The BBC asks:

Kristallnacht 75 years on: How strong is anti-Semitism in Germany?

And reports:

“The significantly strongest agreement with anti-Semitic prejudices is found in Poland and Hungary. In Portugal, followed closely by Germany, anti-Semitism is significantly more prominent than in the other western European countries. In Italy and France, anti-Semitic attitudes as a whole are less widespread than the European average, while the extent of anti-Semitism is least in Great Britain and the Netherlands”.

Which is a bit inconsistent with this:

One person told the BBC she had experienced far worse prejudice in Britain than she had at home in Germany – in a Cambridge college, ham was sometimes placed in her postbox.

…and never mind that Jews were advised that it would be better for them to emigrate from the Netherlands:

Dutch politician urges Jews to ’emigrate to US or Israel’

Former European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein says no future for Orthodox Jews in Holland because of ‘anti-Semitism among Dutchmen of Moroccan descent’

Not a mention of Sweden or Norway.

Norway could soon come top of another ranking: as the first country in Europe to be Judenfrei or Judenrein (the Nazi terms for the ethnic cleansing of Jews). 

What I found was a mixture of cowardly cultural relativism, examples of rabid Jew-hatred and a liberal Left that had joined forces with radical Islamists.

No mention of Islam and the massive rise in anti-Semitism due to the influx of so many Muslims to Europe by the BBC (as admitted by Mehdi Hasan….‘Our Dirty Little Seceret’….‘anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.‘)….just a mention of ‘youths of Middle Eastern appearance‘…..

A year ago, Rabbi Daniel Alter was attacked by a group of youths of Middle Eastern appearance as he walked with his young daughter. “They made threats of violence against female members of my family, including my seven-year-old daughter who was by my side,” he says.

And then there is this…

It has made him change his life. Seventy-five years after Kristallnacht, he feels he can no longer wear his skullcap openly in some areas of Berlin, and covers it with a hat. And he has re-doubled his efforts to visit schools and talk to children – often alongside an Imam from a mosque.

On first reading I took it to mean they were touring Muslim schools and mosques perhaps with an Imam to castigate the non-Kufars.

On second reading I actually think the author was trying to suggest a link between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia….and make out that Muslims are ‘the new Jews of Europe’.

Strange when you consider it is Muslims driving out Jews from so many places in Europe.

The BBC, God bless ’em.

Funny what they choose to turn a blind eye to.

‘anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.‘

The BBC’s Roger Harrabin sounded pretty desperate yesterday morning on the radio as he yet again pushed a very one sided version of climate change…helpfully he has written it all down as he helps in the fight to keep the Green show on the road:

Wavering on UK climate policy ‘not justified’

Britain is playing its part in a worldwide bid to reduce emissions and should not weaken its proposed cuts, says a report to the UK government.

The Committee on Climate Change says no change in global science or policy justifies a slackening of effort.

The report was compiled after Chancellor George Osborne said the UK’s competitiveness might be put at risk by leading the world in curbing emissions.

The CCC research challenges this assumption.

Harrabin also highlighted China’s apparent great leap forward on CO2 reduction…..Bishop Hill thinks he may be exaggerating:

And Bishop Hill goes on:

According to this article at Bloomberg:

The [Chinese] government aims to have 100 gigawatts of wind-power installed capacity and more than 35 gigawatts of solar power by 2015…

With a population of 1.34bn, 100 GW of wind power represents about 72 W/capita. The UK currently has 8445 MW of wind for a population of 63 million, which is 134 W/capita. So we are already doing roughly double what China is expected to achieve by 2015.

For solar, China’s 2015 figure of 35 GW represents 26 W/capita, while the UK has about the same already.

And according to the EU the UK was ahead of the game on meeting the 2012 Kyoto CO2 reduction targets.

But what about that Climate Change Committee?

Our Role

The Committee on Climate Change (the CCC) is an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Our purpose is to advise the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change.

Independent.

Really?

We know that its Chairman, Tim Yeo had to step aside due to questions about his vested interests in renewable energy businesses….what about the others on the Committee?

Sir Brian Hoskins:

Over the last four years Sir Brian (Hoskins) has been instrumental in establishing the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, as an important centre for climate change research.

Ahh…the Grantham Institute…at Imperial College London.…one of the propaganda nerve centres for promoting man made climate change.

Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford:

Again…..Imperial College London…

He now holds joint professorships at Oxford and Imperial College London….When asked if religious leaders should be doing more to persuade people to combat climate change, he stated that it was absolutely necessary….

“A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution.”

“Given that punishment is a useful mechanism, how much more effective it would be if you invested that power not in an individual you don’t like, but an all-seeing, all powerful deity that controls the world,” he said

“It makes for rigid, doctrinaire societies, but it makes for co-operation.”

