A report by Rajini Vaidyanathan about the forthcoming trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting of Trayvon Martin takes a clip of Zimmerman’s phone call to the police completely out of context to give the impression his actions were racially motivated.

Here’s the relevant segment:

Vaidyanathan: He was unarmed, carrying a bag of sweets and iced tea. He’d been spotted by George Zimmerman, a neighbourhood watch volunteer. Believing the teenager was acting suspiciously, he called the police.

Clip from Zimmerman phone call: He’s got his hand in his waistband… and he’s a black male.”

Now here’s the context of that clip taken from the full transcript of the phone call:

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now, he was just staring.
Dispatcher: OK, he’s just walking around the area…
Zimmerman: Looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: OK…
Zimmerman: Now he’s just staring at me.
Dispatcher: OK-you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse…
Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the-he’s near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.

“And he’s a black male” is obviously confirmation of his earlier response to the dispatcher. “He looks black” was Zimmerman’s first answer. A short time later he gets a better view so he confirms the fact. The BBC’s report takes this clip out of context to make it seem as if Zimmerman’s reference to Martin’s skin colour was unsolicited, an off the cuff remark rather than a fact that had been requested of him. That is to say, the BBC is trying to imply a racial motive.

This is utterly disgraceful, especially given the fact that last year NBC was forced to fire a journalist for broadcasting an edited version of the above Zimmerman phone call that also made him seem racist. I don’t think the BBC’s out of context cherry-picking is any better.

I’ve already mentioned in the Open Thread that Mark Mardell has written an article about racial tensions ahead of Zimmerman’s trial in which the BBC’s North America editor contrives to ignore the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic. To do so would muddy Mardell’s narrative, which is literally black and white. Rather than go over all that again (and the BBC’s selective use of photos for this story) here’s the link to my earlier comments.

It seems that the BBC has decided on the story it wants to tell about the Zimmerman case, and it’s going to tell it regardless.

This relates to an article by Paul Moss…though you might have thought it was by Occupy’s Paul Mason:

Boom times in Dubai are attracting more and more Westerners – but a night with the expat elite was an awkward experience for the BBC’s Paul Moss.

 A weekend stopover in Dubai – a friend had asked some of her friends who live there to take me out.

So, here I was being taken out. But what are the obligations in such a situation?

What do you say to people kind enough to host a stranger, yet characters so improbable not even the wildest of satirists would dare invent them?

Not a problem it seems for Moss…just mock and deride them, call them racist and adopt a holier than thou attitude towards their wealth…in fact pretty much out of the BBC handbook on how to deal with white rich people these days.

Nothing like returning a bit of hospitality and betraying his friend’s trust.

And he seems so pleased with his own cleverness at fooling them into thinking he would write something nice:

“You are a journalist,” said another woman. “Why do you not write something [did he edit out the ‘nice’?] about Dubai? Everyone is always so horrible about us.”

“You will not forget, will you?” she asked. “You will write something about Dubai, about all of us?”

I promised her that I would certainly consider it.

Charming…wonder if his friends will get their friends to entertain him again…I’m sure they will ‘certainly consider it.’

Another open thread…..

The BBC breathlessly reports that a Bridgwater social club has gone up in smoke and are claiming it was definitely an arson attack by the far right EDF who very definitely attacked it because it was rumoured the club had received a membership application from a Muslim, and in a positive move for community cohesion the club was actively considering letting him join.

Locals say there are EDF links to the site.

The BBC report that the police, who say they are investigating the ‘suspicious’ fire, will be maintaining 24 hour patrols in ‘vulnerable’ sites which suggests that further attacks may follow.  The Muslim community is living in fear of this wave of anti-Muslim attacks.

That of course is not what the BBC said…..everyone knows that EDF isn’t the EDL…don’t they?

The BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones @ruskin147 tweets: Feeling sorry for the poor devil running the @EDFenergy Twitter account – spending their day explaining that they’re not the EDL…

However a similar approach was taken by the BBC to the recent fires at a Muslim community centre and a Muslim school. 

The BBC reported that the two fires were ‘attacks’…long before police made some arrests for the school fire...but nowhere was there a statement from the police  saying that the fires were arson nor of course, who started the fires.

