This is a screengrab of the Labour Party using a Telegraph report into the HSBC scandal from 2010 to back  up its attack on the Telegraph and the Tories…go figure!!!

 

The Sunday Telegraph reports that HMRC is investigating more than 200 “extremely wealthy” British taxpayers suspected of tax evasion totalling “many millions of pounds”. It adds that they are “believed to have failed to declare huge sums of interest from private deposit accounts with HSBC’s bank in Switzerland.” A HMRC source said the inquiry would continue for “quite a few months” and could lead to criminal proceedings in the courts.

Sunday Telegraph, 26 September 2010

 

An old, old story…HSBC and tax evasion…and of course it is only HSBC that did that?…even the BBC’s Nick Robinson admits this is an old story…

”This tax bombshell has been ticking since 2007” 

 

So why the interest from the BBC and the Guardian just before an election?

John Humphrys on the Today programme (07:50)  brought us comment on the Telegraph’s editorial in which it declared its position on the Oborne’s mischief making.

The Telegraph noted the hypocrisy of news organisations like the BBC and the Guardian which have their own very dubious practices when it comes to what they will and will not report and no doubt this had something to do with the BBC’s interest in this editorial…their interest being in undermining and dismissing it as fast as possible.

It is curiously pious and very selective of organisations like the BBC and the Guardian to attack the Telegraph in this way for they themselves shape their news to a political agenda and only give the Public a view of the world filtered through their own ideological prisms.  So why all the fuss about a paper that perhaps shaped its editorial, and it denies doing so, to suit a company that pays for its existence?  The BBC undeniably shapes its news to favour the Labour Party….hypocrisy on a grand scale?

There are ‘right wing’ papers and ‘left wing’ papers….they all provide a view of the world to their own agendas, we know that.  We know that owners of these papers can direct how they cover news.  Murdoch for instance directed his stable of papers to support the Labour Party for over a decade.  No complaints from the Guardian?

This was the BBC’s take on Murdoch once the hacking saga took off…

RUPERT MURDOCH – A PORTRAIT OF SATAN

There was a growing sense that Murdoch was now manipulating British politicians for his own personal gain. So the BBC decided to investigate Murdoch’s business and personal background.

 

But now he’s a saint?

The BBC famously ‘spiked’ Winston Churchill’ when he warned of the dangers of a Nazi Germany…the BBC, as this site notes day in day out, has a long and dishonourable history of manipulating the news to fit an agenda, a lot of agendas in fact.

For example….Who was the expert, neutral and impartial commenter that they brought in today?  Roy Greenslade from the Guardian who wrote this in that august publication a few days ago…Peter Oborne may be a maverick but his Telegraph revelations are dynamite..and he’s gone on in a similar vein since then attacking the Telegraph.

So are we likely to get fair comment from him?   I don’t think so.

His initial thought was that the Telegraph’s editorial was all ‘bluster and obfuscation’….presumably he meant the bits about the Guardian being just as unprincipled as any other rag.

Humphrys tentatively suggested that perhaps other papers might also have similar practises….Greenslade was adamant that never, ever,  in the history of the Free Press had the integrity of that Press been so imperilled, and democracy undermined, by the likes of theTelegraph’s actions….well what he actually said was……

‘I have never seen (in all my long career in the Press)  such a blatant example before where advertising has influenced editorial.’

Yeah right.

Hilariously he uses the disgraced Robert Maxwell as an example of probity and propriety in the news industry.

Of course he has no proof for Oborne’s claims.  He relies on bluster and obfuscation to make his attack.  The Telegraph’s lack of journalistic integrity may have happened but as yet it’s just the word of a man who unquestionably supports Ed Miliband for PM when the Telegraph clearly doesn’t…and as the Telegraph’s editorial makes clear they believe Oborne’s, and the BBC’s and the Guardian’s, motives in seeking to make an issue of this are highly suspect.

Here is an instance of Greenslade’s sleight of hand…he sets out a list of concerns about the Telegraph, one of which is this..

The Telegraph, alone among UK newspapers, failed to hold the Chinese government to account over its reforms to the Hong Kong electoral system that led to last year’s street protests. Indeed, on 15 September, it published a commentary by the Chinese ambassador, Let’s not allow Hong Kong to come between us, that sought to justify the electoral reforms.

Any Google search will show that the Telegraph has had many reports on the Hong Kong protests….and a search of the BBC’s coverage will show that they too have a similar timeline in how they reported events in Hong Kong..here the BBC lays out the timeline showing that the protests only began in late September….

28 September – Occupy Central begins

Frustration had been mounting since Beijing’s ruling in August that voters would only be able to vote for their chief executive in 2017 from a list of pre-approved candidates.

Students, led by activist groups Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students, stage a week of class boycotts culminating in a protest outside government offices at Admiralty on 26 September.

 

 

The Telegraph didn’t hold back at all in reporting those protests…

Why are there protests in Hong Kong?

Hong Kong protests spread as 80,000 take to streets

And its reporting didn’t start just as the protests started…they were revealing the problems well before that…

From July 5:

Lord Patten attacks Beijing over interference in Hong Kong

From August 30:

China warns against foreign meddling in Hong Kong

From September 2:

China ‘has breached terms of Hong Kong handover’

and ironically..and not a word from Greenslade about the British government’s ‘kowtowing’…from September 5….revealed by the Telegraph…

Hong Kong activist attacks ‘deferential’ Britain

So quite clearly Greenslade is ‘mistaken’ in his attack on the Telegraph in this instance. Well he’s allowing his own agenda to colour his reporting on people allowing their agenda to colour their reporting.

