The BBC is continuing its pro-immigration propaganda with relentless messaging about the plight of Syrians fleeing Aleppo and now stranded in the cold, the mud and rain at the Turkish border….now of course everyone has sympathy with them and thinks we could help in someway….but the answer is not to import them all into Europe.
That is not the BBC’s narrative and they are constantly trying to raise the question asking if we are doing enough to help….and shouldn’t we allow in more refugees? By doing so, suggesting that we’re not doing enough.
The problem for the BBC is that they are finding it really hard to get callers on side with that narrative. On Thursday Rachel Burden was asking that question and it took 45 minutes or so before they got anyone who was remotely interested in allowing in some refugees…and even he was dubious about it. Then, joy of joys, they got what they wanted, a caller who was very definitely pro-immigration regardless of the consequences…he stated that numbers and figures meant nothing to him…unfortunately for the BBC he was a foam flecked fanatic who openly displayed his fanaticism…the BBC must have been rolling their eyes….he claimed it was inhumane, sick and insane to limit numbers due to financial or other fundamental reasons which meant that the country couldn’t cope with a large unflux…let ’em all in.
I think we had one more open the borders caller and that was about it…nearly everyone was against the idea…similarly when Anita Anand asked the same question on Any Answers? there was a distinct lack of callers saying we should bring them all here. Have to say Anand seemed pretty fair here and uncontroversial….which seems pretty unusual for her judging by Is the BBC biased’s analysis of her performances.
Burden on the other hand seemed intent on putting the pro argument a bit too strongly avoiding, dismissing, voices that reminded us that around one million migrants have already hit our shores in the last three years alone…and if it hadn’t been for that open door immigration policy perhaps ‘desperate’ (BBC’s favourite word) refugees could have found room here….Burden said that Worcester had only taken three refugees….but failed to list the number of immigrants that may have settled there putting increasing strain on infrastructure and resources….maybe 300 or 3000 refugees could have been homed had it not been for economic migrants.
Burden also told us of a small village in Germany that was ‘happily’ taking 80 refugees and giving them a big welcome…only that’s not true…there was a huge outcry about the imposition upon such a small village….why does the BBC insist in lying about that?
Why does she not mention this even worse reality?…
Refugee crisis: German village Sumte shows reality behind open door policy – with 102 residents and 750 refugees
Guess you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time. Thankfully.
The BBC is completely unconcerned about what you or I think, what the people not inside the Bubble think, they have an agenda and they push it remorselessly….they are openly campaigning against official government policy which is to help the refugees in-situ so that eventually they can return to Syrian and help rebuild the country and in the meantime remain in countries which have similar cultural and social makeups.
When the government is looking to stop charities from using money given by government to agitate against the government you might think they would take a similar stance with the BBC which uses money forcefully taken from the licence fee payers hands to peddle political and social ideas and policies that the majority don’t believe in. The BBC is in effect stealing people’s money to use as it likes to work against the interests of the people who were forced to give them the money. A very odd and iniquitous state of affairs.
I am also noticing (and not just on the bBC) more negative references to ‘populist’ politicians. By which I assume they mean politicians who reflect the majority’s concerns rather than those of out-of-touch the liberal elite.
A “populist” politician is a popular politician whose views the BBC does not approve of.
That picture………….are these gender-segregated ‘refugees’ by any chance?
Also the BBC lies by constantly referring to them as refugees, when in fact officialdom in various European countries are now openly admitting the majority are economic migrants.
Alan, bil
Please immediately and permanently, stop giving assistance to our enemies.
These “refugees” are unwanted invaders.
The “elite” are the scum of the earth.
Stop using their language, their terms.
Thank you.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/migrants-in-murmansk-go-too-far-with.html
Had to post this.
Apparently a load of Muslim migrants got payback for trying to bring a bit of Eau DE Cologne to Russia…you know, in their traditional enriching ways we`ve all come to know and “Respect”.
Happened in the tough city of Murmansk-anybody remember when Portsmouth and Plymouth would have stood up for their women like the good ole boys of Russia?
I like it because of those splendid Soviet euphemisms used.
The Russians went “clubbing”-they “educated” the migrants(and who knows?…they “made a positive choice to to care” for them by finding hospital beds for them on a cold night?)…and the police were satisfied that the migrants were now happily “settled”( and of course reducing police costs in sniffing over it all!)
Come on-if this isn`t wilfully turning Lefty superspeak into a mockery, well I`ve lost something in translation!
I now hope to get MY city twinned with Murmansk-respectfully suggest that you too do the same.