Such a system would be “immensely stabilising in individual human cultures” and societies, he pointed out.

Is he neutral on climate change…Maybe not:

One of Britain’s most eminent scientists has attacked President Bush for acting like a latter-day Nero who fiddles while the world burns because of global warming.

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society and former chief scientific adviser to the Government, said the Bush administration must accept the case has been made about the link between man-made pollution and climate change. Continuing to deny the impact of human activities on the environment may ultimately have catastrophic consequences for everyone on the planet, he said.

Lord May will also castigate elements within the British media who promote “misleading” opinions about the true nature of the scientific uncertainties surrounding climate change.

“If the public are misled into thinking climate change does not pose a serious potential threat, some policy-makers could more easily find an excuse not to act. 

Lord May accused the Daily Mail of waging an undeclared propaganda war against the science of climate change… the Daily Mail gives undue prominence and support to the views of an extreme fringe, and misleads its readers about the state of our knowledge”

How about Lord Deben?:

David Cameron, who last month nominated Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer) as the new chairman of the influential and supposedly “independent” Committee on Climate Change, set up to advise government on energy policy under the Climate Change Act. This is despite the fact that Lord Deben’s array of environmental business interests includes chairmanship of Forewind Ltd, a consortium of four energy firms planning the world’s largest, and most heavily subsidised, offshore wind farm in the North Sea.

And what about his mate Tim Yeo?

MP paid £400,000 by green firms slams climate change peer… for hypocrisy exposed by the Mail

• Tim Yeo has complained about Lord Deben’s undisclosed green interests
• Mr Yeo has been paid more than £400,000 by three green companies
• Lord Deben is chairman of firm which connects windfarms to National Grid

Jim Skea:

Jim [Skea] has strong links to policy processes. He is a founding member of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and is Vice-Chair of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the past, he was a member of the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance and acted as Launch Director for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership. Jim is also a non-executive director of the Blackrock New Energy Investment Trust plc.

So he works on the IPCC?  Very independent….and not forgetting his Green business interests.

and comes from Imperial College London…

and is Director of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Global Environmental Change Programme.

The same ESRC that has close connections to the Grantham Institute and the famous Lord Stern

Professor Lord Stern of Brentford, Chair of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy who also runs the……

Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy wins second phase funding from UK Economic and Social Research Council

The University of Leeds and London School of Economics and Political Science have been jointly awarded more than £5 million by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to support a second phase of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, it was announced today (17 September 2013).

Professor Samuel Fankhauser: Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Environment – LSE.

He also works for the business Vivid Economics which advises on climate to government and business:

The economics of climate change has taken centre-stage for energy-intensive industries and governments across the world. We are established thought leaders in this field, levering our expertise on competitiveness, strategy, infrastructure, resources and innovative policy.

We provide advice on policy design at national and international level, on commercial strategy and planning, mitigation of emissions, adaptation to climate change, investment, infrastructure, innovation and economic growth, with a thorough understanding of related financial and scientific issues.

Professor Dame Julia King non executive director of the Green Investment bank

We are committed to addressing the very serious issue of the ever growing demands on the planet’s natural resources and building a strong and sustainable legacy for future generations.

In order to meet this green challenge there are ambitious and legally binding targets which the UK must meet.

Paul Johnson serving on the council of the Economic and Social Research Council. (as above)

Professor Lord Krebs and David Kennedy seem to be the only ones without any serious vested interests in  green business or promotion.

The Committee on Climate Change..…

Independent then?

I think not.

Nice though of Harrabin to give so much credence to anything they say.

A Biased BBC reader notes…

“Reporting on the grilling of the three intelligence chiefs before a Parliamentary Committee these were the newsworthy headlines reported under that heading immediately after, on three web sites:”

BBC’s top headline: 

Web inventor criticises spy agencies

Sky News headline:

Leaks by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden have played into the hands of terrorists, say Britain’s spy chiefs.

ITV’s top headline

Spy chiefs believe Snowden leaks caused damage…

No bias whatsoever, right?

You have to hand it to the BBC, they are determined to push the global warming meme even when it is..erm, cooling!

The levels of gases in the atmosphere that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric CO2 grew more rapidly last year than its average rise over the past decade. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide also broke previous records  Thanks to carbon dioxide and these other gases, the WMO says the warming effect on our climate has increased by almost a third since 1990.

Let’s stop at the first line and weigh up the sort of contrary scientific opinion the BBC does not like to find safe for. Why does the BBC feel such a compunction to continually present scientific OPINION as scientific FACT?

Ah, will the BBC ever get over the death of ol’ Yasser – that Jew hating terrorist loving piece of Palestinian slime?  …sorry, I meant that much loved and sadly missed Leader of the most oppressed people ever. I mean when BBC reporter Barbara Plett openly wept at his funeral, those were our tears she expressed, right?