Greenslade is conducting an ideological attack on a commercial and political rival…of course not a lack of integrity highlighted by Humphrys…..some might suggest that it is a rather dubious practice by the BBC to use such a  person who is clearly antagonistic towards the Telegraph as a commenter on their activities.

Once again the BBC makes no connection between the stories and the various motivatioins behind the claims by various people…..unusual for the BBC to hold back on the speculation about motives and the behind the scenes realities.  Of course to do so would shine a light on a rather disturbing and probably corrupt agenda by those involved….the BBC itself being major player in this.

Let’s have a look at the timeline…

On February 7 Ed Miliband launched his attack on tax havens…

Ed Miliband issues warning to UK-controlled ‘tax havens’

 

On February 9 the BBC and the Guardian both launched their long planned attack on HSBC and tax evasion…

HSBC bank ‘helped clients dodge millions in tax’

On February 11 we had PMQs where Miliband had the perfect platform to posture grandiously and to link the Tories into the scandal….

Miliband attacks ‘dodgy’ PM in HSBC donor row

 

Can it be mere coincidence that the Labour supporting BBC and Guardian launched their attacks at that precise moment in time?  It seems all too perfect doesn’t it?

The HSBC scandal is over 5 years old…why did the BBC and the Guardian wait until now, just before an election and in synch with Labour’s election campaign strategy, to disinter this story?…..the BBC’s own Nick Robinson admits this is an old story…

”This tax bombshell has been ticking since 2007” 

 

And yet the BBC and Guardian only decide to investigate it at this precise moment in time when all the information they have now has been available since at least 2010 and has been extensively reported on since?

13 October 2011: HMRC officially announces that it is investigating some 6,000 UK-based Swiss bank account-holders

 HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will shortly begin writing to UK residents and organisations holding Swiss bank accounts with the HSBC in Geneva who may not have reported all their income and gains to HMRC.

 

David Keighly at ‘Conservative Woman’ also thinks it just a bit too much of a coincidence that the BBC’s output is timed to fit in with an agenda that seems set to influence the election…‘The BBC are attacking {The Tories] with planned, unrestrained glee”….

We are condemned to a solid six months of posturing, tub-thumping and `soap box oratory.

For broadcasters this is proving a bonanza beyond their wildest dreams. Most of those who work in the media, and of course, especially the BBC, hate the Tories, and now – for the first time ever – they have been able to plan on multiple levels and on an industrial scale how to rubbish them.

In the formal campaign period in April and May, they will still have to abide by the strict electoral law that requires public service broadcasters to achieve political balance – but not in the months of canvassing before that.

And so, this week we have had the debut of the first – and longest-ever – Labour Party election broadcast conceived, shot and put in prime time by the BBC. It’s a drama called The Casual Vacancy, it has cost £5m to make, and the first one-hour episode went out this Sunday.

Now we have the Ed Miliband supporting Peter Oborne jumping ship from the right wing Torygraph and laying into them for their coverage of the HSBC scandal which Labour is desperate to link to the Tories.

Just coincidence?  Just a coincidence that the news outlets making so much of this are the BBC and the Guardian?

That stinks of a grand political stitch up and an interference of a most serious kind in the democratic process…the Guardian of course is free to do as it likes, as is the Telegraph, but the BBC is legally obliged to be impartial and balanced.

Clearly it has not been so.

It is an irony I suppose that we have the two news organisations here that tried to shut down the Free Press now demanding that the Telegraph publish what they deem news….when they don’t like what you publish they try to close you down, when you don’t publish what their own agenda dictates they try to force you to publish it.

The BBC is corrupt as they come…it tried to destroy News International and now seeks to malign and damage yet another rival news organisation….having already crushed ‘local news’.

About time the Conservatives grew some balls and took on the BBC.

Back in 2010 the Mail ran this report about the man who is still Miliband’s head spin doctor, Tom Baldwin.  Baldwin originally worked for the Times where he was in essence a Labour Party stooge placing stories damaging to the Tories and beneficial to Labour.

Considering Baldwin’s vital role in Labour’s election campaign and Miliband’s pious statements about the Telegraph and compromised journalism should the BBC be asking questions about this?…especially as he was the man who tried to stitch up John Humphrys and get him sacked or as the Mail puts it was ‘ central to a dirty tricks plot to smear Humphrys as anti-New Labour and so not fit to be a BBC interviewer.’

The day Alastair Campbell appeared to give ­evidence to the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, he was given a good-luck hug by his friend Tom Baldwin.

Baldwin was the Times journalist who named the weapons expert as the secret source behind the BBC’s claim that the Blair government had ‘sexed up’ a dossier about Iraq’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to justify going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Campbell was known to liaise with Baldwin in endless attempts to ­discredit the Labour government’s enemies, the results of which regularly ended up prominently in The Times — a paper once admired for its thundering independence.

‘Tom was a ruthless operator and obsessed by the power his friend Alastair wielded in Downing Street,’ says a ­colleague. ‘I think he envied him.’

Even so, who could have imagined, when the appalling era of mendacity that marked Campbell’s tenure in Downing Street finally ended, that a new one would start a few years later?

For now, enter Alastair Campbell Mark II — yes, his friend and collaborator Tom Baldwin, who this week was appointed by the faltering Labour leader Ed Miliband as his new director of strategy.

Like Campbell, Baldwin, 44, has a ferocious, emotional hatred of Tories.

No one doubted his abilities as a journalist, with ruthless energy when pursuing a story.

