Some Are More Equal Than Others …

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the conferences where the items for BBC television and radio news are decided – to try and work out why some stories make it and some don’t.

Murders are a case in point – there are about a thousand a year over the United Kingdom – three a day. Yet not only do 90% of them not make the national news – many of them aren’t even reported on the BBC web site.

At the same time, every single death of a serviceman in Afghanistan is reported on national news.

Yet the BBC finds the resource to report a non-fatal traffic accident on the same day that it ignores a homicide.

Again, as should we all be, the BBC are very down on rape – and also on torture (especially if MI6 or America may be involved).

Yet this deliberately planned rape is featured, while this deliberately planned rape and torture is ignored. This unpleasant rape and assault also seems to fly under the BBC news radar.

Two knife-wielding burglars who gang-raped a young mother in her home as her young son begged them to stop have been locked up. The drink and drug-fuelled pair took turns to rape the woman after horrifically killing the child’s pet in front of him.

Is that not “news” ? If you stab a child’s pet, does it not bleed ?

I cannot think* why the murder of James Houliston and the crimes of Reon Hall and Aaron Fitzgerald Gelly, Mansoor Shah and Stefan Reed, should not be considered worth even one report from the organisation that gives us “city tram restrictions continue“. Would anyone from the BBC like to comment ?

* (well I can, but it reflects so badly upon the BBC that I hesitate to air it).


I see that BBC are pushing the line that “Asians” are getting more and more into football but apparently racism still plays a part from deterring some of these “asians” from going to a game. Looks like soccer is also institutionally racist, just like every other UK institution. How lucky we are to have the BBC to point these matters out to us.

Bad Racism, Good Racism

Bad Racism, Good Racism

The BBC are worried about the Bradley effect.

The theory goes that some white voters tell opinion pollsters they will vote for a black candidate – but then, in the privacy of the polling booth, put their cross against a white candidate’s name.

And the fear among some supporters is that this could happen to Barack Obama on 4 November, when the country votes for its next president.

Now if it were true, it would indeed be sad. But what’s this ?

Other polls, meanwhile, suggest that white Americans have steadily become less reluctant to vote for a black person in the last few decades.

A recent Gallup poll suggested that 9% of Americans would be more likely to vote for Mr Obama because of his race, compared with only 6% who said they would be less likely to vote for him.

Brings a whole new meaning to ‘less reluctant’, doesn’t it ?

You could use the Gallup evidence to write a BBC piece suggesting that McCain is the victim of racism. I wouldn’t wait up for it though.

It was serious for Isiah Young-Sam.

Via Instapundit, I found this article on race relations. In general I think it strives to be fair, even sounding a note of regret over the way that until recently any politician raising the issue was labelled a racist. However given that I am more pro-immigration than many on this site, perhaps commenters will disagree. Be that as it may there was one paragraph in the article that showed how even a well-intentioned BBC writer tends to leave out stories that don’t fit the preferred narrative:

Britain’s last serious race riots – when violent clashes erupted between white and Asian youths in northern England – happened seven years ago.

Bad as they were, I don’t recall the riots between whites and Asians of 2001 resulting in any deaths. In contrast the riots between blacks and Asians in the Lozells area of Birmingham in 2006 resulted in the unprovoked murder of Isiah Young-Sam, a black IT worker.

I would have described the riots in 2006, not those of 2001, as the “Britain’s last serious race riots”. They were more serious and more recent. I suspect that, probably unconsciously, the writer of this article did not consider them because whites were not involved.


Did you read this BBC report which repeats Ken Livingstone’s wild accusation that the breaking of six windows at the Stephen Lawrence Centre, in Deptford, was racially motivated? A police spokesperson said: “Hundreds of windows are broken each week in London and this is a minor investigation. A member of the public has suggested it was racially motivated so we have to investigate it as such.” So on such a flimsy unsubstantiated basis, Red Ken – that malignant Jihad-sympathising IRA-loving Jew-hating clown – weighs in with his allegation of a racist motive and the BBC lovingly carries it without anyone to counter it. There is nothing that excites the leftists than a sniff of racism – although the racism has to be of a particular hue – so when Livingstone likens a reporter for a Jewish paper to a Nazi concentration guard, why that’s just a little misunderstanding and the very notion of racism is banished!