Anyhoo….the issue of Arafat’s death has been a tad tricky for the BBC.  The fact that he died from Aids — or so his doctor said — seemed unsatisfactory for the comrades so far better to fantasise on those conspiracy tales that those evil Jooos had poisoned him with polonium.

You have to admire the way the BBC can take an issue and spin it to suit the trenchant anti-Coalition narrative that lies at the heart of all it has done since 2010. Take the story of that for ‘cor blimey” Brit Mohammed al Mohammed.

Somalian-born (natch!) Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed is believed to have evaded police observation by disguising himself as a woman in Islamic dress. The 27-year-old went to pray at a mosque in West London on Friday and has not been seen since, Scotland Yard announced last night.

So we have a suspected Jihadist going to a MOSQUE and then evading police scrutiny by dressing up in a Burqa. BBC not interested in why this Somalian terrorist was going to a Mosque and what that may say about what is preached within its confines. BBC not interested in whether the Burqa should be banned from the public square when it is used for such evasion. BBC not interested in why Mr Mohamed is even IN the UK.  No —- the BIG issue for the BBC is the efficacy of the TPims put in place by the Coalition. So, another Somalian poses a threat to the UK population and the BBC turns its guns on Theresa May.

Here you go, as requested! Seen any bias? Well, could you MISS it?

64% of Britons are satisfied with life.

The BBC has been pushing Labour’s ‘cost of living crisis’ hard recently (Ed Miliband: Only Labour can secure ‘recovery for all’) but seems not to want to make much of  this:

Britons happier than before financial crisis as contentment plummets in Europe – OECD

OECD says quality of life in the UK has been only “modestly affected” by the global financial crisis with happiness and even trust in government rising – in marked contrast with its neighbours in the Eurozone

The BBC’s response to the OECD’s report was very muted compared to its extensive and one sided coverage of immigration statistics.

Financial crisis hits happiness levels

Countries worst hit by the global financial crisis saw their happiness levels fall as a result, a survey has suggested.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), levels of “life satisfaction” fell sharply between 2007 and 2012 in countries like Greece and Spain.

Trust in governments also deteriorated over that time.

The OECD said the findings showed the far-reaching impact of the crisis.

However, the UK saw its happiness levels rise 1% between 2007 and 2012, putting it in the 20% of happiest countries in the OECD, alongside the likes of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand.

The UK also bucked the trend by showing a rise in trust in the government, up from 36% to 47% between 2007 and 2011.

“The global economic crisis has had a profound impact on people’s well-being, reaching far beyond the loss of jobs and income, and affecting citizens’ satisfaction with their lives and their trust in governments,” the 34-member organisation said.

Note how it emphasizes the bad news and only then slipped in the ‘but Britain is doing better‘……and note that sly ‘the UK saw its happiness levels rise 1% between 2007 and 2012‘.

Satisfaction risen…but by a mere 1%…nothing to cheer about eh?  Let’s downplay the truth.

Why not report what was actually said?:

‘The percentage of British people declaring being very satisfied with their lives increased from 63 per cent to 64 per cent.’

Which tells us that a good majority think their lives aren’t so bad as Labour tell us, via the BBC.

Immigration has cost a minimum of £62 billion between 2001 and 2011

If you’ve been listening to the radio you may have heard the BBC telling us that ‘immigration’, not just EU immigration, has benefited this country as ‘immigrants’ pay more in tax than they take in benefits.

Recent immigrants to UK ‘make net contribution’

Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a “substantial” contribution to public finances, a report says.
The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.
The authors said rather than being a “drain”, their contribution had been “remarkably strong”.

The trouble is ‘immigration’ as a whole does not benefit us….but that fact is missing from the BBC reports.

The source for these ‘facts’ is the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, funded partly by the European Union…..and staffed by mainly immigrants:

Research staff

External fellows

In 2007 this is what they were telling us:

Policy formation is likely to be influenced by the subjective opinion of domestic residents. This creates a dilemma for policy: while liberal immigration policies may benefit the industrial society, these may be difficult to implement due to public antipathy. 

Understanding the process of attitude formation and how it works through the media is essential to an appropriate policy response. 

That good old ‘Manufacturing of Consent’.

The BBC is happy to oblige, trying to persuade us that immigration benefits us….they do that by missing out essential facts…as does the CRAM.

This is what we are told:

The net fiscal balance of overall immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 amounts therefore to a positive net contribution of about 25 billion GBP.

Unfortunately that isn’t so……hidden on page 41 we get the real figures…..

