The BBC sees immigration as an unequivocal and unmitigated good thing and a Biased BBC reader picks up on an item on Today @ 7,52am

 “The Today Prog was at it again his morning.  This time the bias was that old favourite – pro immigration. I couldn’t believe one contributor said that immigration was a good thing because it brought in people of working age to support our pensions. Do we really need more workers when we have 3 million unemployed ? What about the fact that most are low-skilled ? What about their elderly and younger relatives ? And the demand they bring on resources – NHS: education: etc.. and they themselves will bring later as they reach old age. ? It was stated that the birth-rate in the UK is much higher than that in Germany and elsewhere without mentioning that this was due to the high number of births in the ethnic minorities. None of these negative points were mentioned by the pc presenter.  (Surprise ?) As to the destruction of  our traditional civil society  and  English culture – well they never ever mention that, do they?”


Remarkably soft interview with EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom here. As the prelude Gavin Hewitt explains why “many people” see Schengen as a lofty EU achievement! Lovely Cecilia wants to see lots of people from North Africa come to Europe to do the jobs that Europeans just won’t do. I was impressed to hear her bring climate change into her desire to incorporate Africa into the EU.

Pass That Violin

The BBC are running a series on the rise of the ‘far right’ in Europe, and leveraged their investment with a report on The World Tonight featuring the Danish People’s Party*, and the hopes of human rights (aka open borders) activists that the judiciary may change some of the unsatisfactory immigration legislation resulting from the unrestricted use of democratic elections and the universal franchise. I’ll pass by the writer’s assertion that the unauthorised use by the DPP of an Abba song is ‘a scandal’ and note instead the concern that DPP influence was changing something essentially Danish :

“All this feels very different from Denmark’s reputation as a place of generous Scandinavian welfare and international solidarity … shortly before his death last month one of Denmark’s leading political commentators told me about the change he’d observed from the country he grew up in“.

Words fail me. I would love to listen to a British Broadcasting Corporation programme which asked elderly Brits about the changes they’d observed in the country they grew up in. But somehow they never quite seem to find the time or resource – what with tape recorders being so expensive, old people always being too busy to talk, and scarce resources being devoted to that vital Secret History of Social Networking, The Truth About The Roma, and Greta Scacchi’s Celebrity Activists. Anyone know what’s Danish for ‘chutzpah’?

UPDATE – they could have asked Tim Lott’s mum what she thought.

* from their Wiki entry the DPP are ‘far-right’ in that they wish to restrict immigration, outrageously seeming to want to keep Denmark Danish. Otherwise I see no plans for massive rearmaments, paramilitary wing, minorities to wear special clothing, invasion of Sweden etc. The only places in Denmark where God’s creatures are imprisoned in inhumane escape proof camps before being slaughtered in their millions are pig farms.

Sometimes Racial Voting Is Approved by the BBC

The BBC approves of voting for one’s own ethnicity: when it’s Mexicans doing it.

Border politics in Texas ahead of the mid-terms

I know I’m late in getting to this, but it’s been a long week. In any case, at the beginning of the clip (just after the intro voice over) listen to what the candidate on the stage says: “…we need workers…” Remember that for later.

Andy Gallacher is in a town where both the Democrat and Republican candidates are Mexican-American. The Democrat (the guy who says we need workers) says it’s an honor to be elected to serve, and diversity is what makes this country great. We’ve all heard that before.

Gallacher talks about how the race of candidates matters, but asks, since both candidates are of Mexican descent, how do the voters feel now? He gets a couple of Mexican-American vox pops to say that issues are more important than race. What a shock.

For what seems at first like no reason, Gallacher then speaks to a Mexican-American academic who says his research shows that, regardless of what they say beforehand, most people vote for the race in the end. The Beeboid even helpfully says, “for their own kind”. In stark contrast to all BBC reporting about white people, either in the US or UK, this is presented as a good thing. Hispanics need Hispanic representation. Never mind any non-Hispanics living in the area. If one non-white ethnic group has the majority, then it’s important for someone of that ethnicity to represent them in government.

I say it seemed at first there was no reason for Gallacher to bring in this academic to talk about racial voting because both candidates are of the same ethnicity. So why talk about whether or not the voters will vote for a Hispanic candidate? It’s a moot point.

Then we got to the part where he talks to the Republican candidate. Horrifyingly, he’s wearing a US flag pin on his lapel. He says he’s proud to be an American, while still being proud of his heritage. But for him, American comes before Mexican, as one is his cultural background and the other is his country. He also has lighter skin, no ethnic mustache, and no trace of the Mexican accent like his Democrat opponent does.

