Net Foreign Migration Is 379,000

 

 

Remember the sneers and gloating from various parties when the first planes and buses from Bulgaria and Romania didn’t bring in swarms of migrants in a first mad rush?  Seems they were wrong…as most people knew they were…and Migration Watch, which predictied a probable 50,000 immigrants a year from these two countries was spot on, as always…

53,000 Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) citizens immigrated to the UK in YE March 2015, a statistically significant increase and almost double the 28,000 in the previous 12 months.

 

We also hear that net migration is at a record high of 330,000…but that doesn’t tell the real story, it hides an uncomfortable truth…that the real foreign net migration into the UK is in fact 379,000 once the British citizen figures are removed form the statistics…..

Net migration of EU citizens showed a statistically significant increase to 183,000 (up 53,000 from YE March 2014). The increase in non-EU net migration to 196,000 (up 39,000) was also statistically significant.

In other words 379,000 foreigners came to live in the UK last year….the 330,000 figure, bad as that is, conveniently hides the reality.  Any wonder housing, schools, the NHS and the roads are all nearing crisis levels?  How can you maintain a cohesive society when the very fabric of that society is being ripped apart…the unity of the people, the common sense of being part of one nation, the common values and cultural references that make communication and relations easier, the trust and the willingness to accept the principles of the welfare state…all being eroded by a massive inflow of people who don’t respect British values, culture or history and come essentially for the money.

The BBC is indulging itself with a two day examination of why immigrants want to come here….what an utter waste of time….we know why they want to come here…but then the BBC knows this and has deliberately chosen this line of discussion in order to push the more emotive narrative of immigrants fleeing some horror in their own country and the ‘fact’ that they all want to work and will benefit the UK.  The real question that should be asked is should they be allowed to come here and what are the effects, not just on businesses but upon the whole of society…and that includes cultural, social, legal, political values and beliefs as well as the pressure on the infrastructure. The BBC likes to avoid such discussions as the effects of migration are more often than not negative despite the BBC’s gleeful assertion that Britain’s favourite food is the curry….we like curry, therefore immigration must be good.

The BBC has been spinning the immigration figures today and added in various narratives to the mix that reinforce the BBC’s own preferred line of being pro-immigration and anti-Tory…..and if you want to hear a classic sneer from a BBC reporter listen to Ross Clark when he is talking about migrants (09:43) who are ‘trying to get into ‘our country’ if you like’.(09:44:40)  ‘Our country’ said in a tone suggesting there is no such thing as ‘our country’ and it is rather baffling that anyone should think of it in that way…it should be open to all to come and go as they please and take all the benefits they please.

The BBC has been attacking Cameron and Co for their abject failure to reduce immigration, curiously I don’t remember the BBC being similarly aggressive when Labour flung open the borders and the migrants started swarming in, far, far more than the 13,000 figure Labour lied to us about.

R4 going for an “immigration controls are too strong” line at the top of the news. Bizarre call.

Another attack line is that businesses are demanding more immigration…apparently Cameron is ‘punishing business’ with his limits on immigration….not sure how they get that when immigration is at a record high.  They claim that the alleged block on immigration means they just can’t increase productivity.  A limit on skilled migration is clearly only imposed upon non-EU citizens….are these businesses seriously suggesting that they can’t get these people from inside the whole of Europe or upskill their own workforce?

Is a reduction in immigration really a block on productivity?   The BBC’s favourite meme since 2010 has been that the ever increasing employment numbers have been a ‘puzzle’…well it wasn’t a puzzle…it was the result of businesses being able to employ more people due to low wages and cheap imported labour.  Then the BBC switched its line of attack to the ‘productivity puzzle’….remarkably at the same time it became a Labour Party concern.  The BBC just couldn’t work out why productivity was so low.  Of course that is also the result of low wages and the mass importation of that cheap labour….all of which makes it a bit of a cheek for these businesses to now claim that reducing immigration will reduce productivity when it is their own use of cheap, immigrant labour that has held down productivity per worker.  The BBC fails to raise that anomaly or the point that perhaps the businesses should get off their arses and train their workers, invest in better machinery, become more efficient and sell more if they want to improve productivity…not by importing more cheap labour.  Maybe their defintion of productivity is somewhat different to everyone elses.

We also hear that migrants aren’t coming for the benefits….they come to work…

Meanwhile, Jamil Dhanji an immigration barrister told the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme migrants were not coming to the UK to claim benefits.

“Migrants I see are not coming to this country for that reason,” he said.

They do come to work, or most of them do…but of course they know that they will also receive in-work benefits…not to mention a free health service, an education for their kids and all the stability, security and infrastructure that a country like the UK can provide….in other words they get an awful lot of benefits, not all of them coming in the form of cash payments.

 

No society can sustain the massive levels of immigration that are being forced upon the UK….even if they were all people who loved fish and chips, played soccer and drank warm beer, the figures still wouldn’t be viable…..but add into the mix huge numbers of people who have no interest in maintaining British society, and many who in fact intend to take no part in it at all and will seek to undermine that society, and you can guess that the future is not bright.  The BBC did a survey of Indians who wanted to come here a few years back and the result showed that the majority had no intention to integrate…naturally the BBC didn’t publicise that part of the survey.

The BBC is supposed to be helping to maintain civil society and citizenship…as far as I can see they are doing the precise opposite campaigning for open borders which will result in the break down of the fabric of society and the end of the welfare state with all that that entails.

Time the government took a good look at the BBC’s politics and did something about it.  Fraser Nelson at the Telegraph suggests Cameron is too complacent, too idle, to do so.  I think he’s right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

What’s a Boy To Do?!!

 

Once upon-a-time, we are assured, there was a young lad in Spain, of Moroccan descent, hardworking, nice, never violent and never spoke of politics. He travelled to France to work but having found a job was ‘let go’ after two months.  All alone and jobless in a strange foreign country what’s a boy to do?

Apparently what you do is get yourself an assault rifle, a pistol, a knife and some petrol and plan to slaughter as many passengers on a train as possible.