But as one  fellow political journalist puts it: ‘The common view in the Westminster Lobby was that he was a brilliant hack who let everyone down by allowing himself to be turned into a blatant propagandist.

‘His judgment was completely blinded by his hatred for the Tories and his fixation with Alastair Campbell, who used Tom as a stool pigeon to find out what other journalists were up to and as a cipher for stories he wanted to place.’

 

Yet another tale of a newspaper acting as a Labour government propagandist, the last being the Guardian…a lot more important than the Telegraph downplaying a commercial company’s activities.

Not important enough for the BBC to investigate Labour’s head spinner though….they are too busy concentrating solely on the Telegraph.

A pretty unsympathetic interview from John Humphrys with a Rabbi talking about anti-Semitism in Europe this morning on the Today programme (08:10 ish)

Unsympathetic in comparison to how anyone making similar claims about Islamophobia might be treated by the BBC that is.

When the Rabbi suggested that governments had the responsibility to continually protect Jewish locations Humphrys thought it ‘all a bit much’.

Humphrys suggests that perhaps Jews should take up Netanyahu’s offer and flee to Israel…can’t imagine him suggesting to Muslims that they flee to Pakistan or some such country.

Humphrys then suggested that ‘there is a danger in overstating what’s happening’.  Ever hear that from a BBC presenter in the face of a Muslim complaining of Islamophobia?  No, the BBC laps it up and adds to the hype.

The BBC has a well deserved reputation for downplaying anti-Semitism whilst championing the Islamophobia industry …but it does seem that the Jews are the ‘new Jews’ in Europe and not the Islamists who claim that status for themselves in what is just another way of twisting the knife into the Jewish community by making such a comparison.  An odious comparison when much of the anti-Semitism is coming from the Muslim community itself…their ‘dirty little secret’.

Curious how things all come together sometimes….such as Rotherham, JK Rowling and the BBC’s  hatred for the Middle Classes….especially the white variety.

A potent mix at election time.

First of course we had a devastating report on Rotherham Council‘s response, the lack of, in regard to the sex abuse scandal….it’s culture of denial and misplaced political correctness.

Now you could make the easy comparison with the BBC there…how the Media played its part in Rotherham allowing the crimes to go under the radar, allowing the authorities, the Establishment, to look the other way, as the Media refused to report them…..a Media also in denial due to its own misplaced political correctness….a Media not fit for purpose.

The problem is this still goes on, even in regard to Rotherham, as the BBC struggles with the concept of racially or religiously targeted attacks…at least by an ethnic minority….and of course it makes no mention of the Media’s role in helping to perpetuate the crimes by not reporting them.

But it isn’t just Rotherham and the sex abuse scandal, the BBC adopted precisely the same attitude towards the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot which it at first ignored, then tried to dismiss as a hoax and a paranoia based upon prejudice, Islamophobia and racism.  Even now it claims the letter outlining the plot was a hoax…and has never reported that the Muslim Council of Britain published its own ‘Trojan Horse’ type guide for education authorities in 2007…the author being the same man at the centre of the current Trojan Horse plot.  You might think that was highly relevant and damning piece of evidence…but the BBC prefers to ignore it….as it would confirm that the Trojan Horse plot was true whilst they would always like to maintain an element of doubt.

And Birmingham Council was similarly in denial about the plot absolutely refusing to admit there was a problem…so is Birmingham Council ‘fit for purpose’?

In contrast the BBC has no problem attacking the white, Middle Class ‘crimes’ of being successful, responsible and ambitious…..

The New Statesman tells us….

After Question Time on 5 February the BBC aired a new TV ad for their flagship radio current affairs programme, Today:

It features the voice of the artist Grayson Perry, punchily taking on male privilege: “The Great White Male – white, middle-class men – probably only make up about 10 per cent of the population, and yet 70 per cent of government, I don’t know, 80 per cent of boardroom directors, 90 per cent of Hollywood film directors are male. The middle-class male thinks he has the monopoly on objectivity.”

John Humphrys: “Positive discrimination, that’s what’s got to happen.”

Perry: “Yeah, and anyone who complains about it, that’s because their privilege is being ripped out of their claws.”

It ends with the slogan: To see the world clearly, listen to the Today programme.

That’ll be the same John Humphrys who decries the ‘stranglehold’ that the Middle Classes apparently have on education….I’d say it was the Middle Classes embracing education…..if others don’t see the value of it that’s their look out.

All of which plays into the BBC’s next great project to undermine the white Middle Classes….who obviously all vote Tory…

BBC accused of political bias in adaptation of JK Rowling drama The Casual Vacancy just weeks before Election

The BBC has come under fire over its adaptation of J K Rowling’s novel The Casual Vacancy just weeks before the General Election.

The broadcaster has been accused of ramping up Left-wing issues in the book – by adding scenes which do not even appear in the novel.

Tory MP and former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said the timing of the broadcast struck him as being ‘very odd at least’.

He said: ‘In the run-up to a General Election, the Government quite rightly has to go into purdah and refrain from doing anything provocative. I think the BBC should have to apply the same criteria.’

The drama does not mention any political parties but critics say the battle over Sweetlove House is a thinly disguised attack on the Government’s welfare cuts, which will be one of the crucial issues for the May 7 Election.

In an interview in The Mail on Sunday, Rowling defended herself against accusations that her novel was a Left-wing attack on the middle classes.

She said: ‘I’m not anti-middle class in the slightest.’

Broadcaster Melvyn Bragg defended the BBC’s right to adapt the work of a novelist who he insisted was partisan and political in the same way as Dickens.