So he’s presented to the viewer after the academic who speaks of racial voting because he’s clearly a traitor to his race. He doesn’t talk about diversity, so he is no good. The subtext here is that the Mexican-American voters will and should vote for the candidate who is more proud of the Mexican part than the American part.

Remember the beginning of the clip where the Democrat said in his speech that “we need workers”? Of course he’s talking about the racial politics of illegal immigration. When he spoke of diversity to Gallacher, he was spouting the same old theme we heard a few months back on the BBC that it was racist to be against illegal immigration. Of course the qualifier “illegal” is absent now, as it always is when advocates speak. The Democrat doesn’t care about the law: he cares only about his race. When he’s talking about “diversity”, he means we should grant amnesty to people who look like him. How bringing in more of the same will lead to diversity is beyond my tiny little brain.

The Republican doesn’t talk that way. Or at least isn’t encouraged to by the Beeboid.

The thing is, there’s racial politics everywhere in the US. Right here in New York, former mayor (African-American) David Dinkins endorsed the non-white candidate for State Senate in the Democrat primary in my neighborhood. Here’s his reason:

I grew up in Harlem where we taught that New York City is a melting pot. Well I don’t agree with that. I have always said that we are a gorgeous mosaic. We have as many separate ethnic identities as the United Nations. That’s why we have a parade about every hour and a half. But it is important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing. Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that’s just a fact. It is not a bad thing. It is frankly a good thing.

Imagine if Giuliani had said the equivalent. The BBC would be all over it. Not only that, but Espaillat’s opponent was a Jew. You’ll never hear from the BBC that anti-Semitism is common in the African-American and Hispanic communities. And NYC isn’t a border town, so it’s inaccurate to portray the racial angle in that Texas town as being due to its proximity to the border. The fact that they’re Mexicans is obviously connected to the border, but not the racial angle in the abstract.

But the BBC approves of racism when it’s not white people doing it, so never mind.

Topical typicality

Douglas Carswell writes of the BBC’s divergent approach in covering public issues such as bullfighting in Catalonia and illegal immigration in Arizona. This is the reason I don’t watch the BBC: you know what the story will be from the barest description of it; I prefer to garner details from sources more varied and less predictable. Douglas attempts neutrality:

I’ve little interest in the politics of either Catalonia or Arizona, and even less in bull fighting. But I do wish our state broadcaster would report objectively, rather than on the basis of whether they happen to approve.

This the BBC cannot and will not do; the partisan interest they have (with its pan-national socialistic imperative) is what drives them to cover these stories and propels them all over the globe. Oh, that and license-payers’ money.


Did you catch sneering Humphyrs interview with David Cameron here? Notice how former BBC idol, Saint Vince, is now restored to heroic status by Humphrys because of his musings on the need for “liberal” laws on immigration. Cameron was constantly bated by Humphyrs on this, just as he was constantly derided on the “Senior/Junior Partner” lines. Shortly afterwards there was a fawning interview with Jack Straw in which he was allowed to get away with the wild claim that Labour has not gerrymandered the English constituencies for petty Party advantage without so much as a whimper of comeback from the Today poodles. More and more Today has morphed into the last bastion of the Labour Party. At our expense, of course.


I noticed the BBC was running a story just before 7am suggesting that there is little connection between levels of crime and high levels of immigration but that there is a connection between those with low academic achievement and support for the BNP! Wonder could the BBC not run a similar story suggesting that rank stupidity is an essential requisite for voting Lib-Dems or that being a moron is the ideal requirement for supporting Labour? Look, I have no time whatsoever for the BNP but the BBC desire to smear those who are alarmed at immigration is risible and fatuous little non-stories run off-peak by Al Beeb shall not pass unchallenged.

Dynamite! BBC fails to Notice. Again.

Last October I blogged about the BBC’s silence over Andrew Neather’s revelations about the government’s open door policy on immigration, allegedly to fill gaps in the labour market. But the government’s deliberate policy of manipulating the demographics in the UK was to fill gaps in the Labour-voting market, not the job vacancy one.

Before backtracking and claiming his words had been twisted and misrepresented, Andrew Neather mentioned that the government was paranoid about the media getting hold of this information.

Now that formerly concealed parts of this document have been revealed, the BBC is still strangely silent about this, and to what Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch UK has written. Other news organs still think it is a bit of a bombshell.