The BBC thinks this is a reasonable narratve to spin for us. (41 mins 30 secs)  A freelance reporter (unsaid if commissioned by the BBC) headed straight for the parents of the train terrorist so that we could ‘find out about the man himself’.

We hear that the father is a humble man, a broken man, bemused by his son’s actions…he has no idea what could have happened to turn that lovely lad into a potential mass murderer…well, actually he did have an idea…it was all the fault of that French company that let his son go.

We hear that there was never any talk of politics in the house….but we are told the terrorist was very religious…as was his brother…who held a post at a mosque…which Spanish police said was a hotbed of radicalism…and yet no politics was ever mentioned at home.

Kind of reminds me of the BBC’s reporting from the West Bank when a suicide bomb goes off and they head straight for the suicide bomber’s family to get his side of the story…just what did drive him to do such a terrible act?  Those damned Israelis!!!  Oh yes…and never mind the families of the victims of the bomber.

Or indeed after 7/7 in this country when the BBC rushed to find excuses for the bombers asking ‘Just what did drive these young British Muslims to do this?’….suggesting of course that it was the fault of British society…the racism, the Islamophobia, the discrimination….only to have to wind their necks in as they realised this line was highly inappropriate and unpopular….but it could wait.

And wait they did until finally they commissioned a film to be made examining the background to the bombings and the motivations of the bombers.

The film was to be called ‘The London Bombers’.

It was never made.  Shelved by the BBC.  The findings did not align with the BBC’s own preconceived narrative of why these ‘young British Muslims’ were driven to do what they did.  The film, in telling the truth, was ‘islamophobic’…..as Nick Cohen in Standpoint relates….

The London Bombers, one of the most thoroughly researched and politically important drama-documentaries commissioned by British television. A team of journalists, at least one of whom was a British Muslim, reported to Terry Cafolla, a fine writer who won many awards for his dramatisation of the religious hatred which engulfed the Holy Cross school in Belfast.

Unusually for journalists working within BBC groupthink, they didn’t find that the “root cause” of murderous rage was justifiable anger at the “humiliation” America, Israel, Britain and Denmark and her tactless cartoonists had inflicted on Muslims. They inadvertently confirmed the ideas of Ernest Gellner, the late and unjustly neglected professor of anthropology at Cambridge. In Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (1992), Gellner asked why a puritanical version of Islam was in the ascendant when godlessness was flourishing everywhere else. His answer was that Wahhabism and its ever more zealous theocratic variants could appear as modern as secular humanism. They represented the pure religion of scholars and the city, which would free Muslims from their peasant parents’ embarrassingly superstitious faith. Accepting fanaticism was a mark of superiority: a visible sign of upward mobility from rural idiocy to urban sophistication.

And so it proved in Leeds.

So psychologically convincing is the portrayal of macho loyalty and lure of barbarism that viewers can understand how these men turn into mass murderers.

Except that they can’t and won’t understand, because the BBC will not give them the opportunity to understand. This is a review of a drama that was never made.

The reporters convinced the families of three of the four bombers to cooperate. By the end, they agreed that the BBC’s account of their sons and brothers’ lives and deaths was accurate. Cafolla submitted five versions of the script. He was working up to a final draft when the BBC abandoned the project.

The official reason is that the drama didn’t make the grade. The script is circulating in Samizdat form, which is how it reached Standpoint, and every writer and director who has read it disagrees. The journalists, however, say that BBC managers told them they were stopping because it was “Islamophobic”.

 

Cohen concludes…

It makes no sense until you understand the moral contortions of the postmodern liberal establishment. In the past few years, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the West Midlands Police, the liberal press, the Liberal Democrats, the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all either supported ultra-reactionary doctrines or made libellous accusations against the critics of radical Islam. All have sought to prove their liberal tolerance by supporting the most illiberal and intolerant wing of British Islam, and by blocking out the voices of its Muslim and non-Muslim critics as they do it.

As the sorry history of The London Bombers shows, they have left us a country that cannot tell its own stories; a land so debilitated by anxiety and stupefied by relativism that it dare not meet the eyes of the face that stares back at it from the mirror.

 

The BBC knows exactly why these ‘young Muslims’ of whatever origin go on to commit these acts, the BBC just doesn’t want to admit it as to do so would raise an awful lot of uncomfortable questions about Islam, the sensibleness of continuing to promote Islam unchecked and the wisdom of allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries into Europe when it is clearly going to be the cause of much controversy and conflict.

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Bryce Williams…Terrorist?

 

 

“As for Dylann Roof? You —-! You want a race war —-? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE —-!!!”

 

The BBC is getting into its stride..it’s now found an angle to twist the narrative on the killing of two unarmed white TV reporters by a black man….he was angry about the Dylann Roof murder of nine black people in Charleston earlier this year….the BBC now seem to think, in this updated report, that it is safe to mention race as he is now officially a ‘victim’…however indirectly….

Police said his utterances on social media the previous evening suggested the attack was pre-planned.

ABC News has meanwhile revealed that it received a 23-page fax, apparently sent by Flanagan on Wednesday morning, in which he claimed his anger had been “building steadily”.

The fax said the attack was intended to avenge the Charleston shootings earlier this year – a suspected hate crime in which a white gunman killed nine parishioners at an African-American church.

The rambling fax also complained of racial discrimination, harassment and bullying in the workplace, and professed admiration for the perpetrators of gun massacres at a US school and university.

The question is though…is Bryce Williams, aka Flanagan, a terrorist?  The BBC was quick to ask such questions about Roof…..

Americans ask if Charleston suspect ‘terrorist’ or ‘crazy’?

Is the suspect in the attack which killed nine people at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina being treated differently because he is white?

That’s what many argued online. After the arrest of 21-year-old Dylann Roof, several images went viral comparing the way the case has been talked about – and how the suspect was treated by police – to other incidents involving black people accused of much less serious crimes. Here are some of the most shared.

 

The Telegraph reports, the BBC doesn’t,  what the ‘manifesto’ to ABC News from Williams actually said:

“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15,” he wrote in what he described a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family”.