The Labour peer said: ‘This is a political novel in the sense that it is addressing what happens when society cuts off those people who they think are inadequate.’

Yes…a political novel being televised just before an election in which the BBC’s favoured Party has based much of its campaign on the very same issues raised in the series.

‘Biased BBC’ had a look at much of this way back in 2012…

‘It seems to be JK Rowling week on the BBC.’

A whole class of people has been betrayed and abandoned…to protect the authorities from claims of racism but also the ethnic communities that the sex gangs come from…especially as it turns out that it was particularly white girls being picked on as the Muslims didn’t want to attack girls of their own faith.

The BBC (and other media) must have also played its part in hiding the truth…there must have been complicity with the police and social workers in agreeing what would and would not be reported.

It is remarkable that any of those journalists who ducked the issue and agreed to censorship can now hold their heads up without any shame or remorse.

Their behaviour is of course in stark contrast to that normally at the BBC where working class ‘victims’ of government cuts and inaction are meat’n’veg to BBC anti-cuts agitators with always a ready welcome in a warm BBC studio if you have a tale to tell that paints a doom laden scenario of how ‘cuts’ are affecting you.

 

Have a look at this, an interview with J.K. Rowling about her new book ‘Casual Vacancy’….dealing with class warfare, drugs and teen sex.

Rowling states that the book is essentially about a girl named Krystal…and it is asking ‘What are we going to do about Krystal?’ (and girls like her).

Clearly ‘Krystal’ is from the same sort of background as the real victims in Rotherham and the book raises all sorts of questions about ‘society’ and of course Middle Class attitudes.

The BBC laps it up….apparently the Guardian and the BBC were given privileged access to the book…so work that out.

However, apart from the interviewer, James Runcie, being a good friend of Rowling, he is pretty keen to bring out all these social issues and start insinuating blame.

Funny how caring the BBC can be about the white, working class drug addled girls whose knickers, in the eyes of the BBC and its ilk, are kept up purely by the power of their elastic when it suits the BBC’s own agenda.

But the really interesting point was made by Rowling in which she said she was fed up with the point scoring and soundbite culture of modern politics…which she blamed on the ‘beauty parade’ that is democracy.

But who is really to blame?

The media…it is the media that sets the agenda…it decides who gets airtime, how much airtime and on which subject…it then decides the questions, and decides the answers…in the editing suite…if it’s live they can interrupt and cut you off or bring in another guest to quash your point or to take up time.

Politicians have very little say in what they can get over to the public especially in the face of a hostile interview…however subtle that hostility is.

 

So in one post from 2012 we have a very neat summation of what is happening now….the politically correct denial, the BBC’s fascination with poor white girls only when it suits their political agenda, it’s anti-Middle Class take on life,  and the Media’s role in distorting not just the political narrative but in hiding crimes due to political correctness.

The BBC is dangerously biased and is intent on manipulating the election result.

Would have thought this was wrong at any time and is merely the BBC pandering to its own inner fantasies:

BBC are ‘wrong’ and insensitive to broadcast book about Margaret Thatcher’s assassination, Tory MP says

BBC bosses are under fire over plans to broadcast a controversial story imaging the assassination of Margaret Thatcher.

Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries said the former prime minster’s family are still “grieving” from her passing last year and said the Corporation should have “taken stock” of their pain.

It comes amid outrage that BBC Radio 4 has picked Hilary Mantel’s controversial new novel for serialisation in its prestigious Book At Bedtime slot.

The Booker Prize winner’s new book, titled The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher, has been criticised for insensitivity over imagining the former Tory leader’s murder so recently after her death.

Laughed long and loud this morning as Labour’s Keith Vaz came onto 5Live (11:40) and congratulated the BBC for its focus on immigration and the foreign national offenders being allowed to slip into the country by the chaos at Border Control as the BBC ‘discovers’ that one in seven people arrested in Britain today is a foreign national….and a listener involved in charity work stated that 75% of rough sleepers in London are foreigners.

The only reason the BBC focuses on it now is that it is embarrassing for the government…the ‘Tory’ government.

Vaz says its important that these foreign offenders aren’t allowed into the country in the first place…if we check and cross check we can run the border control sytem much more effectively.

Of course no link to Labour’s disastrous open door policy and Europe by the BBC that allowed untold numbers of criminals, not to mention foreign nationals sent to gather intelligence, both government and commercial, to enter the UK.

You might have thought that Labour’s part in all this would get a mention especially as last year the very same Keith Vaz said this:

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the influential home affairs committee, said the roots of Britain’s problems with immigration lie in the last government’s failure get to control the borders while issuing ‘jingoistic messages’.

And he ridiculed a speech by Labour’s immigration spokesman Chris Bryant for failing to provide answers to how to deal with the numbers of people moving to Britain.

In an article for the Leicester Mercury, Mr Vaz added: ‘The challenges with our immigration policy will not start on this day; they started a long time ago.

‘Seven years ago a Labour Home Secretary, John Reid, described the UK Border Agency as “not fit for purpose”, yet it limped along for another five years before being abolished.

‘The previous Government oversaw the disastrous contract for E-borders, the method by which we count people in and out, which so far has lost the taxpayer £750 million.’

The BBC does report this shameless piece of deception from Labour without any comment:

“Stronger checks” will be carried out to stop foreign criminals from becoming UK citizens if Labour wins the next election, Yvette Cooper has said.

The shadow home secretary told the BBC it was “shocking” that killers had been given British passports because “the Home Office failed to do basic checks”.