The police have been patrolling various Muslim sites just in case these were arson attacks…but that was precautionary….

The BBC’s Danny Shaw interprets that as:

“This suggests the Met believes further attacks may follow.”

No..it doesn’t, what it ‘suggests’ is that police didn’t know…they didn’t even know if these were ‘attacks’,  but were taking precautions.

As the BBC itself reports:

“Detectives are working tirelessly to establish whether these fires were started deliberately, and if so, to catch those responsible.”

The BBC round it all off with this pronouncement of implied guilt:

Following the fire, police said, the letters “EDL” (English Defence League) were found sprayed on the side of the building. [ref.  the first fire]

The blaze prompted local Muslim groups to call for the authorities to take “serious action” over anti-Islam attacks.

What ‘anti-Islam’ attacks?

The police had made no statement that this was arson…they were just investigating  ‘suspicious’ fires.

Just as with the Boston bombings the BBC  leapt to conclusions that it wanted to be true….white racists attack Muslims in this case…may be true…but the BBC had no evidence of that at all….but that didn’t stop them running stories implying such a thing….and feeding the Islamophobia industry that glories in the death of people like Lee Rigby as it cranks up the motors to claim that Muslims are the real vicitms of such attacks….

The BBC are once again actually encouraging Muslims to be afraid, encouraging them to think that there is a wave of anti-Muslim attacks…despite the evidence being that there are in fact very few such attacks.

The BBC are in fact helping to stir up discontent, fear and anger…and potentially the radicalisation of Muslims.

 Ironic when the BBC does everything it can to persuade the British Public that they have nothing to fear from Muslims or Islam…..everytime a bomb goes off or a Muslim terror cell appears in court or a grooming gang attacks only white girls, or two Muslims attempt to behead a British soldier on the streets of a British town….or an MP gets stabbed.

 In contrast there is this report today in which the BBC report a ‘spokesperson’ who is quick off the mark to say ‘nothing to do with Islam’ here:

Explosion at MP Nick Boles’s office in Bourne

‘A spokesperson said early indications suggested the incident was not linked to any wider issues or recent events in the county.’

The ‘Right Wing’ Patrick Mercer was an agreeable target for the BBC…they had no problem setting him up for a fall.

The Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Tim Yeo, was a different matter altogether….and even now as the BBC reports this latest potential scandal they downplay its significance, miss out ‘evidence’ and in fact actually deny that some of the claims were made despite them being highlighted by other news providers….even the Guardian reports the claims in full:

Tim Yeo denies claims he offered to advise solar energy lobbyists for cash

As pointed out several times on these pages Guido (the Sunday Times video is ‘revealing’ to say the least…the BBC misses out major chunks of it) pretty much nailed Yeo’s potential conflict of interest by highlighting his numerous business interests in renewable and green industries……earning £530,000 from private firms since taking over the committee according to the Sunday Times…and having £585,000 in share options in low carbon companies.

Yeo has been caught in a Sunday Times sting in which the Times claims he was offering to smooth the path of green industry lobbyists by helping them meet the right people, including government figures….being close to “really all the key players in the UK in government’ and ‘able to introduce them to ‘almost everyone you needed to get hold of in this country”.

[Sunday Times is paywalled so here’s the Telegraph’s report]

The ST claim he told them he also advised GB Railfreight on how to present their case before they gave evidence to the ECC committee….he told the Sunday Times ‘lobbyists’ that he could advise them also….as it was a “good way of getting your stuff on the map”.

What many might think is most damning is the claim that he said he could not speak for the lobbyists publicly because “People will say he’s saying this because of his commercial interest…..but….what I say to people in private is another matter altogether.”

The Sunday Times also claims he said he could work one day a month for the lobbyists when the offered a fee of £7,000 per day.

Yeo denies all such accusations and says he was about to email the lobbyists to say he wasn’t prepared to work for them as it was incompatible with his role as chairman of the ECCC….and he denies ‘coaching’ GB Railfreight.

What is interesting is the BBC’s article in which it finally catches up with events having for so long ignored them.

However….the article does all it can to distance Yeo from the accusations and any thought that he might in fact have something to answer for, it asks no difficult questions itself.