I suddenly feel a warm glow of satisfaction coming over me- these Russians are not so bad after all!
The trouble with Sumte is that the Germans have got there first, and taken all the good beech locations.
I believe that if the trend continues of people on phone ins etc, calling in to say they don’t want any migrants in the UK , the BBC will just resort to getting their employees and stool pigeons to call up in support of mass immigration. Such is my trust in the national, tax payer funded, broadcaster.
We already have well orchestrated phone-ins with callers drummed-up by unions, political activists and the rest of the organised Left. That’s why programmes like Any Answers are such a travesty.
Dt
Where have you been?
I once worked, for a very short time, in a union shop.
Easy money for no work, I left the poisonous atmosphere as soon as I could .
The shop stewards were training, and encouraging, the “comrades” to write to the BBC, the papers, national and local, and anybody else who would listen. Which was not many in the Red Robbo days.
The time that was supposed to be used for, “Union Business”, was used for this coaching, with many sample letters to copy or adapt.
This was fourty years ago.
PS
I know more about the history of Communism in the USA than I do about Communism in the UK.
In the USA The Nation and similar left-wing publications, had journalists, probably still has journalists, who write the lefty letters under assumed names.
I expect this happened with Morning Star, Tribune, etc in the UK.
Not just the unions-that whole bloody “Third Sector” needs neutering-hear the squeals of yesterday when the charities moan about losing money to go to conferences to beg for Corbyn…as if the money is not meant for their clients, but to agitate on the public purse as ever.
Same freeloading lamos now infest the charity sector, the quangos and -indeed ALL forums for blathering on and agitating at the teat of the public sector .
Who was to know that the CAB, Oxfam and FoE would all become gravy boats, left by Labour to lay their mines for any future political party that was not “the political arm of the British people”?
These self-righteous leeches get oodles of money to blowhard about any group that will undermine the state, but keep them from having to fight themselves…like social workers armed only with Big Mac vouchers, hoping they`ll not get eaten alive .
Bribery and honeyed words arer all they have- a fetid warm spa tub for their friends to groom, to fiddle, to piss into…but as long as they can go to Camillas private pool to hose down when the cameras are off, then who`s to know.
And if they DO-there`ll be another lefty to seek an injunction, another NHS trust to pay the legal costs, no matter how evil you were…as in Rathbands case.
Thank God for sites like this, that show the tumbleweed and who the enemy is…can now see why revolutions tend to start at the TV station…we`ll need to do the same.
Unfortunately the entire third sector has been given a bad name by the leftie ‘social’ charities that mostly rely on government funding. But it’s not right to condemn every charity because of that. Most of the best-known charities – RNLI, RSPB, Macmillan Cancer Support, to name but three very different organisations – receive no government funding and raise all their money from their members and donors.
I stand corrected.
Lifeboats and local hospices, cat charities etc are noble and necessary.
But-again-the hospices are fast getting into trouble re NHS funds and strings attached by the state to them.
Guess I was meaning to pop at the charities that don`t sell stuff on the high street or harbour, but seek out the migrant, the polar bear and White Dees brood to coin a living and rattle a trough by the BBC or in Strasbourg.
But it will be fun when the accounts are produced from those not-so-prudent-with-public-money charities. Given that taxpayers’ money is not going to be allowed, in future, to be used for lobbying, it won’t take long for some bright spark to point out the real percentage of individual donors’ contributions being used by certain organisations for political, rather than charity efforts.
That is the real fear of some charities….exposure to a reality check. it’s amazing, however, that some of these same bodies promote ‘transparency’ of what everyone else is doing. Petard – hoist !
Can’t fault your choice of worthy charities, though, Sir A. Two of them get the benefit of the bulk of any charity donations I make.
The RSPB is most definitely in the ranks of the ‘evil charities’ and was, for a very good reason, the target of much vituperation by the late Auberon Waugh. Its role in hyping AGW, in particular, has been disgusting.
The problem with charities isn’t only about whether they receive government funding – it’s about what they actually do as opposed to what their members think they do.
The RSPB does not object to wind farms which are otherwise known, for good reason, as bird mincers. A charity formed to protect birds is happy to see them killed for a greater good. They should now be forced to change their name because it is demonstrably contrary to the Trades Descriptions Act.
I rather like the apt name James Delingpole has given them. Bird and bat slicing eco crusifixes.
The RSPB had a stall outside my local supermarket one day, trying to sign up new members. It was manned by a young, tall, very good looking black woman. We chatted and I couldn’t help but comment that she didn’t fit the usual profile of a RSPB member. ‘Oh no’ she explained, ‘I just work for them’. I asked if it was a good job. ‘Not bad. It pays £8.50 an hour plus I get a bonus for each new member I sign up. But I don’t know anything about birds!’
I don’t how typical this sort of thing is, but needless to say it has certainly made me vIew the RSPB in a different light.
A couple of years ago there was orchestrated opposition to the DWP’s Work Programme and it wasn’t long before a Five Live phone in piled in to question whether the requirement for people to get some work experience (and improve their employability), in return for their benefits, wasn’t SLAVERY.
It was not long into the programme before tweets and posts emerged from ‘Right to Work’ and SNP, urging members to ring in (a telephone number which I didn’t recognise as the Five Live number was included) and soon after the nature of the phone-in changed and comrades returned to their website to recount and share their successes of their on-air contributions.
So there is another number, which is not stated on air, for people to call to get on air? I had wondered how lefties managed to get on air so easily, when I have been unable to ever get through at all.
As for expecting people to work for their benefits? Good idea in principle. Why should people get up to 24 thousand pounds per year in total benefits, (as much as some skilled workers are paid for a full 40 hour week), for endurance couch testing? (sitting on the arses all day watching TV). They are receiving money, so they should have to do something in return for that money.
However, I do have concerns. There should be limits on the kind of employers who would benefit from having temporary state funded labour. This state funded labour should not be used to subsidise large corporate employers. Such schemes should not be used to “make easy profits” for massive corporations. I would suggest that small business start-ups in their first year could benefit, the state sector could benefit or the charity sector.
Alan, until recently I would have agreed with you first paragraph: “now of course everyone has sympathy with them and thinks we could help in some way”. However, over the past few days there has been a series of Oxfam adverts about the latest crisis in Syria, and I’ve found that I can ignore the message – even with a celebrity voice over. The government is giving money to the front line states and for me that is now enough. Indeed it is more than enough as the deficit means that the money is being borrowed so that “our” generosity will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.
Quite right. And what is more, the BBC knows this, has known it for decades, and chooses not to do anything about it, just as it refuses to sort out the way audiences are fixed on Any Questions or Question Time.
GC
As far as AlBeeb is concerned, the audiences are quite properly “sorted” and will remain so.
What will Turkey do? They been ordered to open their southern borders and being paid to close their northern ones.
I love refugees – unfortunately 99%+ of the people raping European women and children are not refugees.
Alan, you suggest that for once Anita Anand got it right on Any Answers.
Did you miss this conversation reported by Is The BBC Biased??:
Talking of Colin from Hornchurch, here he is in mid flow near the beginning of his fine contribution. Anita soon interrupts to ‘correct’ him:
Colin: What you’ve got to remember and the audience has got to remember is the Prime Minister has pledged that we take 20,000 in the next five years….
Anita (interrupting): Next ten years. Over the next ten years.
Colin: Ten years.
Anita: A-ha.
Well, that was as much news to me as it was to poor Colin – and, I would bet, to Anita’s BBC colleagues too! They’ve persistently reported (as has the rest of the media) that David Cameron’s 20,000 Syrian refugees pledge was for over the next five years. Anita might want to take it up with her colleagues.
This isn’t the first time Ms Anand has revealed her true colours. Is the BBC actually constitutionally incapable of hiring people who aren’t professional axe grinders for Left wing causes?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Its not just the Beeb who have a problem of finding people to push the open borders narrative. The Economist (a shadow of its former self) has also been pushing for open borders during the migrant crisis and surprise surprise is finding few takers.
Have a look at the comments section for the latest editorial, we are not alone!
“How to manage the migrant crisis”
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21690028-european-problem-demands-common-coherent-eu-policy-let-refugees-regulate/comments?sort=3#sort-comments
I also get a sense that public opinion is changing, as dramatically demonstrated by response to the above TE article, something that is also manifesting itself in the Brexit polls.
Unlike many here on this forum I am of the opinion that the BBC is not so much ‘left wing’ per se but is a wing of the establishment (it attempts to give an illusion of cutting edge, challenging news reporting and lefty liberal opinions)
What we are seeing is globalisation in action i.e. deliberately mix and diversify communities in order to weaken
traditional collectivism, drive down the cost of labour by importing third world peoples into the communities, control markets etc. The government in power at any time is merely an executive board of senior managers running the corporation. Bilderberg anyone?