Immigration is one of the major issues in the next election as the same BBC report admits…and very important for Labour:

BBC political correspondent Alan Soady said immigration would be one of the big election issues and Labour was trying to convince voters that they can be trusted to tackle it.

 

So you might be asking why Labour isn’t being put on the rack about their record...as even one of their own MP’s admits is abysmal…not only that but has led to increased danger to the UK on many different levels…criminal, cultural, socially, political and commercial.

The BBC thinks the problem is not the actual immigration but that we don’t talk about it….we know that the BBC believes that people are anti-immigrant because they are uneducated and ill-informed not because they have been able to formulate some reasoned and coherent thoughts on the matter themselves.  We need to debate this more…but only on the BBC’s terms…once you have had the chance to listen to and absorb the BBC’s narrative you will then understand the benefits of immigration and that your previous ‘thoughts’ on the matter were misinformed and prejudiced.

Here they illustrate that thinking….

Defining the problem – Bigotgate

His {Brown’s} private comments afterwards suggested that he thought to even raise the subject made someone a “bigot”. He apologised but the damage was done.

Have things changed under Ed Miliband?

The easiest way to sum it is up is from this speech a couple of years ago where he said “to put it simply I think we became too disconnected from the concerns of working people”. He sought to define himself against the low point of the Brown years, saying that worrying about immigration did not make people bigots.

So the problem with Labour wasn’t their actual immigration policy but that they decided that anyone who criticised it was a bigot.  Now apparently Labour has agreed we can talk about immigration without being called racists….as long as you support their policies on it.

In the Sunday Times (paywalled)  today John Humphrys talks in an interview with Camilla Long about this….

The Labour government underestimated by a factor of 10 the number of people who were going to move from Poland,” a vast uptick in numbers that, among other changes in population, was not sufficiently “interrogated” by the corporation. “We were too institutionally nervous of saying, isn’t immigration getting a little bit out of hand? And can we be critical of multiculturalism,” he says.
“We didn’t interrogate immigration rigorously enough. We failed to look at what our job was.”

[The BBC] was “arrogant”, he says, employing people who “thought they knew what was best for the country. It was and still is relentlessly middle-class. Unfortunately. There was a predominant voice and that was the liberal Oxbridge male.” Exactly the sort of people who would fail to interrogate immigration, he says.

The BBC is still exactly the same…it professses to have changed and yet it hasn’t, it still fills the airwaves with pro-immigration propaganda.

On the 30th of November Frank Field stated that we would need a city the size of Birmingham every 30 months to be built to deal with the mass immigration we are suffering now….from the Daily Mail:

We’re adding a migrant city the size of Birmingham every 30 months reveals MP who co-chairs migration group

Almost immediately the BBC set up a counter argument to try and undermine the concerns….the Today programme decided to look at the issues…(07:40)

Attempts to measure whether immigration is on balance good or bad for the country are usually hijacked by the different political interests in the debate.

All, yes all four, ‘Establishment’  interviewees were pro-immigration.  Not a single ‘official’ critic was allowed onto the programme.

The BBC field reporter, Matthew Price,  summed it up with the new pro-immigration line of defence…..whilst most studies show that immigrants bring little benefit, if any to the country, Price decided to state that the problem is that the benefits they do bring are being hijacked by national government and resources are being removed from the area they are created in….the problems are created by government not immigrants.

So the BBC presents this as a problem created by….government cuts to local services.  The number of immigrants isn’t the problem, it’s the ‘fact’ that government doesn’t cough up enough money to house, feed, school and treat them on the NHS.

Three days later the BBC finaly gets round to talking to Frank Field……where the Today programme wants to talk about Britishness. (07:33)

Britain is becoming less and less British….BBC reporter Matthew Price dismisses people’s concerns and local experience…he tells us ‘statistics show’ nothing to worry about….but the importance of this debate, as stated above, is shown when people say they will never vote Labour again due to immigration.  Important then for the BBC to prove the benefits of immigration….and by default Labour’s open door policy.

Frank Field tells us that the BBC is part of the discussion and implies that it needs to provide accurate and impartial information about the debate, on immigration and the economy…good luck with that…..He says that no MP knows how to cut the deficit, and pressures on state services from immigration needs budgetting for and yet we don’t know how many will come here….he asks how can we fund a city the size of Birmingham every 30 months when budgets are so constrained?

Frank Field is also concerned about the watering down of Britishness saying we’ve been careless of our national identity and says we’ve never been brave enough to make immigrants conform to our values.

The BBC when criticised about its coverage of immigration will point to interviews with Frank Field and say that they prove the BBC is balanced in its reporting.  However such interviews are mere drops in the ocean compared to the massive tidal wave of pro-immigration material the BBC broadcasts…not all of it obvious but subtly inserted into programmes  ostensibly about other subjects but designed to educate ‘us’ about the wonders of the ‘immigrant’.

Here Muslim immigrant, Mona Siddiqui, and favourite of the BBC,  speaks about Islam and immigration. (from 14:20)

Siddiqui has written a book about Islam and the West ‘through the prism of her experience as both a Muslim and a modern woman’ and tells us her audience is not the Muslims really….presumably she must be trying to educate us Kufrs about the benefits of Islam.

She tells us most people see Islam solely though the prism of the veil, terrorism or extremism but most Muslims look at Islam through everyday events…living their lives by it….trouble is many of them don’t live the ‘full Islam’…which is where the fundamentlist ‘extremists’ come in who do want to live a life fully informed by the Koran.

She says radicalisation is not a generational thing…so does that mean it comes from a basic ethos then, such as a certain ideology, an is not merely young Muslims engaging in some adolescent rebellion?