For a start there’s the title:  ‘Tim Yeo Facing Coaching Claim’

The BBC highlight the claim that he ‘coached’  ‘GB Railfreight’…but that isn’t the main accusation…the other accusations, listed above, don’t get a mention in the BBC’s story.

The bulk of the BBC’s ‘report’ is in fact made up of statements that are supportive of  Yeo…and as stated actually misses out the most serious allegations against him.

Here are the BBC’s ‘supportive statements’:

1.  “Lobbying – attempting to influence politicians – goes on all the time and is perfectly legitimate,” says BBC political correspondent Chris Mason.

2.   Mr Yeo has since said he had not tutored this representative, the managing director of GB Railfreight, about giving evidence.

There is no suggestion GB Railfreight did anything wrong. It has said in a statement that its managing director made the same arguments the company has made regularly.

In the committee hearing, Mr Yeo publicly excused himself from the questioning because of his acknowledged conflict of interest.

3.  Mr Yeo said: “I intend to contest these allegations very vigorously indeed.”  He denied “absolutely” to the Sunday Times that he had breached the MPs’ Code of Conduct.

4.  He also told the paper’s undercover journalists, after they withdrew their offer to work with him, that he was relieved because he’d come to the view that the work was not compatible with his position as an MP and committee chair.

5.  Asked about the issue, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he could not comment on the allegations but told the Murnaghan programme on Sky News that “if you’re obeying the rules, you’ve got nothing much to fear”.

6.  Mr Yeo denies this and says he intends to contest all the allegations.  The BBC understands Mr Yeo has referred himself to the Parliamentary standards commissioner.

7.  Lobbying isn’t illegal. Trying to get MPs to change their mind is all part of politics.  Paid advocacy – paying cash for questions in Parliament – is against the rules.  But that’s not the allegation here. There’s no suggestion Tim Yeo’s agreed to do anything like that.

Hang on…..‘Paid advocacy – paying cash for questions in Parliament – is against the rules.  But that’s not the allegation here. There’s no suggestion Tim Yeo’s agreed to do anything like that.’

Really?  The Sunday Times says that he was offered £7,000 a day as a fee for him to push for new laws to boost its business……the claim by the Sunday Times is that ‘He told them he could commit to at least one day a month.’

So when the BBC says there is ‘no suggestion’ that he agreed to work for a green energy company that isn’t true…the suggestion is very much there.

Regardless of the truth of the allegations, which Yeo vigorously denies, the BBC is taking sides here before knowing the truth….it plays down his ‘coaching’ and fails to mention altogether the other accusations of a more serious nature.

As for the ‘coaching….he says he excused himself from questioning Railfreight because of the perceived conflict of interest….but then he didn’t need to question Railfreight…because, according to the Sunday Times,  he had provided them with the answers..he knew the answers already….not only that he knew that they were the answers most likely to be accepted by the committee.  But still…no conflict of interest there..he  had ‘excused’ himself.

Rather than investigate and seek to establish the truth it looks like the BBC has already also decided what the answers should be…..Yeo is innocent of all charges.

I imagine anyone from the general public reading the revelations in the Sunday Times might well be astounded and would say that this is potentially an extremely serious breach of trust and have reams of questions to ask…not so the BBC.

 Bishop  Hill says:

‘While it looks as though Yeo is going to fight the allegations, claiming without a hint of irony that he was on the point of writing to the company to tell them that he was uncomfortable working on the basis they’d discussed, the general vibe among the Westminster insiders seems to be that Yeo is toast.’

…whilst the BBC instead of making toast of him ‘butters him up’ instead.

‘conservativehome‘ says:

‘If the allegations are proven, then it is very hard to see how he could continue not only as committee chairman but as an MP.’

So, serious allegations that the BBC doesn’t take seriously…for some reason.

Is the BBC corrupt? 

When it comes to covering up for the climate change industry it certainly looks that way.

Stop the world, but Mandela is ill, again, and BBC instantly go into full panic. I dread to think what their coverage will be like should this ancient communist loving terrorist commander pop his clogs.

Here you go, a new Open Thread! Wasn’t it fantastic that Her Majesty put John Humphrys in his place the other day?

Seems to be a slightly different tone from the BBC when reporting the same story, that of the US PRISM electronic intelligence gathering revelations.

This side of the Pond the Brits get this headline:

GCHQ US spy claims ‘chilling’….allegations that Britain’s electronic listening post GCHQ has been gathering data through a secret US spy programme

and the report adopts a pretty negative attitude towards the intelligence gathering….nothing to do with who is leading the charge?…

Labour’s Keith Vaz said the claims were “chilling” and shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper demanded an inquiry.

Across the Pond its seems the BBC think Obama was taking difficult decisions, doing a difficult job, and all for the safety and security of the American People and the programme is closely monitored by good, trustworthy people:

Obama backs surveillance programmes….saying they are closely overseen by Congress and the courts.

The report spends 95% of its coverage ‘defending’ Obama’s position.

They insert this one negative comment from a Republican right at the bottom of the piece…but then counter that with a positive one from …another Republican and a Democrat:

Republican Senator Rand Paul called the programmes “an astounding assault on the Constitution”.

But his colleagues Republican Senator Lindsay Graham and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein both defended the phone records practice on Thursday. 

I  imagine if this guy was still in charge the headlines might have been a tad different:

The BBC’s World At One  (7 mins 30 secs) dignifies and white washes Mau Mau terrorism.

The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse talking to one of the, as he calls them, Mau Mau veterans:

‘I must say sir you sound very magnaminous considering what you went through.’

…the ferocity and barbarity of what went on at that time has left deep scars…on the victims of torture.

Not the ferocity and barbarity of the Mau Mau but of the Brits.

Max Hastings on the programme suggests Gabriel Gatehouse ought to die of shame for the one sided report that he just delivered.

Gatehouse thinks its all a big joke:

Gabriel Gatehouse ‏@ggatehouse 6h  @Nowheria Max Hastings said on Radio 4 I should “die of shame” for my reporting on the story

Gatehouse  highlights claims that ‘London’ implicated in  Kenyan local decisions;

Gabriel Gatehouse ‏@ggatehouse 7h Those involved in the case say the decision of the court and the settlement do point to “systematized” violence orchestrated from London

Not one sided at all, no shilling for the Mau Mau terrorists by Gatehouse:

Gabriel Gatehouse ‏@ggatehouse 5 Jun Mau Mau: UK thought to be offering around £14m for 5,200 claimants. That’s £2700 each. Some had their testicles ripped off with pliers.

Gatehouse seems keen to ‘encourage’ others to make similar claims:

Gabriel Gatehouse ‏@ggatehouse 6h  Seems inevitable today’s settlement will encourage other people with colonial-era grievances to come forward. Malaya? Cyprus? Palestine?

Tim Stanley in the Telegraph takes a line that the BBC obviously doesn’t:

The British must not rewrite the history of the Mau Mau revolt

Spot the difference:

From the Daily Mail:

Cashpoint card snatches treble: Romanian crime gangs responsible for 92% of thefts from cash machines, police believe

• Number of thefts carried out by cashpoints has trebled in the past year
• Police intelligence suggests 90 per cent are linked to Romanian immigrants
• Cost of card fraud expected to total £400million by the end of this year

From the BBC:

Bank card thefts ‘soaring at ATMs’

The BBC tells us of ‘thieves, ‘gangs’ and ‘pepetrators’…but who are they?  The BBC doesn’t tell us that.

These are crimes that wouldn’t have happened if the BBC’s favourite political party hadn’t deliberately and knowingly imported these criminals…..along with all the rapes, murders, shop lifting, drugs and vehicle theft etc that were also imported on the coat tails of Labour’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ of ‘hideously’ white British people.

And all supported by the BBC….a support the BBC is still giving by deliberately covering up the true cost of immigration……no mention of ‘Romanians’…because the BBC doesn’t want to associate this with the probable influx of new Romanian migrants coming our way soon.

Still, I’m sure the BBC is only waiting until tomorrow before they report this:

Beggars and thieves from across Europe are flocking to the streets of Britain, Theresa May warns the EU

• Home Secretary warns of ‘unacceptable burden’ on schools and hospitals
• Uses speech to EU ministers to demand changes to border rules
• Highlights how EU nationals are fleecing the British taxpayer