Truth about immigration’…even that was a lie from the BBC and Nick Robinson.

You have to admire the BBC. Even a HINT of some “good news” about immigration into the UK and the comrades are to the fore in pushing it down our throats. Even better if it shows the Conservatives in a bad light!

Downing Street has withheld publication of a cross-governmental report that suggests one potential impact of immigration is smaller than claimed. It suggests “displacement” – the number of UK workers unemployed as a consequence of immigration – is well below the figure used by ministers of 23 for every 100 additional immigrants. This was considered potentially incendiary, BBC Newsnight has learned.

The BBC report is full of weasel words and plays fast and loose with the concept of immigration. It is implying that the report relates to ALL immigration whilst in fact it concerns non EU immigration. So the elephant in the Immigration room gets a de facto pass. Meanwhile, when it comes to sources of NON EU immigration, Pakistan and Bangladesh feature right up there and I was curious to know what economic benefits individuals from those countries bring to the UK?

I heard the BBC give a very sympathetic hearing to this latest manipulated nonsense from the EU;

About a third of all women in the EU have experienced either physical or sexual violence since the age of 15, according to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. That corresponds to 62 million women, the survey says. It is said to be the biggest survey conducted on the subject, and is based on interviews with 42,000 women. The report calls on EU countries to treat domestic violence as a public, not a private issue.

I wonder if the BBC comrades might explore which ..ahem..communities within this apocalyptic zone of rape and abuse contribute most towards such violence?