“What sent me over the top was the church shooting,” he wrote. “And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

“As for Dylann Roof? You —-! You want a race war —-? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE —-!!!”

 

Bryce wants a race war and he presumably killed these two white people as his own little part in that.  He’s a terrorist just as Roof was.

I’m guessing the BBC will come down on the ‘crazy’ verdict for this one…or we’ll find out Williams is actually white…just like George Zimmerman is…not…..and the two white victims are actually black…just like blond, white skinned Rachel Dolezal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Stop The Presses!

 

Stop the presses!’   The BBC would love to do that wouldn’t they?  Perhaps they should hold their own Frontpage instead of stuffing it full of self-promotional guff from TV-land luvvies.

Anyway…frontpage news on the BBC…is the BBC…..

Armando Iannucci: Britain needs strong TV industry

Comedy writer Armando Iannucci has called for an industry-wide defence of the BBC and British programme-makers.

However it does seem that Iannucci considers himself one of the BBC’s people…

Iannucci suggested one way of easing the strain on the licence fee was “by pushing ourselves more commercially abroad”.

“Be more aggressive in selling our shows, through advertising, through proper international subscription channels, freeing up BBC Worldwide to be fully commercial, whatever it takes.

Iannucci also spins an old falsehood that the charter review process will not have any ‘creatives’ in it…

In July, the government issued a green paper setting out issues that will be explored during negotiations over the future of the BBC, including the broadcaster’s size, its funding and governance.

UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale appointed a panel of eight people to advise on the charter renewal, including former Channel 5 boss Dawn Airey and journalism professor Stewart Purvis, a former editor-in-chief of ITN.

Iannucci bemoaned the lack of “creatives” involved in the discussions.

That’s simply not true…the panel itself includes many ffom the TV industry and the BBC and the BBC Trust will have major roles to play in the review.  Not only that but many experts and interested parties will be called upon to give evidence and their opinion on the review.  So hardly the bean counters in charge, not the hit squad of ‘gravediggers’ for the BBC that we are led to believe.

Firstly is the Panel the sole source of information and reference for the government?  No.  The BBC itself, through Hall and his executives and via the BBC Trust, will be having a huge say in what goes on and the Trust will be gathering information and data to support whatever case it decides to proffer….

One of the creations of the last Charter was the BBC Trust – set up to represent the licence fee payer. The Trust will, in thisrole, also be consulting on proposals for the future of the BBC. We will take full account of the Trust’s work and work with them on a range of public and industry events to explore in detail the important issues in the coming months.

The Public and whoever else is interested and concerned are also invited to contribute their views and opinions…

Reviewing the BBC’s Royal Charter is not just a case of publishing a consultation. We want to engage with the public and with industry to make sure that all views are given proper consideration. This is why we are engaging with people across the UK in a number of ways to make it easy for everyone to respond.

Not only that but other experts will be engaged to provide comment and relevant expertise…

There are also some areas where studies, reviews and research are needed – to add technical expertise or independence from Government. We will be commissioning these in the coming months.

Not only that but as well as the eight people on the review Panel other people or groups will be asked to join the panel as when the situation requires it.

Hardly the cosy little stitch up by a government in hock to the Murdoch empire as excitedly claimed by Fowler, Patten and Lee & Co as they paint a doomsday scenario for the BBC.

 

Sky has a slightly different take on what Iannucci said about ‘creatives’…no link to the BBC and charter review…

“If Britain is at the top of its game in TV creativity, I think it is because we have the best audience in the world.

“It takes the difficult, and the idiosyncratic, and makes it popular. That’s why we in television should feel lucky to be born in this country.”

He added that the future success of British television will depend on broadcasters’ willingness to trust the “creatives” who know how to make good programs.

 

The BBC’s Director General is also involved, as usual, in scaremongering, stating…

…that further cuts to the corporation’s funding and remit could result in more than 30,000 job losses across the TV industry.

“New research shows that, because of the boost the BBC provides, if you cut the licence fee by 25% you’d lose about 32,000 jobs across the whole economy,” said Hall. “These aren’t just jobs at the BBC, but across the TV industry – at independent producers, suppliers and studios up and down the country.”

“A strong BBC also contributes to a strong UK economy. A strong BBC will help deliver a strong Britain”.


 

This [H/T  Craig at Is the BBC biased?…no, apparently not] is also highly relevant…and somewhat not unexpected from the cowardly Tories:

The BBC’s ‘nemesis’ John Whittingdale has been speaking at the Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival.

Here are some of the things he said, as quoted by the Independent and the Guardian:

This idea that there is an ideological drive to destroy the BBC is just extraordinary, the people rushing to defend the BBC are tilting at windmills, they are trying to have an argument that has never been started, certainly not by me. 

Britain’s image abroad is enormously strengthened by the success of the BBC. 

Do I think there is general bias towards the left? No. 

For the moment, the licence fee or something like it is the best option.
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Dumbing Down

 

The normal process for a news story as it develops is that we get more information about events, the causes of them and the people involved in them.

The BBC seems to have reversed that process and looks to be removing relevant information from the news.

In the US a ‘disgruntled’, to say the least, ex-employee of a TV news station kills two other employees and claims that one of them racially abused him.

The BBC in this ‘what we know about the suspect’ report tells us that ‘Mr Flanagan also accused the murdered reporters of making racist comments and complained to human resources about it.’   Though in fact that is wrong, Flanagan [known professionally as Bryce Williams] only complained that one of the employees had racially abused him, the other had actually filed a complaint against Flanagan.

Curiously even that small mention by the BBC of the apparent, and kind of important, motivating factor [though it seems Flanagan had a habit of making such allegations and had anger management problems] disappeared in this later report about the shooting... now all we get is that there was ‘discrimination’ and no mention that Flanagan is black or that race might have been a factor…

The Twitter account of Flanagan, known professionally as Bryce Williams, suggested he held a grudge against Mr Ward, 27, whom he accused of lodging a formal complaint against him, and Ms Parker, 24.

And local media reported that he had filed a lawsuit against WDBJ7, alleging discrimination by the whole station and naming most of the staff in his complaint. The case is said to have been dismissed by a judge in July 2014.