She claims she does not know why it happens.

The BBC interviewer and chief fan it seems, Sarah Brett, asks….  Is it because people don’t understand Islam that they are frightened by it?

[Remember this from David Goodhart….Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.]

Siddiqui says that religion of all types struggle in the West..there’s no definition of religion…people do not understand religion….no distinction between private and public practise….People want to live their religion to the full not just in the privacy of their homes.

Hmmm..no, the problem is that people all too readily understand religion and don’t like it……and the fact that Muslims want to live their religion to the full is a problem…hence the Trojan Horse scandal.

Brett makes the usual uninformed claim that Christianity is characterised by violence…crusades and warrior popes….but that isn’t ‘Christianity’…nowhere in the New Testament, Christianity, does it tell you to go out and smite your enemies and conquer their lands as it does in the Koran.

Brett goes on….. there have been significant holy wars in the history of mankind….You could argue Islam isn’t the issue, religion is.

Siddiqui demurs…slightly, saying…here Islam is the issue….but not the religion of Islam, more the political, social and cultural strands behind it which can create a them and us conversation and attitude amongst Muslims.

Brett suggests that Muslim women are not radicalised by Islam…they are just misled by men

MS agrees with that…they like the excitement and glamour.

Brett gets to the meat of the intended lesson for today asking…How damaging is the narrative of ISIS and AQ being linked to mainstream Islam by media or a misguided public perception?

Siddiqui says….yes they are Muslims in ISIS but asks what are the causes of radicalisation?…nothing to do with religion..Islam is a short cut for the media to cast blame which disregards the geopolitical and cultural aspects of events…its the West’s fault then?

Brett then links immigration and Islam and Siddiqui says there is an atmosphere created by the   politics of reaction and suspicion.

She tells us we can’t go back to some golden age of Britishness….native Britons will have to adapt to immigrants…not the other way round.

Brett then suggests we shouldn’t talk about immigration in the interests of community cohesion with only 6 months to an election and the topic is going to be immigration….she asks….how damaging is it to people who already feel marginalised, especially muslims, by all the talk of  Muslims being seperate and Brits wanting to keep people out who aren’t originally from here?

Siddiqui calims she isn’t an immigrant…but, yes, she is..she came here aged 5.

She tells us all this talk about immigration creates a fundamental problem with the reinvigoration of a different kind of them and us attitude…too much divisive language.

We must cater for those who come here and we must have inclusive language…it is, apparently, quite dangerous at the moment.

But….she doesn’t want unlimited immigration….but then again….yes let’s have unlimited immigration on the quiet.

She says there is a deepseated fear of too many people and Brits just want to keep their own culture and society….it’s just not on you know!  You’ve got to progress and adapt.

She says multiculturalism was an experiment….but not one that has failed just because of a few bombs….it’s a success really.

Notably she states that when growing up the converstaions you have, the upbringing you have, stay with you for ever….and shapes you into the adult you will be.  All very relevant when Muslim children are culturally isolated and brought up to read and regard the Koran as the literal word of God.

How will such people develop, as Siddiqui says, a sense of loyalty, purpose and contribution to wider society?

She tells us we are too lost in political narrative of identity…not Muslims but government and all those who oppose immigration….but would she then abandon her Muslim faith…no…as she showed above when she stated that Muslims want to live their religion to the full and not compromise it.

There is the real BBC in action….trying to damp down any criticism and anger about Islam and the actions of Muslims, as well as promoting immigration and the idea that any criticism of it is from a group of Little Englanders wanting to recreate some golden age instead of welcoming and adapting their lives, society and culture to suit the immigrants…..ala foreign policy…now to be run by a few radical Muslims who threaten to bomb us if we don’t do as they say.

Why is the BBC’s use of a West Indian tune for its Test Match cricket theme not racist?  Surely it is mocking Afro-Caribbean culture?  Is it not cultural theft and mis-appropriation?  Modern day slavery exploiting Black people and their work for white people’s profit and gain.

Mike Read has unfortunately caved in to the intimidation and bullyboy tactics of a few race hustlers whose very selective choice of who is and who is not racist is remarkable….though not remarkable enough to be remarked upon by the BBC which is all too happy to give airtime to those expressing all that synthetic outrage.

Of course it is for the BBC just another chance to have a dig at UKIP and associate them with ‘racism’ in an attempt to smear them…mud sticking and all that.

Yesterday John Humphrys told us (08:52) that ‘We know of course what UKIP’s attitude is to Caribbean culture…or at least we think we do.’

Really?   Humphrys is clearly of the belief that UKIP has racist views about Caribbean culture…where does he get that idea from? and where does he get the idea that ‘We’ know that….does he mean ‘Us’, the General Public?

Rather suspect ‘we’ have no idea and most go along with UKIP’s immigration policy which is based upon numbers not race.

Humphrys’ comment is just another example of the belief that runs through Beeboid’s bloodstream that they are the guardians of the national culture and it is their job to propagate their version of the ‘truth’.

For the BBC Mike Read withdrawing the song is a very important story…third place on the BBC’s front page….

Of course we know that it is only white people that can be racist….

…….which is why this fellow obviously gets a pass for his mocking portrayal of various nationalities from Polish plumbers to Nigerian fraudsters…coz we know all Nigerians are computer scammers don’t we?

How about the Beebs favoured son….is this Irish accent racist…and is he calling Irish people stupid?

The Today programme continued its assault on UKIP today (08:45)  with what turned out to be a leftwing, pro-EU  ‘expert’  from a think tank who told us that unfortunately Polish youth are turning to the Right….and that UKIP is linking to a pretty extreme group….a ploy which is a completely cynical attempt to grab some EU money.