The media, political class, global corporate business, banksters and charities are now the establishment and all share the same views and objectives.
Also noticed on the Big Question today that the christian clergy in the audience seemed to be taking a harder line on immigration that the normal wet opinions. They may have finally realised that the mass importing of muzzies will not be good for them.
It is very important that we recognise the new ruling class for who they are. They are no longer the top hatted capitalists of Monopoly fame, they are the dull, technocratic, ‘socially conscious’ who think that three years spent being half educated by 1960s’ Marxists makes them fit to rule everyone else because ‘they know best’.
All around us is the evidence that they do not.
There’s a good comment by Caleb Shaw in an article on Wattsupwiththat.
“In the case of do-gooders, fewer and fewer will be persuaded by the altruistic arguments of the ones who claim they do-good. People disbelieve that glib altruism, when the speaker resembles a fat tick bloating off the lifeblood of a nation.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/07/a-note-about-bad-losers-and-global-warming-on-super-bowl-sunday/
They are no longer the top hatted capitalists of Monopoly fame, they are the dull, technocratic, ‘socially conscious’ who think that three years spent being half educated by 1960s’ Marxists makes them fit to rule everyone else because ‘they know best’.
Bloody well spot-on, GC! Cameron is one of them, and to some fine tune. His stance on the EU and ‘climate change’, and his half-assed attitude towards restricting immigration will have Maggie spinning in her grave.
Intersting exercise here on the lines of Where’s Walley?
Blow up a section of the above photo. to a manageable size.
Then count the number of men women and children.
I did this pretty much at random – and got about 4 women, 2 children and 100 men.
Which begs the question- what happened to Al Beebs ‘majority’ of ‘desperate’ women and children?
They all seem to have magically disappeared after getting off those boats.
Funny that.
Sluff, they’re in the photo but because of genetic problems they all have beards.
Tiring of the pro-migrant bias that increasingly infests Sky as well, I have started looking at Russia Today, Al Jazeera and yesterday I found EuroNews.
RT has been very fair and balanced with its migrant coverage, most notably its coverage of the troubles in Sweden and the Pegida marches.
EuroNews even mentioned that in Germany some Iranian refugees were unhappy at not getting the flats in Berlin they were expecting , instead having to stay in tents at the old airport, that some have decided to return home.
Now, you won’t see that n the BBC, will you?
After all, according to the Beeb, the incomers are all ‘desperate’ refugees fleeing war not economic migrants simply seeking a better tit to suck on.
Considering the BBC is so pro a united Europe, they seem surprisingly reticent at reporting anything that seems to go on within Europe don’t they?
I feel that we need to chronicle what`s going on.
I too agree that AlJaz and RT( I`m guessing that we who know of them only are the Freeview types only) give better coverage in most areas.
But-of course-with selective omissions for Russian/Sunni Arab-Muslim bias and doublespeak….we need to weigh those in as a factor ,before THEY get a clean bill of health.
Examples to me were
a) the OECD report into the precipitous decline in British schooling since their last check…maybe Scottish educational results back then upped our national average, but certainly the SNP are hell-bent on destroying the former “bragging rights” that the Scots used to have re schooling and universities.
b) The GO campaign that was launched in Manchester on Friday-if people like Farage, Hoey and Davies can`t get an ounce of coverage, whereas a Stuart Rose or Ken Clarke get acres for their shite.
c)The PEGIDA march, the worldwide marches for the same thing(so much for One Love/World politics that bringsus all together eh?)…and the clear images to show that Occupy/UAF/Hell and Hate/Fatchghouls and gravedancers of 2013 are TODAYS true Fashistz…not the silent, family-friendly and honourable Pegida types in the UK.
Not one of these stories got any real coverage, any fair analysis…nor for that matter did Clinton needing the toss of a coin to win in Iowa!
We do need to do a Craig, a Sue here-a bit of analysis on how Jess Phillips was protected from those Mitchell mobs, how the hell “pregnant women prisoners” has managed to crawl on its belly and into the Today studio for two days running now.
And how come Frances Crook and Juliet Lyon STILL speak for women prisoners-how long have THEY been in the BBC cells of angst to mope about these issues…bloody Marjorie Wallace is another old bird and lifer doing very well out of mentalelf too…why so? No votes, no re-elections-or merely BBC privileges and sinecures a la Laurie Purvis?
The reverse of the Hotel California…they should have checked out of the Heartbreak Suites years ago-but as long as reception wants them to do their daily Hi Di Hi campers bit …the hotel guests just have to suck it up and keep mucking out the stables…and with all those incontinence pads , it gets smellier and messier by the year.