Flanagan’s motivation is reduced to a ‘grudge’ against Ms Parker (the reporter he accused of racism) and that he alleged ‘discrimination’ against the whole station…….That’s a very round-about way of reporting this when there are already well established facts about the case.

Flanagan seems to have been sacked a couple of times for anger issues and had to be escorted by police from the WDBJ building when sacked in 2013…the network that the two dead reporters worked for. The BBC merely tells us that….

He left in 2013 according to his own LinkedIn account, which also listed several positions in customer service and a undergraduate degree in broadcast media from San Francisco State University.

Way back in 2000 he was fired for similar behaviour [‘ND’…News Director]:

From San Diego 6 news:

Flanagan worked as a reporter in several different markets including Tallahassee, FL where he worked as a reporter for current San Diego 6 News Director Don Shafer.   “He was a good on-air performer, a pretty good reporter. And then things started getting a little strange,” Shafer said.   Shafer hired Flanagan at WTWC in 1999.  In 2000, Flanagan was fired by Shafer for what Shafer called “odd behavior.”Flanagan later sued the Tallahassee station, but the case was thrown out. 

Sky reports more details:

The man suspected of gunning down WDBJ news reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward during a live broadcast had a history of workplace wrangles.

Vester Lee Flanagan, who used the screenname Bryce Williams, was fired from WDBJ in 2013.

The CBS affiliate’s general manager, Jeffrey A Marks, said Flanagan was “an unhappy man… who quickly gathered a reputation as someone who was difficult to work with”.

Mr Marks added: “Eventually after many incidents of his anger coming to the fore, we dismissed him. And he did not take that well, we had to call the police to escort him from the building.”

 

Is the BBC a bit conflicted in this?  A black man, alleging racial discrimination, but who was likely fired for his own strange behaviour, who then shoots two white people, only one of them for ‘racism’, or discrimination as the BBC now seems to prefer.  Just what will the BBC narrative be?    Somehow the black killer has got to be made into the victim…it will be interesting to watch the BBC’s tortuous attempts to ‘blackwash’ this story….which already seems to be happening as noted above.

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Le Crackpot Rides Again

 

 

The BBC tells us:

Europe ‘must open up to migrants’

How can it be so sure that this is the way ahead?

European leaders should do more to open up and help migrants instead of using language that dismisses their rights, a UN expert on migrant rights has said.

Ah, one of those UN ‘experts’.  Who might that be then?

Talking about “marauders” and “swarms” was an unsubtle way of dismissing their legitimacy, said Francois Crepeau.

European countries should open official channels and their labour markets to migrants because building fences would not stop them coming, he said.

Ah, Le Crackpot once again on the BBC given a free ride to say what he likes a completely unopposed by anyone with a modicum of common sense….as noted before.  And still attacking, still at war with Phillip Hammond and Cameron.

Le Crackpot is a man with absolutely no desire to stem immigration and has not a clue as to what the end result will be……eventually things will be taken out of ‘government’ hands and ‘the people’ will start dealing with the issue.

Le Crackpot lives in fantasy land, here suggesting you could keep the borders open and yet control who comes in…

The UN expert urged Europe to regain control of its borders from the smugglers by offering official channels to enter Europe.

“Opening up the regular labour markets through smart visas allowing people to come to look for work and incentivise them to return if they don’t find the job in question would allow for a much better regulated and controlled official labour market,” he said.

He’s not actually saying control the borders, all he is saying is make the borders even easier to slip across and that will pull the rug from under the smugglers…..well hardly, more people will then flood in and the smugglers will still have a good business bringing in people who don’t qualify for a ‘smart visa’, whatever the hell that is.

Le Crackpot claims that fences will not stop immigrants, well actually borders will stop them, reinstating national borders and checking who is trying to cross them will stop the tidal wave of migrants sweeping across Europe in search of Eldorado and the good life paid for by European tax payers, expecting, and demanding, free houses, health services, schools and jobs.  And when they don’t get the non-existent jobs in 5 or ten years time they will start to riot and the BBC and Guardianistas will tell us that this is because the immigrants have been marginalised, neglected and disenfranchised…when the real truth is that they forced their way in and there were not enough resources or jobs for them.  The fault lies with the immigrants themselves in the first instance and then with those BBC types and Guardianistas who insist we fling open the borders…..a collaboration between some immigrants and those on the anti-Western Left which leads to the rise of Anti-Semitism for instance, as the Spectator notes:

The prejudice currently popular in Britain is a sort of Arabised version of the European original. Revived hostility is clearly spurred by large-scale migration from Islamic countries, and the influence of Islamists on the European hard left, with whom they have a lot of contact.

The welfare state, the ‘State’ itself, is in danger of collapse.  What then?

 

 

Here’s a classic example of the left in action…..the loony left I think might well be a fitting description….

Embedded image permalink

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

A Good Dose Of The BBC Is What Does You Good

 

 

The Radio Times, the BBC’s independent but apparently still loyal, Pravda-like publication has trumpeted this finding today:

Two-thirds of viewers opposed to the licence fee changed their minds after just nine days without BBC services

“Being without the BBC was absolutely dreadful, just awful,” said one man involved in the ‘deprivation study’. “I just didn’t realised how much we watched it…”

First comment of  course is that no one is proposing abolishing the BBC and therefore the BBC’s association of licence fee changes and such an abolishment is clearly just outright scaremongering intended to whip up a storm in response however ridiculous and unthinking its roots.

 

Curiously the very same story came out a month ago  in the Radio Times:

BBC puts families through two weeks without Sherlock, Doctor Who… and everything else in “deprivation test”

Why, why you might ask is the Radio Times recycling an old story on behalf of the BBC?

The Daily Mail might have the answer as today it published this very disconcerting news for the BBC:

We would endure adverts to end BBC licence fee: Just over half of viewers back abolishing charge and forcing corporation to fund itself

 

Now I’m not claiming that the BBC, and its friends, are engaged in a Machiavelllian plot to counter that bad news with their own pro-BBC propaganda by grabbing the headlines with this recycyled piece of BBC funded self-promotion…but they are aren’t they?