Not really journalism from the BBC just another anti-UKIP smear….note there was no UKIP representative to give their side of the story.

This morning John Humphrys mentioned that there had been a backlash against Miliband’s ambush on Cameron at PMQs when Miliband tried to exploit the disabled as a political football.

Unfortunately there was no sign of the man himself who cobbled together this tissue of lies…Miliband, as ‘Thoughtful‘ said in the comments, has lit the blue touch paper and disappeared like the proverbial Cheshhire Cat, grinning at the chaos that has ensued.

Judging though by the adverse reaction of the Public to his claims it is probably just as well that he ducks any interrogation on the issue…assuming of course that the BBC would ‘hold his feet to the fire’ on this.

Just how bad would it be for the Labour leader?  Well even the Question Time audience has turned on him, or rather his representative…in the lovely shape of Angela Eagle…

The Spectator likes what it saw…for once…

Eagle tried to make everyone feel outraged, but instead the audience turned against her, accusing the MP of distorting Freud’s words for party political gain; it was like watching the crowd turn against Ceausescu in Bucharest, and the first time I’ve ever seen a QT crowd react like this. I think I may have to move to Newbury: If that’s what their Question Time audience is like, imagine how sensible the population as a whole must be.

 

What was noticeable was the reaction of some of the other speakers…LibDem Menzies Campbell and the BBC’s favourite trendy vicar, Giles Fraser [Parish priest and broadcaster…not a politician nor interested in people’s votes]…neither were willing to give the time of day to the thought that Freud might have had a point.

Campbell waffled sanctimoniously trying to claim the moral highground, sounding above the fray, concerned purely with the problems of the disabled, it’s all about ‘dignity’, whilst in fact saying nothing that could come back to ‘haunt’ him  later.

Fraser, New Labour trendy in his open shirt, used the occasion, not to talk sensibly about Freud’s words,  but to chose instead to attack ‘the real problem’, the government’s policies for the disabled…as he saw them…naturally the disabled were suffering, targeted by a tyrannical, heartless government.

The BBC in many respects has seen the light on this story and not taken Miliband’s narrative as Gospel…however the culprit, the architect of this steaming pile of tripe, has been allowed to slip off into the night unchallenged leaving it for his minions to take the flak for him.

The Today programme had a look at the Freud affair this morning but there was an essential element missing….Wallace himself

.

John Humphrys at around 06:50 began by telling us what Freud had done ‘wrong’ and then we had a comedy sketch of Miliband ‘ambushing’ Cameron at PMQs.

This didn’t enlighten us at all and could, if that was the sum total of the Today programme’s coverage, be seen as feeding us Labour’s narrative as that was that, once the PMQ quotes were done with the ‘exploration’ ended and we moved on to Owen Paterson I believe.

There was no ‘Later we’ll be examining if Freud had a point.’  You could have finished up your cornflakes and left the house thinking what a bastard that Freud is, the Tories really are the nasty party….whilst on Newsnight Laura Kuenssberg admitted that ‘context was important’ and that ‘it might be a discussion worth having’ …and yet she kept defaulting to the position that Freud was wrong despite admitting that this attack was Labour ‘skulduggery’ and that the story fits well into Labour’s mantra of the nasty Tory party and was ‘perfect fodder for Ed Miliband’.…so where is Miliband on the BBC considering the controversial and incendiary nature of his claims?

Then at 07:12 on the Today programme we had another look and someone called Penny Pepper (also on Newsnight) told us that Freud’s words were symptomatic of this government’s attitude towards disabled people and the words were offensive and alarming. She asks how can you say one set of people are worth paying less than another?  Hmmm…well..I don’t earn what Wayne Rooney earns….or what a brain surgeon earns….I am, surely,  offended and alarmed by society’s discrimination towards me….surely, as Kirsty Wark points out on Newsnight, I am worth more to a business than the number of rivets I can productively insert in an hour!  I am not just a number.

Remarkably Penny Pepper on Newsnight admits that there is already such a policy in place that employs disabled people for lower wages..but she dissembles and waffles on…clearly determined to be offended and alarmed.

We then heard Christian May from the Institute of Directors defend Freud and explain the issues as we’ve looked at before.

But the thing that is missing from all this discussion, considering that Labour’s attack is widely seen as a shameful exploitation of the issue and a deliberate misreading of what Freud said, is any challenge to Miliband and his narrative…whwere is Miliband?

When Guido (H/t Mark II and David) reveals that Freud’s thoughts were in fact a policy that Labour adopted and was supported by charities for the disabled (H/T Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling) you may have reasonably have expected the BBC to drag in Miliband who is making so much political capital out of this, and challenge him on his claims.

The Spectator tells us that ‘This is a stain on Miliband’s character. ‘

Trouble is, it is only a stain if it is brought to light and the Public can view it for what it is.

So far the BBC has dodged actually questioning Miliband’s integrity and motivations for this opportunistic, highly political and underhand attack on Lord Freud which feeds so conveniently into Labour’s desire to paint the Tories as the ‘nasty party’ again….a poisonous narrative for the Tories which the BBC is allowing to fester by default in not tackling Miliband….which may be considered ironic in light of Nick Robinson’s headline….

Ed Miliband facing sustained glare of scrutiny

Well not so far.

I do note that the BBC is making a lot of noise about this, it being one of their top stories …..