Bias in the bones.

It was interesting, I thought, to listen to Helen Boaden’s comments in response to the comments of Robin Aitken and others on the Talking Politics show highlighted by Andrew below. Boaden’s comment about impartiality not being a “state of grace” I thought especially revealing. I mightn’t actually have to think too hard to think of a few apples which the BBC ought not to bite, or commandments they shouldn’t break.

For instance, one might be that “people sceptical of the political contruct of EU centralisation of national powers shalt not be referred to as being “in opposition to Europe” or any other such false witness be borne regarding their position.” It might be especially relevant when their concerns are purportedly being aired. Background here.
The idea of being “in opposition to Europe” is patently ridiculous, debasing language as well as ideas.

There is no question of treading on eggshells here, provided the BBC’s attitude is right.

Then again, another commandment might be: “thou shalt not consider the opinion of someone interesting purely out of concern for their racial background and in defiance of other factors”, as is highlighted here by Mr Dale for example regarding this article.

“”Black MPs spurn Boris for Mayor”.

It is actually a “story” about two Labour MPs, Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott both saying that they do not support Boris Johnson. I may be wrong but Labour politicians saying they will not be supporting a Conservative is as relevant as the announcement that David Cameron will not be voting for Gordon Brown. What is the BBC playing at?”

And those would be just two commandments. Very modest I think. I am sure others can think of more.

Update: As Jonathan in the comments points out, the article has been changed from
“Black MPs” to “Labour MPs”. Chalk one up for Mr Dale. Now we can see that the article has no sense whatsoever once the BBC’s racialist presumptions are taken out of it- it was prejudice appealing to prejudice and now it’s nonsense appealing to, well, hopefully not too many people.

Blunting the Impact

The Guardian reports on how “The Labour MP Mohammed Sarwar is to leave parliament after receiving death threats from people linked to a gang of racist murderers”

The Guardian also reports:

“The multimillionaire MP used connections in Pakistan to help arrange the extradition of Imran Shahid, Zeeshan Shahid and Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq to the UK, where they were jailed for life for their part in the kidnap, torture and murder of the teenager Kriss Donald in 2004.

The trio, part of a violent Glasgow gang, fled to Pakistan after the crime but were returned after 18 months of negotiations between the Pakistani and British governments, assisted by Mr Sarwar.

“Life is not the same, to be honest with you, since I brought them back. I was subjected to threats,” Mr Sarwar told the newspaper.

“I was told they wanted to punish my family and make a horrible example of my son – they would do to him what they did to Kriss Donald.

“I received threats to my life, to murder my sons, to murder my grandchildren.”

The BBC reports:

“The toll of political office appears to have been a high one. His family have faced a flurry of threats over the years from every hue of far-right group.”

Mmmm. Over the years… every hue… far right…. What makes me think the BBC are trying to deflect from the reality of the situation? The report linked above is a terrible example of BBC journalism actually- badly written, rambling, and evasive, combining some spurious hard news value with the feel of a political obituary.

The writer, Stephen Stewart, announces “Mohammed Sarwar may be bowing out of the murky world of public service…”

Excuse me? The murky world of public service? Maybe in Glasgow. Maybe in Pakistani “welfare activities”, but as a general comment?

One final snarky point, Mr Stephens seems to think that Govan is “dusty”. Ah yes, the dry and dusty NW of Scotland, I remember it well!

The BBC also reports: “The father-of-four, Britain’s first Muslim MP, said he had received death threats over the Kriss Donald murder.

But he denied the threats or his son’s conviction for money laundering had anything to do with his decision to move on.”

This is rather different to the Guardian account, which draws much more substantially on Sarwar’s actual words. Strikes me Aunty’s pulling her usual knitted woolen jumper over the eyes, for whatever reasons.