The problem with the BBC’s ‘Deprivation Study’ is that firstly the BBC’s premise is based upon a lie that the BBC is to be abolished, and second, that no alternative was provided…even if the BBC were abolished in its present form there would be something else in its place…so to metaphorically  ‘broadcast’ a blank screen or the sound of silence on the radio is just slightly dishonest.

Very creative these creative types.

 

Here is the Comres poll as reported by the Mail:

Whitehouse Consultancy BBC Survey

Poll of 2,032 British adults about how to fund to BBC, on behalf of The Whitehouse Consultancy.

Support Oppose Don’t know
Abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself, even if that means adverts during programmes, reducing the number of original programmes they can produce or scrapping their public service broadcasting duty 52%(+1) 34%(NC) 15%(NC)
The current system of a compulsory licence fee paid by individuals who watch live television 41%(+1) 41%(+1) 18%(-2)
Abolishing the licence fee and introducing a subscription fee paid only by those who want to access the BBC 36%(NC) 46%(+2) 18%(-2)
Abolishing the licence fee and funding the BBC through increased taxes 15%(-3) 69%(+5) 17%(-1)

Base: GB adults (n=2,035). Changes may not sum to zero due to rounding.

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink, Say No More

 

Amused to hear the Today programme bring us a story about the government’s Ministry of Nudge…

0835

Behavioural scientist Dr David Halpern heads up Number 10’s ‘Nudge Unit’, the world’s first government institution that uses behavioural economics to examine and influence human behaviour, to ‘nudge’ us into making better decisions. We speak to him this morning.

 

Only to be followed by the BBC’s own masterclass in nudging us on immigration with yet another tale of desperation, danger, bravado and a lesson in humanity…..

0840

Europe is facing what the EU has called the worst refugee crisis since a World War Two. Greece alone has seen almost 160,000 people landing on its shores since January, the majority of them Syrians. We hear the story of one young man, who fled the war-torn city of Aleppo in pursuit of a new life in the UK.

Trouble is the story was entirely without any point other than that ‘nudge’, clearly designed to connect us emotionally to an immigrant, an ‘enemy’ only being someone whose story you haven’t heard yet, and once you’ve heard his tale your heart will open to him and you’ll be on his side rooting for immigrants and immigration.

It didn’t help though that at the end the immigrant said that his tactic was just to get into the UK and thereby force Britain to accept him just by stint of him being here already and the obvious trouble it is to return such as him from whence they came.  It hardly generated any sympathy towards him.

Remember this from a previous post describing how the public were to be gulled into accepting mass immigration?….

‘We had someone on from Oxfam.  He was asked how he would sell the public the idea that we must allow in more migrants…..not a leading question at all is it?, one that pre-supposes we should let them in….once again the BBC not reportng but campaigning.

His answer was that Britain has to accept more asylum seekers… he’d sell the idea by ‘describing the misery of the lives of people in Syria and the desperation of those who are crossing the ocean with terrible risk to their lives and terrible suffering….when you get that sense of personal connectivity you recognise that these are not just people who are looking for a sunnier tomorrow, they are people who are living in fear and in poverty.’

Curioiusly that is exactly how the BBC goes about ‘reporting’ the issues already.  In other words they are ‘selling us the idea’ of more migrants being allowed in to Britain….wherever they come from and for whatever reason.’

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Warding Off Evil

Justin Webb didn’t have a good day yesterday…….here’s yet another example….

Lock, stock and barrel from Bishop Hill:

The unmentionables

The BBC’s decision to part company with the Met Office has provoked a great deal of comment over the weekend (and a cartoon or two as well). Returning to my desk this morning I expected that the story would have run out of legs, but it has just been given a new lease of life via the Today programme.

I’ve attached the audio file below. Justin Webb was discussing possible reasons for the the BBC’s decision and he mentioned that some people had suggested that this might have something to do with the Met Office’s stance on climate change. Given that the BBC is now arguably rather more alarmist than the Met Office, however, this seems somewhat counterintuitive.

To be fair it was just a throwaway comment, the aural equivalent of clickbait, and at least one bottom feeder has swallowed it whole.

Stand back and admire, gentle readers, the majesty of a public-funded bureaucrat demanding that a public-funded journalist lose his job because he merely mentioned the existence of views that the bureaucrat found distasteful. What a shameful place the London School of Economics has become.

The interview…..

Today – Met Office BBC

 

Bob Ward, funded by Big Oil and Jeremy Grantham….not a scientist, just a PR monkey, a mercenary attack dog set to close down debate about the science….why so scared if the science is real?

Maybe Richard Black will be penning another green inked scrawl of outrage to the Guardian over this betrayal by the BBC.

 

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Hyde And Sikh

 

The BBC hates Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and apparently Sikhs.  It loves Muslims regardless of what they do.

Hate?  Well maybe that is too strong a word but the BBC is perfectly willing to attack the foundations of almost all religions, to attack their credibility, authenticity and integrity and to charge a religion with accusations of violence and hatred towards other religions….well, towards Islam.  No such criticism is directed towards Islam and its teachings or towards its adherents who say they commit violence in the name of Islam, but the BBC insists they don’t.

On the Today programme (08:30) we had yet another example of this double standard where Sikhs were the target of BBC censure…

There’s been a spate of unpleasant scenes at weddings held in Sikh temples involving couples where only one partner is Sikh. The weddings are being interrupted by uninvited guests who object to inter-faith weddings. We speak to Shamsher Singh, spokesperson for the National Sikh Youth Foundation, and Anita Kapoor, former member of the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education.

Justin Webb was sat in judgement and pronounced that such actions by Sikhs were ‘unpleasant and nasty’ (kind of reminds me of the Muslim Mishal Husain saying that Christianity was deeply unpleasant and backward…wonder about her reaction to Humphrys saying the same about Islam should he ever dare to).

The Sikh spokeman responded that Sikhs, especially second and third generation in this country, were becoming more religious and wanted to follow their religion more strictly.