First-time buyers will get priority, Labour promises

Curiously there is no link to the election and the thought that this is of course a Labour ‘vote catcher’ policy, more politics than substance.   The BBC religiously makes such a link to any policy or budget announcement from Cameron or Osborne and have done so for the past year ensuring the audience get the idea that any such moves are merely political tricks for short term political gain, designed to win votes rather than for genuine economic or social needs.

 The Independent has noticed the probable Labour motivation and says…[The Labour] Party denies policy is designed to look tougher on immigration and head off Ukip

The BBC’s report is one long Labour love-in.

I was listening to Tony Livesey castigating Sky News journalist Martin Brunt and explaining that the internet troll, Brenda Leyland, who has killed herself after being investigated by the police and interviewed by Brunt for Sky News, was in fact merely expressing an opinion in her Tweets and Livesey asks are we now unable to express opinions without the Press doorstepping, hounding and exposing us?

An interesting take on ‘opinion’ and freedom of speech by the BBC which is very quick to pillory anyone who steps over the BBC imposed line of ‘common decency’…..

#BBCtrending: The racist video that’s shocked Australia

Followed up by this report…
Australia train rant: Is racism getting worse?

Never mind theBBC’s  hounding of the EDL leader Tommy Robinson who held the same views as our esteemed PM who recently told us that we must destroy this ‘poisonous ideology’…you know the one, brought to us by the ‘enemies of the UK’.

I guess Robinson was white and working class and therefore not entitled to an ‘opinion’ if it jarred with the Latteratti.

Yet to see the BBC being so eager to show Black people racially abusing whites.

Essentially this is just another ruse to attack Murdoch and his media empire.

Yesterday the Independent headlined with this story which concentrated its attack on Murdoch and the Mail:
With Alan Henning’s death, the media finally stops playing the terrorists’ tune

No surprise there, the author was Joan Smith, executive director of ‘Hacked Off’

And why no mention on the BBC of this from the Mirror on Saturday…the day Brenda Leyland took her own life:

Madeleine McCann internet trolls are devoid of humanity – much like the people who abducted her

One of these trolls, Brenda Leyland, is a church-going 60-something divorcee who lives in a pretty village in the Home Counties. She looks like a perfectly respectable woman. But of course she isn’t.
She’s a cowardly bully who hides behind her smart front door and spews her bile in secret because she doesn’t have the guts to do it in public.
This piece of work was sending up to 50 texts a day to the McCanns. But when Sky News cameras approached her she wasn’t quite so brave.

She looked like a frightened rabbit (typical). But as she was running away (also typical) she said she thought she was entitled to do what she’d done.
Really? She thinks she’s entitled to threaten, hound and bully the innocent? Is that because her own life is so lonely, so miserable, so poisoned that she wants others to suffer the same. Or is she just a twisted, fecked up bitch who gets her kicks from hurting people.
Well, newsflash for these sickos – you guys aren’t the worst thing that’s ever happened to Kate and Gerry McCann. The very worst thing that could ever happen to them already has. And they will for ever have to live with that. I truly hope all the people in that dossier are prosecuted and I hope Sky continue to confront and identify every one of them. We should all know what a black heart and a twisted mind looks like.

Let’s see how brave and opinionated they are when their evil is made public alongside their names and their faces.

Quite vitriolic…and yet not a peep from the BBC about the Mirror’s piece.

Nor indeed is there any criticism of  the BBC’s own interview with Gerry McCann when he said
on Friday “Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people charged.”

John Humphrys asks what should happen to the woman who trolled the McCanns saying ‘This woman was pretty vile about you and your wife….’

McCann stated that “I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”

So he wanted an example to be made of people like Brenda Leyland.

And yet it is Martin Brunt from Murdoch’s Sky that takes the blame for the death of this women…not the police investigation which she knew about, nor the Mirror, nor the BBC itself.

In her Tweets Brenda Leyland says ‘outing’ trolls, or shills, is a good thing….

516506719313473536|Mon Sep 29 08:36:12 +0000 2014|#mccann  Outing Shills who have threatened others, is no different to FBI releasing name of Jihadi John, 4 good of safety

She also wants to see Oscar Pistorious ‘shamed, ruined and alone’….

512966679706746880|Fri Sep 19 14:09:21 +0000 2014|#justice4Reeva  The : Rip tide ” is indeed Global, Oscar is reviled in Europe and the USA, we hope he is shamed, ruined and alone

Here she attacks the McCanns, wishing the worst upon them….

512142957022302208|Wed Sep 17 07:36:10 +0000 2014|I  fear, that we are in this 4 long haul, up to all of us to a) Bang home the facts b) make #mccann s live in shame for years

483234259252310016|Sun Jun 29 13:03:20 +0000 2014|#mccann  To Kate and Gerry, you will be hated by millions for the rest of your miserable, evil, conniving lives, have a nice day !

In this Tweet she complains that the  site moderator is telling her to stop the abuse…..

516692353130967040|Mon Sep 29 20:53:51 +0000 2014|#mccann  Mod says ” Stop, people will get hurt ” He never  ONCE said that when Shills were busy threatening, outing and stalking others

Her opinion of the moderator….

516694945034698752|Mon Sep 29 21:04:09 +0000 2014|@siamesey    Mod is a total Fucktard, I despise him

It is very sad that events had such a tragic end but pillorying Martin Brunt for doing his job in a responsible fashion merely because his critics hate Murdoch is unjust…and ironically is doing the same, in fact far worse, than they are complaining that Brunt has done…what if Brunt were to commit suicide because of the trolling?

Bizarre hypocrisy from his critics…and the usual double standards from the BBC happy to park their ethics and standards when a Murdoch ‘target’ hoves into view.