1995-2011  Non EU immigrants cost  £104 billion

2001-2011 Non EU immigrants cost £87 billion

Now subtract a positive £25 billion from a cost of £87 billion and I make that a total cost of £62 billion.

Immigration has cost a minimum of £62 billion between 2001 and 2011

And that doesn’t include all the costs of course.

Take a look at the ‘research’ for yourself.

It’s fairly opaque in style and is impossible for most people to check their sources and conclusions.

But wander through it and cherry pick things that catch your eye and some of these might be of interest and raise a few questions:

The first point is that that whacking great loss isn’t quantified in the body of the text…you have to dig for it yourself….which raises the question as to why?

Fair comparison?

A major point is that immigrants don’t have all the costs put onto them that the natives do…..things that would be paid for whether or not immigrants were here, ‘pure’ public goods, such as defence, roads, the Civil Service and Government etc, are left out….but such costs are included for the natives when comparing expenditure by government on them and taxes paid…hardly a fair comparison…..

We assign the cost of all these “pure” public goods only to natives, meaning that the expenditure column represents the cost of pure public goods that natives would have to bear in the absence of any immigrant population.

Wages

The report says by ratio immigrants are better educated than natives but….

These stark educational differences between immigrants and natives are not, however, reflected by wage differences, as we show in Table 2a: the median wages of natives and non-EEA immigrants are nearly the same, while the median wages for EEA immigrants are substantially below those of natives, by about 15% in 2011

Hang on…..immigrants apparently pay more taxes and yet they earn less than the natives?

Employment

Whilst EU immigrants are apparently slightly more likely to have a job by percentage than the natives, non-EU immigrants are far less likely:

Since the mid-2000s, employment rates have also been slightly higher for EEA immigrants than for natives, 75% versus 70% in 2011(see Table 2b). The employment rate of non-EEAs, on the other hand, is substantially lower in all years, only 62% in 2011

But all those unemployed….25% of EU and 38% of non-EU immigrants will be claiming benefits or costing us in some shape or form.

Housing

The report tells us:

‘…recent immigrants overall are over 3 percentage points less likely to live in social housing than natives

Recent non-EEA immigrants, in contrast, are 2.6 percentage points more likely than natives to live in social housing.‘

Hmmm….2/3rds of immigrants are non-EU…..so 2/3rds of immigrants are 2.6% more likely to be in social housing than natives…..

…and yet the report says that overall, immigrants are 3% less likely to be in social housing.

I don’t know about you but I find those figures, em, confusing.

And what isn’t quantified is the cost of all those immigrants filling up the housing stock

Some more doubtful figures

Between 2007 and 2011, recent EEA immigrants made a net contribution of 15.2billion GBP (expressed in 2011 equivalency) to UK public finances, which amounts to an annual average of 2,610 GBP per capita over the 5-year period. Over the same time frame, the annual net fiscal cost of UK natives amounted to about 1,900 GBP per capita and the net fiscal cost of recent non-EEA immigrants to about 332 GBP per capita.

So EU immigrants contributed £2,610 each to the economy whilst a British native cost £1,900 over and above taxes paid annually….that’s around £100 billion annually (based on a population of 60 million).

Of course they did.

The trouble is that not all the costs of immigration are taken into account….housing for a start…the massive house inflation and subsequent lack of housing, NHS,  the schools costs, the roads and maintenance of those, the policing, judicial and prison systems, cost of unemployment of natives unable to get a job etc.

In 2007 they recognised such costs were relevant, not just financial but social, political and religious….

Over the years labour migration has been important for economic growth and contributed to economic prosperity in Germany and the UK.  It remains a crucial issue (economically and politically) and is one whereby economies can remedy unforeseen skill gaps which may otherwise have detrimental effects on the competitiveness of industry. 

However, although migration can offer benefits by leading to relief of skill shortages, it may also adversely affect labour market prospects of resident workers, put additional strain on the welfare system, lead to an increase in criminal activity, or otherwise unfavourably affect social cohesion (see Dustmann and Glitz 2005 and Dustman et al. 2005 for discussion). While the primary motivation for allowing immigration is because of temporary labour market demands, migrants and their children tend to remain in the receiving economy long after labour market conditions have changed. All this may lead to questions whether the possibly short term benefits from immigration may be outweighed by other consequences.

I don’t know about you but I find the ‘research’ from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration  less than convincing on my quick overview and the BBC’s reporting highly partisan and clearly designed to emphasise apparent benefits of immigration whilst hiding the negative.

You have to believe the figures and the interpretation put on them by the researchers to believe that overall EU immigrants benefit the economy.

I don’t believe the CRAM is independent and I believe it starts off from the point of view that immigration is beneficial and has been looking for facts to prove that….its hiding of the costs of non-EU immigration might suggest that attitude on their part.

New Open Thread…..