Justin Webb couldn’t help himself and butted in with the exclamation ‘Just like Muslims’…only to rapidly forget he said that…as the obvious conclusion would be that Muslim ‘extremists’ and ‘radicals’ were merely Muslims who wanted to adhere more strictly to their religion and to live a life devoted to its teachings….and the BBC has spent an awful lot of time and energy trying to persuade us that these extremists and radicals are not in fact Muslims…they are ‘perverters’ of the religion.

Webb then compounded his error by suggesting the Sikhs who wanted to live by the strict tenets of their religion were culturally more Punjabi and those who were more flexible were culturally British.  So we can take it from that that following such religions is not ‘British’ and impacts negatively upon society bringing ‘unpleasant and nasty’ cultural practises to the UK?

I await a similar response to Muslims who wish to impose their religion upon the world in its fundamental form…oh, hang on we’ve not only seen that in the Uk with the Trojan Horse scandal but we’ve also seen the BBC response…which was at first to deny there was any such scandal, then to admit it may have been happening but it’s really all a lot of fuss about nothing driven by racists, Islamophobes and paranoia, and finally complete acceptance but with the suggestion that perhaps if that’s what Muslims want they should be allowed to get on with it…after all weren’t Ghandi, Churchill and Mandela all once extremists too??!!!

No, can’t really see a BBC presenter or reporter stating that Islam is deeply unpleasant, backward, violent or nasty.  No problem with labelling other religions in that way though.

 

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

A Bright Shining Lie

Rabah Yousif wins 400m at British Championships

 

 

The memo has gone out to all and sundry at the BBC….pump out the pro-immigration propaganda at every opportunity…and they listened.

I caught this little exchange (2 hrs 4 mins) between a BBC sports presenter and British runner Rabah Yousef….

‘Rabah, you’re proudly wearing Great Britain across your vest, you were born in the Sudan and came to Britain and had to seek asylum, how much does it mean to you to be here with those two words on your chest?’

Blatantly clear what message she intends us to get because this wasn’t really about Rabah Yousef, it was about all those other asylum seekers heading this way.

Now Rabah Yousef has certainly worked hard and done well for himself and for British athletics, and has picked up an impressive amount of colloquial English…..but he’s not an asylum seeker, more of a draft dodger to be blunt, as he admits….he came to the UK and saw the opportunities on offer here and decided he wanted some of that….as the Telegraph tells us…..

Excelling both on the track and in jumping disciplines, it was on what should have been a routine trip with the Sudanese junior athletics team at the age of 14 that he made a sudden decision that would change the course of his life.

Stopping off in Sheffield for a training camp en route to the World Junior Championships in Jamaica, the young teenager made a break for it. He ran away, he hid and he lied – all in the name of becoming a better athlete.

“Athletics in Sudan was cut-throat,” the 28-year-old says. “They recruit you into the military and if you don’t train they threaten you. It sounds like they want the best for people but they did things that I didn’t think they should.

“I hadn’t thought about staying in Britain at all before I left Sudan but when I came here and saw the facilities and coaches I decided to give it 100 per cent to stay here and achieve my goals.”

 

So he had no thoughts about seeking ‘asylum’ before he saw the streets of the UK paved with gold….and only then decided he needed the protection that only a rich country like the UK could offer.

And why flee Sudan?  After all British Muslims head out there for an education...before joining ISIS:

Most of the British students at UMST were the children of British-Sudanese parents who are successful UK doctors.  They had sent their children to Khartoum to study medicine because they wanted them to reconnect with their African and Islamic roots, before returning to work as doctors in Britain.  Nine British-Sudanese students and recent graduates disappeared from Khartoum in March, flying to Turkey, and then crossing over to Syria. Seven more followed in June, although two were detained in Turkey and returned to Khartoum.

Now I don’t blame him for seeing the bright lights and being dazzled, why not grab the opportunity if it’s offered to improve your life, who wouldn’t?…My objection is to the BBC’s glorification and misleading sexing up and exploitation of his story.  He wanted a better life, he took the chance to get that, good luck to him, end of.

His story though is being used as a shining example of what can be achieved by ‘asylum seekers’…therefore, the BBC is suggesting, we should allow in more, no limit suggested, and that such generosity would result in an endless supply of brilliant runners or somesuch that will enrich and enhance our nation.

Trouble is of course he’s not really an asylum seeker, nor can the country support endless numbers of immigrants, nor do we need countless numbers of 400m runners, however brilliant.

This isn’t an argument from the BBC it’s pure emoting and manipulation of the audience’s perceptions.  There is no genuine attempt from the BBC to discuss the real issues around immigration be they a matter of resources, culture or politics.  This is just ambush tactics by the BBC, spraying pro-immigration graffiti across the airwaves catching people unawares and they hope, unthinking.

 

And whilst we’re here….Rabah lied to the immigration service in order to get asylum and yet no one raises an eyebrow.  Contrast that with another famous asylum seeker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was chased from Europe by the liberals and the Left because she was a critic of Islamic values and culture….

Secrets and lies that doomed a radical liberal

Ayaan Hirsi Ali championed the rights of Islamic women and warned of the dangers to Holland from refugees. Now she must leave the country after being accused of lying her way in, writes Jason Burke in Rotterdam

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Shoreham

 

 

 

After a tragic and shocking event like the air crash at the Shoreham Air Show in which possibly 20 or more people were killed it would be expected that there would be a feeding frenzy from the Press with all sorts of claims, accusations and wild assertions being made. You’d expect the BBC, as an organisation that has no papers to sell and no axe to grind, to stand back and take a considered look at the crash and its surrounding circumstances.  However listening to John Humphrys this morning on the Today programme (08:10) when he was haranguing John Turner, chairman of the British Air Display Association, I got the impression that this was an interview driven more by emotion and anger, with a good dose of holier than thou sanctimony mixed in with a little bit of ignorance than a measured news interview.  Consider also that the pilot of the aircraft, Andy Hill, was very experienced, ex-RAF Harrier pilot, and no doubt very ‘responsible’ and would have been highly aware of the risks and no doubt shaped his display to ensure it was as safe as possible…..something that Humphrys seems to have overlooked.

