BBC asks "Why so sensitive on immigration?"

From this morning’s Today programme:

As the election approaches, immigration has become a primary concern for many voters but the sensitivity around it is preventing election candidates from making immigration a central issue.

Could that sensitivity and reluctance perhaps have anything to do with the way the BBC has dealt with the issue in the past? When immigration – or more specifically Tory immigration policy – became a major topic during the 2005 election campaign, the Today programme responded by doing an outside broadcast (on St George’s Day) from Leicester. The leader of the Conservatives on Leicester City Council was invited on to defend his party’s policies; he faced a hostile audience and a clearly biased Carolyn Quinn who sided with the crowd and lobbed easy leading questions to a pro-immigration community representative.

It’s a bit rich of the BBC to suddenly start asking why politicians from the mainstream parties are reluctant to talk about immigration when the BBC itself has shown such antagonism towards those who have raised the issue in the past.

All Foreign To Me

The Day the Immigrants Left.
A programme that did what it set out to do, prove that economic migration was necessary in broken Britain. It’s a foregone conclusion that such a programme would show that immigration Is a Good Thing.

With a format reminiscent of millions of other irritating programmes, Evan Davis set out to give a pre-selected group of guinea pigs a challenge ‘to see how they got on.’
As if he didn’t know.

The type of immigrants featured were hardworking Eastern Europeans who had come from countries not yet polluted by celebrity culture and tortured hairstyles, not the type of immigrants with several black-clad wives who live on benefit and demand we change our foreign policy and adopt sharia. law.

They featured a primary school headmistress who was ecstatic about the multi lingual nature of her school, rather than a teacher who was less keen on the type of intake that forced the curriculum to bend to suit the racist views of parents who despise the kaffir.

I really hope the indigenous Brits they had were carefully chosen, so that any with a spark of workishness were filtered out at the audition stage. Please don’t tell me that all the unemployed of Wisbech are like that.

“This is Yuri, your workmate today.”
“That’s me buggered then. I’ll call him Bill.”

I bet the producers loved that. They’d have been rubbing their hands with glee.
Lots of “bets bits” to choose from.
“Sorry, can’t come in today, got food poisoning, and so’s me mate.”
That’s Brits for you! Wadda we want? Immigration. When do we want it? Now.

Newsnight. More of the same. I think. I can’t really decipher Kirsty Wark. She can’t seem to be bothered to speak clearly. So that’s me buggered.

Unmentionable Matters

A BBC world service programme, Politics UK discussed Neathergate with Sir Andrew Green and Denis MacShane.

Presenter Dennis Sewell’s admirable introduction promised a frank and open discussion, but it quickly reverted to type as the participants carefully avoided mentioning the detrimental effect Muslim immigration in particular has had on western society, and the obvious vote-conscious stranglehold it has on politicians with Muslim-heavy constituencies.

The next item tackled Ali Dezaei’s exploitation of the PC-driven taboo that prevented criticism of Black’nAsian police. The whole saga seems like a microcosm of the UK.

When the institutional racism in the police force was recognized after the Stephen Lawrence affair, the pendulum swung so far in the other direction that political correctness rendered objectivity nigh on impossible.

The considerable effort expended by politicians and the BBC in persuading the population to accept and embrace all cultures, even ones that abhor the very tolerance that facilitates their good fortune in being unconditionally and paradoxically welcomed here, echoes the collective blind eyes that refused to see a “black’ policeman as a crook.

Desperate bluster by politicians in order not to appear racist, and the media’s frantic attempts to normalise Islam parallel police anti racist measures like promoting ethnic minority individuals above their ability or setting up a Black Police Association.

If the police scenario does parallel that of the UK as a whole, the eventual conviction of a corrupt ethnic-minority policeman offers hope that this country might one day come to its senses.

Before that can happen the BBC must somehow become unbiased, and allow a wider spectrum of opinion to share the platform enjoyed by the cosy consensus that currently dominates the airwaves.

Dynamite! BBC Fails to Notice.

Several of you have pointed out that the BBC hasn’t much to say about the Andrew Neather story. It’s a pity because it’s regarded as explosive.

The Nick Griffin furore inspired Mr. Neather to admit that mass immigration was deliberately engineered by the labour government who wanted to:
a) rub the right’s nose in diversity, and b) to fill skills shortages.

Now that things have gone awry Andrew Neather still wishes to make a case for immigration, and a very good case it might have been, if no-one existed outside London. What he doesn’t know is that people live in far-flung places like Luton, Dewsbury and other outer-reaches of the stratosphere.

He is all in favour of Londoners having easy access to nannies, gardeners and cleaners, perhaps drawn from the pool of immigrants whose good English and previous earning capacity earned requisite points for easier entry.

The Neather children are enriched by the cosmopolitan make-up the south London primary school they attend, and he shudders to think how parochial London might be without its diversity.

The government knew that white working class voters, now known as the indigenous British, wouldn’t understand, so speeches were constructed to obfuscate rather than elucidate.

The article was spotted by the right wing press but it was too late to undo the damage. Even his backtracking attempt entitled ‘How I became the story and why the Right is wrong’ couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Some commenters pointed out that if we had a decent skills education all this would have been unnecessary, Melanie Phillips and the Telegraph took it by the scruff of the neck.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.”

All of this, and hardly anyone dares mention the thing that really scares people. It’s not really Poles, eastern Europeans, Chinese, Indians, or black immigrants that are worrying indigenous whitey, although when any of these work in the health service without a good grasp of colloquial English, that is a disgrace.

It’s the immigrants who don’t like us; who “see us – but don’t wanna be us” that we could do without. That’s why Nick Griffin is where he is.

Hat Tips: Ian, George R, David Jones, etc.


Anyone catch the BBC report on Brown’s new citizenship points plan? Have a read of this, it is quite a lengthy report. All good? No. For example, the BBC is mute on the fact that immigrants are to be given tips on how to access benefits and other public services – and learning how to claim will even help them earn British citizenship!

“Mentors will be provided to coach those wanting to settle permanently in the UK while local authorities will be expected to lay on “orientation days” to provide advice on services, under plans unveiled on Monday. It is part of moves to introduce a points-based system for those wanting British citizenship and attendance of one of the days would provide additional points towards that goal. “

Wow – now that IS getting tough! It’s remarkable to see the BBC spinning away for the truly wretched Phil Woolas but I suppose it’s multiculti uber alles for the State Broadcaster all the time.


Here is an item looking at Australian immigration in the 1990’s and how it dealt with “far right” parties. How can this be applied in the UK with the rise of the BNP, asks our wonderful BBC? It is a demolition job on Pauline Hanson and her “One Nation” Party and I have little interest in her but the thing that struck me was the sneering of Nick Bryant at the end and the consequential snickering of Sarah Montague. Listen to the last twenty seconds.


I listened with incredulity to this item on the BBC this morning. It concerns the utterly farcical Home Office scheme to help failed “asylum seekers” (Welfare tourists) return home that has resulted in just one family leaving the country, whilst costing us, the Brits £1m. Listen to Evan Davies blithely dismiss the waste of £1m on “an idea that was good” on this “pilot”. It’s all about “being nice” to “children”, you see.

The BBC brought on some liberal bozo from the Children’s Society on to argue that more time should have been given and more should have been spent on this madness. And where was the counter-balance? Oleaginous Labour spiv Keith Vaz was there to to superficially criticise the particular scheme but simultaneously shill for Labour’s risible immigration policy. To listen to Vaz one could be forgiven for wondering WHICH government has been in power since 1997?

Most bizarre of all was Evan Davies constant refrain about the need to be “nice” and not “nasty” when it comes to dealing with welfare tourists, sorry, I mean children. How about having someone on to comment who believes that the bigger issue is how these people get INTO our country in the first place and then how can government recklessly waste £1,000,000 of our money? I guess those dimensions fall outside “the narrative”?

The audacity of distraction

On the day when the unemployment figures surpass those of any time since “things could only get better”, the BBC have found the perfect story to fill the space and relegate jobs to a lower position on their UK news webpage: racism in Belfast. Normally this would be somewhere tucked into the N. Ireland backwater pages, but somehow this time it’s really critical.

What was fascinating, as I took a glance at the ONS June update on employment was a rather startling figure concerning employment of “British borns” versus overseas workers. I don’t pretend to be able to contextualise this thoroughly, but it does bring perspective on the Romanians in Belfast story. Here goes:

“The number of UK born people in employment (not seasonally adjusted) was 25.28 million in the three months to March 2009, down 451,000 from the three months to March 2008. The number of non-UK born people in employment (not seasonally adjusted) was 3.81 million, up 129,000 fromthe three months to March 2008.”

Needless to say, this was not in the BBC report on the jobs news, which was stuffed with “not as bad as expected” voices.


If a Conservative In Name Only such as London Mayor Boris Johnson wants to win favourable plaudits from the BBC, what better way than to suggest that the 400,000 illegal immigrants that live in London be granted an amnesty and allowed to stay? The BBC believes, as an article of faith, that all immigration is a good thing and so those in political life who cheer-lead for the law-breakers who slither into our country get favourable Beeb coverage. I note no-one is allowed to attack Boris for this latest proposed abrogation of the rule of law in favour of winning future votes.

MardyMarr’s casual smear

It was so noticeable in his interview today with the Conservative leader how much less friendly Andy Marr is to David Cameron than he is with Gordon Brown.

At 19.30 in the Cameron interview here Marr starts from nowhere by asking DC if he agrees that mass immigration has done something terrible to Britain. If it were a Labour man Marr was interviewing, he would gently quote the source before accepting serenely the response that it was an attempt to make a wider point.

Well, what happens when he interviews a Conservative? A misquote, hauled from nowhere, planted in hostile fashion following another attack on Cameron’s “broken society” theme. The misquote was the standard one: immigration confused with multiculturalism. But what followed was more telling still. When Cameron leapt lightly up and quoted the source (Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary in the Observer) and explained it thoroughly, the sour Marr culminated in the bitter throwaway line that Grieve “talks about the long-term inhabitants of Britain, by which he presumably means white people”.

Cameron had no chance to reply to that particular smear and the conversation cross-examination moved on. Yet why did the BBC journalist feel free to put words in the mouth of the Opposition?

Standard BBC smear in what was evidently a premeditated atmosphere of hostility.