Bit of forced migration needed for these BBC lifers and licensed gobshites.
Wonder where Sue Slipman is these days-SHE was a gravy girl way back too?….
I think this exercise of hunting for agreement is irrelevant. Its all part of the illusion of empowering the viewers and listeners at home. The BBC, MSM, and the politicised, self serving pressure groups and charities, have no interest in listening to us at all. They create the consensus. They create the headlines. They create the talking points. Its not news anymore it’s a sermon. A sermon as cruel and unforgiving as any given at a ROP cult house. Anyone employed by these bodies are already profiled to ensure they are believers in the message. These traitors will gladly champion this message because to do so will further their career. To go against it, they can kiss goodbye to employment. It really is that simply. I have no doubt most of the faces we see on the BBC and political parties are too frightened to voice their beliefs. They know more than anyone the power and influence the militant arm of the left have. If anyone even voices concerns about the lefts fanatical pursuit in implementing their agenda, they are vilified. Called idiots. Called extreme. Called right wing Nazi’s. The left know the power of those statements. We see that message every day on every news channel. The BBC webshite is littered with reports pushing the “anyone going against our message are stupid, right wing extremists” narrative. The left alone are championed and encouraged to be violent in their pursuit of their agenda. The left alone are championed and encourage to be fascist and bigoted towards others views. The BBC are not searching for agreeing voices because they don’t give a flying what we think
The traditional Marxist’s aim is to have no borders, because according to this outdated belief nationalism/borders is a means for capitalists to control the masses. Because this now (in modern times) coincides with the aims of large global corporations left wing opinion is embraced (e.g. the BBC) Tony Blair was aided to power in 1997 by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and he returned the favour by opening the borders.
Turkish racial and Ethno-Nationalist interests regarding the dispersal of Syrian refugees are rarely, if ever mentioned on the BBC.
The impending assault on Aleppo and the resulting wave of refugees is a potential disaster for Turkey.
Waving Arab refugees through Turkey to Europe is a definite win win for Turkish nationalists.
Why? because historically the area to the West of Aleppo, which lies in Turkey is the old Ottoman province of Alexandretta also known as Hatay province to the Turks. to the Syrians, its part of Syria. It was supposed to become part of Syria at the end of the French mandate after the First World War. I travelled in that area in the 90s and the border was always referred to by Aleppines as “the temporary Turkish border” and was marked as such on local maps.
The Turks have a very real and pressing desire to avoid Syrian Arabs crossing into Hatay for fear that the Turks lose control of that territory…far better to wave them through to Europe to preserve Turkish ethnic interests in Hatay and the islamic interest of introducing still more muslim arabs into Europe…like I said…win, win for Turkish interests.
I think that the turks are just as signed up to the islamicisation of Europe as are ISIS. Neither Merkel or Cameron seem to get this. Merkel recently paid a fawning visit to Turkey in the wake of the EU throwing a few billion Euros at them to start policing their sea and land borders with the EU . I think that this is a total waste of money and will end up in the pockets of the Turkish President and his cronies, just as profits from importing ISIS oil do. As for Cameron, its not so long since he was leading for the campaign for Turkey to join the EU and presumably Schengen. Are these polticians total idiots or just on an islamic payroll too?
The politicians like Merkel and Camerloon are certifiable. Merkel is confused about borders and what they are for. For some reason that no one but her can understand, German borders cannot be controlled or closed, barriers have become permeable. Closing borders is too simplistic, too populist.. Yet as you say, Merkel is paying the Turks billions to prevent”refugees” exiting the country and when the Turks close their border with Syria and prevent 70,000 “refugees” entering their country, potentially on their way to the Fatherland, Merkel & Co. complain about it. You could drive yourself mad trying to find any sense in the German position. Only BREXIT wiil save us from continental craziness.
Never forget that Germany was allied to the Ottoman Caliphate before and during the First World War.
The Germans and Turks have viewed each other as useful for over a century.
Does anyone know why?
the Germans learnt about genocide from the Turks?
The Germans supported the Ottoman Turks in WW1 because they thought that they could play the Islam card to make things difficult for Britain with its large muslim populations within the Empire. Just as they thought they could play the Communist card to make things difficult for Russia by transporting Lenin from Switzerland. Seems like they are using the Islam card again to ruin European civilisation even more than their antics did in 1914-18 and 1939-45.
The unification of Germany in 1870 has been nothing but a disaster for Europe.