Humphrys’ thrust was that the Airshow had been highly irresponsible in allowing the aircraft to display overland and that, obviously, it should have been done over the sea….because there was nowhere for a plane to crash land should the need arise.

Well let’s have a look at Shoreham and see…I’ve put the video of the crash at the top of the post so that you can see that the aircraft approached from wide open countryside and did the loop the loop whilst in open country.

The Mail provides this graphic to show that the people on the road were incredibly unlucky to be hit…and note that the runway is actually directly next to the crash site…so a plane taking off or landing, not doing aerobatics, could have crashed in exactly the same spot….

 

Graphically explained: An Air Accidents Investigation Branch inquiry will attempt to determine the cause of Saturday's disaster on the A27

 

Look on Google Earth and you can check out the exact layout of the land and you can see that to the north is the open country, to the south is the sea  with urban areas either side….there is plenty of space for an air show.

What do the Red Arrows do? Do they display overland and built up areas?  Yes they do…

Airbourne 2015. Red Arrows 14/8/15. SUS-150815-131439001

 

….but here’s their latest at Bournemouth where they displayed over the sea but also flew over land…..

Embedded image permalink

 

Embedded image permalink

 

The Daily Mail and the Mirror , amongst others in the Press, have got another angle on this…the Red Arrows, they tell us, won’t fly over Shoreham because it’s too dangerous….well, they may have changed their criteria since 2009, but here’s the Red Arrows at Shoreham in 2009 flying north to south:

 

 

 

But let’s go back to John Humphrys and his outrage at the Shoreham Airshow’s  dangerous ‘irresponsibility’….what has he got to say about Farnborough?…once again Google Earth it and you can see the surrounding area is massively built up with even less open land.

Here’s the Red Arrows flying overland at Farnborough last year…

 

 

If you are going to pillory someone on national radio, on the BBC’s prime news programme, at the prime slot of 08:10, then you’d better get things right and in perspective….perhaps he should read the BBC’s archives…here they could have told him that a Red Arrows plane crashed, after displaying over the sea, on land.  Perhaps Humphrys thinks the planes should take off and land at sea just to be really safe.

As far as I can tell this interview was pure emotion and ignorance.  The deaths were shocking and tragic but to start whipping up outrage and sounding off about practically closing down air displays is highly disproportionate and wrongheaded based on a complete misreading of the situation and a lack of perspective.

Certainly things need to be looked over as always but to hang someone out to dry based on your own prejudice isn’t news or even  considered opinion, it’s a kangaroo court.

Remember Locherbie?  What would Humphrys say about the routing of airliners using this extreme case as an example?

 

 

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Robinson Crusoe

 

Apparently Alex Salmond would like to ship the BBC’s Nick Robinson off to a desert island and abandon him there….the spat continues as Salmond uses Robinson as his whipping boy.

Alex Salmond has said Nick Robinson should be “embarrassed and ashamed” of his coverage of the Scottish independence referendum as he hit back at the outgoing BBC political editor’s attack on the “Putin”-like treatment journalists received at the hands of nationalists.

The former First Minister described as “ludicrous” the outgoing BBC political editor’s comparison between the separatists’ mass protests against his reporting of the campaign last year and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

He said this was “ironic” as the BBC coverage, which he described as a “disgrace”, resembled propaganda produced by Pravda, the Soviet Union’s notorious press agency.

Robinson bites back…the SNP are the anti-Establishment party, one which, Robinson suggests, organised the protests against the BBC….

 

 

 

  1. . Don’t know who organised protest. Do know Salmond praised as “joyous”, talked of BBC being “scarred” & “gains” for

We know the BBC can’t’ be biased because Nick says so…however…other news organisations can’t be trusted:

Thankfully the BBC doesn’t suffer in a similar way from people who supinely accept it as a truthful and accurate news broadcaster and instead has an intelligent and perceptive audience who are more than happy to point out the bias, prejudice and the blatant lies that it peddles.

Unfortunately, rather than celebrate this active interest in its output the BBC seems always somewhat put out by the criticisms, constructive though they are.

What we need on this site is a tame MP and a banner…and at least three people to hold it……

Nick Robinson became a hate figure for the Yes campaign in last year's referendum

 

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Come One, Come All

“The city is mostly Iraqi and Syrian immigrants, but some Swedes live here too.”

 

Nick Darlington in the comments described this video perfectly…..

Migrant crisis: Inside Sweden immigration camp

 

A classic example of the BBC’s emotive reporting trying to manipulate the viewers perceptions.  In this case it is the classic BBC tactic of contrasting ‘intelligent’, charming, articulate immigrants with what the BBC hopes are unattractive, uneducated, ignorant and prejudiced people who are voicing opposition to immigration…..

BBC Breakfast this morning had a report on the different approach which Sweden takes to the ‘Migrant Crisis’. Cue interview with a smart well dressed well groomed couple posing on a jetty on a Swedish lake (fjord perhaps) saying how lovely it is and how welcoming Sweden is. Then a brief clip of a member of a ‘hard right’ opposition party in a gloomy suburb saying that over 50% there were immigrants creating ghettos and who did not attempt to integrate or even learn the language…… Switch swiftly back to our couple posing in the sunshine, the low sun casting a glow around them ‘Do you speak any Swedish?’ to which the man replies in Swedish to our awe-struck reporter Graham Satchel who has to ask what it meant (Nice to meet you apparently)… Wow. Final word from the local mayor – Britain should do the same as Sweden – if immigrants can make it there they should be allowed to stay. That’s us told then. Another BBC-supplied wind up to start my day.

 

A highly manipulative video with emotive images and language and with a message to peddle.

You should note that Sweden has the ‘moral highground’ as the BBC reporter, Graham Satchell, tell us.  He tells us that Sweden ‘wants Britain and the rest of the EU to have a more co-ordinated and civilised solution to the migrant crisis.’

So it is morally the right thing to do to take in immigrants but he doesn’t put a number on that….and we know that there are millions of migrants out there just waiting for the opportunity. He tells us that it is the ‘civilised’ thing to do.

Is it though?  Satchell does admit that the Syrians (mostly Christian apparently) find to hard to find a job, to get housing and to get their children into schools and yet he somehow ignores that reality and continues to press for open borders.

The town that he is in, Södertälje, is now half immigrant.  Is he suggesting that the rest of Sweden and Europe become similarly ‘diverse’?  Does he think that there will be no problems ensuing from such a massive change in the demographics?

He has the mayor of  Södertälje on the film telling us that accepting more immigrants is the right thing to do…which is odd as in 2012 she said enough is enough:

The mayor of Södertälje is Boel Godner, of the Social Democrat party. This is a traditionally industrial town, where Scania makes its trucks, and the Social Democrats are in charge, together with the Left party and the Greens.

Boel Godner says to Radio Sweden that she is in favour of helping people who want to escape war and persecution. But that her city is not able to cope with so many refugees. For one thing, she thinks the refugees don’t have enough space to live.

The mayor says that serious overcrowding is happening, especially in certain areas of the town. Her main wish is that the government stops refugees from coming to Södertälje.

She also admitted...’ the question that has come up lately, is, can the welfare system bear us all? What’s going to happen to everyone who comes here? No one has given the answer to that yet.”

Oh and this…

The lack of assimilation has driven a wedge between native Swedes and the immigrants living in Sodertalje, and the influx of nonworking immigrants has meanwhile stretched social services and increased pressures on schools, housing and health care. Sodertalje Mayor Boel Godner lamented to the BBC in an interview last year that one Sodertalje school had to take in 400 extra refugee students during one month alone, many of whom required special education to help them catch up to their age group level. Free language classes for refugees have a backlog of around six months, further hampering their progress.

And there’s this comment…‘Andreae, Sodertalje’s city manager, says he hopes Swedish politicians find concrete ways to manage immigration instead of closing its doors to war refugees. He would like to see other municipalities take in more refugees, for example, since Sodertalje’s resources are now stretched.’

So when the pressure gets too much they want other cities to accept more immigrants…..which tells you that there must be a limit to the numbers of immigrants that can be absorbed and yet the BBC presses on with its campaign for unlimited numbers, giving no thought to the very real pressures that such immigration brings today and the problems it will certianly bring in the future.

In Södertälje the immigrants are fairly recent and still finding their feet with expectations that things will turn out well…for instance…just why do immigrants head to Sweden?….

“In the U.S., you always say that it’s the land of dreams, yeah? I say it’s actually Sweden,” says Yakoub, who’s now chairman of the Assyrian Community of Sweden. “Here you can get an education from kindergarten up to university without paying one cent. Society takes care of you because the social welfare system is good. Generally, it’s an open society with good values.”

A free ride, not having to pay a cent.

But things are crowded, houses and jobs are in short supply…

“You’ve got a situation where there are several families living in a one-bedroom apartment because there are literally no available flats in Sodertalje,” he says. “And it’s a problem that is increasing every year, as more people come here.”

Sodertalje’s unemployment rate is twice as high as Sweden’s national rate. That’s partly because refugees are struggling to learn Swedish, a requirement for a job.

Sweden’s basic approach to granting asylum has been that refugees would eventually become taxpaying residents, according to  Eberhardsson. But industrial decline means that job opportunities have diminished. Loss of many of the city’s car manufacturing plants in the 1990s and early 2000s has made competition for jobs intense, particularly for recent arrivals who aren’t fluent in the language.

And, like many transplanted populations, “the immigrants are more likely to embed themselves with the culture and language they know, eroding the likelihood of them integrating into Swedish culture or even bothering to learn the language,” Eberhardsson said.

Johan Lindgren, a social worker in Sodertalje (and Eberhardsson’s father), said he has seen as many as 20 refugees sharing a room in Sodertalje.

Just how long does the BBC think such immigrants will stay quiet and peaceful under these conditions?  How long before some ‘community leader’ is ratcheting up the tension demanding jobs and housing saying that they are being marginalised and disenfranchised and this is making them angry. How long before the riots, or terrorism, start?

Cultural tensions are being imported and there is little integration:

New government rules that allow new residents to live wherever they wanted once their residency was awarded have, ironically, created integration problems. The rule change led to greater migration to places like Sodertalje, where there’s less need to learn Swedish because there’s already a large Syrian/Arabic-speaking community in place. 

One of the visible manifestations is St. Aphrem Syriac Orthodox Church, one of five Syrian Christian churches in Sodertalje. The churches act as meeting points for the Assyrian community and welcome almost any refugee who is looking for help. The community has self-segregated, with Christians staying in Sodertalje and Muslims apparently migrating to towns further west. 

The Orthodox community in Sodertalje is strong, and while that helps incoming refugees get settled, it also becomes another barrier to integration. Swedish is not spoken in the churches, which are the main cultural hubs of the community. One older churchgoer, Hanna Tahan, who arrived from Turkey in the 70s, says he learned Swedish when he first arrived, but since the 80s he rarely has had to use the language because the local community, centered around the church, doesn’t require it.

The Assyrian Christians generally lived apart from their Muslim counterparts back home, and have brought their cultural tensions with them. Many point out that there is no mosque in Sodertalje. “If they built a mosque there would be trouble here,” said Deniz Can, who immigrated decades ago.

“If this continues with Muslim and Christian immigration, where will the war be in 50 years? It will be in Sweden.”

The answer is not to import the world’s population and their problems…the UN reckons there are at least 50 million ‘displaced’ persons out there somewhere looking for a home….and of course many more who owuld just like to live in the West.  The answer surely is to try and stabilise the countries they flee from or to provide somewhere safe to stay near their home countries so that they can return to rebuild things when there is peace.  That I believe is the British policy for refugees and it seems eminently more sensible than importing the world’s refugees and the conflicts and pressures on our own society that come with them.

The BBC is at war with the government and has set itself against government policy and is openly, as this video shows, campaigning for more migrants to be brought into Europe, not bringing us news but propaganda.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone