Blood On Its Hands

Racism is ‘embedded into our [white] culture but people don’t even think of themselves as racist.’  Peter Allen 5Live

 

I did laugh when I heard Jim Naughtie’s schoolboy crush on the Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee….

 

No-one took on the aura of the swashbuckling newspaperman with more style than Ben Bradlee, who became one of the great editors. He loved the life, but he was also a man of steel.

It wasn’t chance that made Watergate a turning point in the modern American story, but grit and ambition….It made him a hero for two generations of journalists.

Explaining to a later generation why Watergate mattered so much is sometimes difficult, because it’s hard to recapture the mood of the early 70s, when the Nixon White House believed it could crush any opponent and would do whatever it took to do it……In the end it was Richard Nixon who resigned as president, in August 1974, and the Post had brought about a convulsion in American life which is still being felt today, by bravely challenging those who’d forgotten that power brings responsibility.

Bradlee was able to turn it into a crusade in part because he was a dazzling figure – a handsome, high-living lion of a man, who exuded an air of supreme confidence but also, as one of his colleagues put it, had something of the Mississippi riverboat gambler about him……he combined glamour with the rough spirit of a streetwise reporter, who’d tell stories from the US Navy, Paris after the liberation or the White House with the same raconteur’s relish….always exhilarating…….  At a table or in a bar, he was a magical presence…The kind of editor every journalist dreams about.

 

 

I didn’t laugh because of Naughtie’s gushing eroticism but because he is part of an organisation that shows none of that swashbuckling flair and fearless searching for the truth that drove Bradlee on to tackle the highest power in the land and hold it to account that Naughtie so admires.

The BBC in a sad comparison is itself that dishonest power, an organisation that has forgotten about responsibility and which has chosen instead to attempt to shape Society so that it conforms with the BBC’s own vision of how a ‘good society’ should look and think.  Rather than challenge and expose those corrupt politicans it sides with them and hides their crimes.

 

Today we had two classic examples when the BBC’s Big Brother politicking has caused untold harm to Society.

The BBC has given a lot of airtime to the story that the National Audit Office has criticised the government on its lack of success at deporting foreign criminals.  Naturally this is a Labour led story with Yvette Cooper asking an ‘urgent House of Commons question‘.

The Guardian headlines with this….

UK government has ‘blood on its hands’ over failure to track foreign criminals

Paul Houston, whose daughter, Amy, died six weeks after she was knocked down by an Iraqi-Kurdish asylum seeker, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, in Blackburn in 2003, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the failure to keep track of foreign offenders had ruined lives. “Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the politicians because what’s happened in the last 10 years has been a social experiment and we are the guinea pigs. The politicians have blood on their hands because families’ lives have been ruined and people have died because of this,” he said.

“They have a responsibility to protect society and its citizens – that’s their number one priority. I feel too much is given to the rights of the criminal and not to the protection of society and victims.”

 

 

The BBC has also given a lot of time to the story that a Taxi firm has provided white drivers when asked for by customers.

Both these stories centre around two major political, cultural and social concerns, immigration and Islam or multi-culturalism, that the BBC has consistently lied to its audience about or refused to investigate in order that its own narrative on the ‘benefits’ of immigration and the joys of Islam were the only narratives that dominated the discussions, such as they were.

Now today the BBC is all too ready to talk about the subjects having once deliberately sought to hide the truth about Labour’s open borders policy and the part played by race and Islam in places such as Rochdale….of course to talk about it only as a means to attack the government and to highlight the ‘racism’ of white Britons.

 

The NAO tells us that failure to control who comes across our borders is a major reason as to why we have so many foreign criminals (FNO’s…Foreign National Offenders) roaming the UK….

One important way of reducing the number of FNOs is to stop serious foreign criminals from entering the UK in the first place. The government[s] collectively did relatively little in this area before December 2012.

It is crucial that information on an FNO’s identity and circumstances is collected as early as possible to speed up removal.

The Department should build on the FNO action plan by evaluating fully the preventative and early intervention measures trialled so far and investing further in these where appropriate. In particular, early evidence suggests the Department should build its plan to prevent more FNOs from entering the UK at the border.

 

 

 

Clearly Labour’s uncontrolled immigration has allowed into this country untold numbers of serious and dangerous criminals that has led to death and suffering for countless thousands of victims who have suffered only as a result of that policy.

Blood is almost certainly on the hands of Labour politicians but also on the hands of BBC journalists who deliberately sought to hide what was happening and even today continue with that narrative about immigration and multi-culturalism.

On Sunday we had a blatantly one sided programme about immigration and today we have the BBC hunting down the taxi firm that offers ‘white’ taxi drivers on request to customers.

Peter Allen on 5Live (28 mins ) gave us a perfect illustration of BBC Think when he denounced this firm as racist and then went on to say that customers who asked for white drivers demonstrated that racism was ‘embedded into our culture but people don’t even think of themselves as racist.’  Of course when Allen says ‘our culture’ he means White people.

That of course is a racist statement in itself…a sweeping claim that maligns all white people…if you’re white you are probably racist (the problem is Peter Allen doesn’t even realise he is racist).

That was the line taken by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry when it found that it could find no evidence of any racism in the way police fulfilled their operational tasks but that essentially, because they were white, there must have been some embedded racsm in the institution somewhere.

Allen laughed when told that Asian drivers were far more reliable and hardworking that white ones…and yet that is a sweeping, racist comment itself…I’m certain there are many hardworking and reliable white taxi drivers out there who would object to that statement.

 

The BBC’s failure to tackle the questions about race, Islam and immigration wasn’t a ‘failure’, it wasn’t just bad journalism,  it was a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to control the narrative and the public’s perceptions of those issues.  The BBC not only hid the truth but actively sought to lie about the issues and the hugely negative effects that resulted from the implementation of mass immigration and multi-culturalism policies.

People have died because of Labour’s immigration policies.  People have been raped, people have been attacked, people have been robbed and defrauded because of Labour’s mass immigration policies.

But the BBC doesn’t ever link the two together when talking of immigration preferring instead to tell us of the untold benefits of immigration, how wonderful and hardworking the immigrants are and how they suffer terrible racism from the white population.  The crime that comes with immigration is swept under the carpet excpet when the BBC can use it to political, pro-Labour, advantage as today.

There is a good case to be made that there is blood on the BBC’s hands.  People have been killed by immigrants who would still be alive now if Labour had been challenged on its open door, uncontrolled immigration policies, by the BBC.

So much for swashbuckling and fearlessly brave journalism ‘challenging those who’d forgotten that power brings responsibility.’

 

 

 

 

 

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

OPERATION – GET UKIP

I got back from France late Monday evening and caught the BBC “Today” programme running a story about the “racist” song released by Mike Read in support of UKIP. The BBC oozes visceral contempt for UKIP and whether one supports them or not, this bias is self evidently wrong. Is it possible that UKIP’s views on our continued membership of the EU and its focus on enforcing immigration limits are so at odds with the BBC hive?

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

One Man’s Comedy Is Another Man’s Chance To Race Hustle

 

 

 

 

 

 

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….

calypso

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.

 

 

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

Wanting It All

BBC open to charging subscriptions for premium content, head of Corporation’s trust reveals

The BBC would be open to charging subscriptions for premium content, the new head of the BBC Trust has revealed for the first time.

Rona Fairhead, who took up her new role two weeks ago, said that subscriptions could be an “intelligent way” to generate extra money for the Corporation.

Asked whether “niche” and “premium” programmes could be offered on a subscription basis, Ms Fairhead said: “I think that would be an intelligent way to look forward in terms of the charter review.”

Earlier this year, the BBC rejected calls for a subscription model, which would see viewers pay for the services they use.

It argued the £145.50 licence fee was still the “most effective way” to fund its output, warning that subscriptions would increase the cost for those who chose to pay.

 

 

Seems a bit of a daft way to go about things……if you can make subscription work for some content then you might as well make it work for all, and as for it making things more expensive….only if priced wrongly…a monthly fee if you intend to watch a lot of BBC programming which would keep the cost the same as now but it would be optional as you only pay if you view the content,  as well as an option of pay per view for others who want to watch very few items.

And in what way would paying for the proposed  ‘basic’ service and then having to stump up for the best programmes not also be more expensive than an all-in subscription service?

The BBC wants to have its cake and eat it with a guaranteed income enforced by statute as well as making a tidy sum soaking us for content we have already paid for.

After all isn’t it the purpose of the BBC to provide that non-commerical niche programming that Sky etc won’t provide?…..and yet they want us to pay for it over and above the standard licence fee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Girls On Top

 

 

The BBC brings us a celebration of girl power:

 

Wonder Women: busting stereotypes across the world

On 28 October the BBC will host a day of events focusing on the power of women – those who have changed the world around them and inspired others to do the same.

Our keynote speakers include Joyce Banda, president of Malawi from 2012 to 2014 and named by Forbes magazine as the most powerful woman in Africa.

 

 

They obviously forgot to tell John Simpson….

John Simpson: BBC run by tough women is grotesque

BBC’s John Simpson has criticised the ‘tough women’ running the organisation saying it is ‘grotesquely managed’.
The World Affairs Editor, who has reported from war zones around the globe been with the BBC since 1988 said it is now a ‘ghastly outfit’.
Mr Simpson was speaking to former BBC correspondent Denis Murphy on stage at Ireland’s Happy Days Festival, which celebrates writer Samuel Beckett.
Mr Simpson, 69, was quoted in The Sun newspaper saying: “The BBC is even more grotesquely managed now than it was then — tough women running the place now. It was nicer and gentler then. The BBC is such a nanny — and ghastly outfit.”

 

 

 

Joan Bakewell is not impressed by Simpson nor by the BBC’s empty promises on ‘old girl power’….

Joan Bakewell laughs at BBC contract for ‘old elephant’ John SImpson

Given that John Simpson had only two months ago laid into what he called the “tough women” who run the “grotesquely managed” BBC, Dame Joan Bakewell can see the irony in the corporation awarding its 70-year-old world affairs editor a contract that will enable him to work for it for as long as he wants.
“I don’t dispute that John is one of the great old elephants at the BBC – and nobody else does quite what he does – but wouldn’t it be great if, just for once, this organisation that he feels is dominated by tough women would allow a woman to grow old there, too,” says Bakewell,
Mandrake disclosed in 2010 how Bakewell had been involved in brokering a deal with the then BBC boss Mark Thompson that allowed Julia Somerville, Fiona Armstrong, Carole Walker and Zeinab Badawi – all then over 50 – to take turns presenting on the BBC’s 24-hour rolling news channel, but the arrangement soon petered out.
“Since then, people at the BBC have made all the right noises about allowing women to work for longer, but it always comes to nothing,” says Bakewell. “There is this idea that the viewers like the craggy, Hemingwayesque faces of old men on television, but they don’t care for the faces of old women.”

 

And Miriam O’Reilly is still seething….

Ageism row presenter Miriam O’Reilly attacks BBC for giving John Simpson new indefinite contract ‘because he’s a man’ 

Former Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly who won a landmark ageism case against the BBC has attacked the corporation saying John Simpson has been given a new indefinite contract ‘because he’s man’.

The 57-year-old, who successfully sued the BBC for age discrimination after she was dismissed from the programme, hit out on Twitter after learning of the new contract awarded to the broadcaster’s world affairs editor.

The 70-year-old journalist, who has worked for the BBC for more than 45 years, has been given the new deal that will see him work for the corporation for as long as he likes. 

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

Labour’s Ethnic Cleansing Of Britain

 

We know that Labour’s mass immigration policy was a secret scheme to ‘brown Britain’, to rub the Right’s nose in diversity, and that it was to be done without alerting the working classes who would undoubtedly see it for what it was…a policy designed to eliminate them from their place in Britain…to be replaced by a compliant workforce who will work cheaply and come ready educated and trained….something Labour failed to do for the British working class people they abandoned.

Today we can see that attitude blatantly on show on the BBC (20 mins) ….when Bill Oddie opines that Brits should be put on the scrapheap and their jobs, homes and school places taken by lovely immigrants……..

Bill Oddie claims working-class Brits should be ‘contained’

Bill Oddie has sparked outrage on Twitter after suggesting in a live television debate that British working-class families need to be “contained”.

The Springwatch presenter claimed the answer to Britain’s over-population problem was not curbing immigration, but instead restricting the size of British working-class families.

Oddie made his controversial comments on BBC1’s Sunday Morning Live during a debate entitled: “Is the UK too hostile to immigration?”

The 73-year-old said: “There should just as likely be a restriction on the number of children that British people have because over-population is what you are talking about here, the big problem.

“So you say these perfectly well-qualified people can’t come in, but the woman down the road has just had her tenth baby.

“Well I’m sorry, but they are the people that really should be contained. It would make a difference.”

Oddie has three daughters from two different marriages and lives in affluent Hampstead in north London with his second wife Laura Beaumont.

Earlier in the programme he claimed he was “ashamed” to be British and described the British as being a “terrible race”.

He said: “Historically, we seem to have built up this ridiculous idea that: ‘Oh, we are British, this is our island and we don’t want anybody else in it’.

“I personally loathe that kind of chauvinism and I’m happy to say I’m not proud to be British. In fact, I’m very often ashamed to be British.

 

All sentiments, simplistic and naive, we have heard expressed on the BBC, by presenters, all too often.

 

Curiously whilst the Left make an enormous racket about the Tories ‘demonising’ the working class, and who can forget Owen Jones’ ‘Chavs..The Demonization of the Working Class’, there is not a peep about Oddie’s comments…not from the BBC nor from the Guardian, or indeed from Jones himself…champion of the downtrodden and demonised.

 

I guess that much as they did with the likes of Rotherham the BBC will look away from something they would normally consider appalling in order to support their own agenda and favoured projects…in this case the BBC are probably, as you read this, trying to work out a way to report the story without making supporters of mass immigration like Oddie seem irresponsible nutters verging on fascist.

At least we get the truth though…Britain is overpopulated.  Shame Oddie’s solution is to replace Brits with just about anyone who can worm their way in.

 

Sunday Morning Live’s introduction to the already slantedly titled programme, ‘Is UK too hostile to immigration?’, was naturally the usual BBC happy clappy ‘aren’t immigrants wonderful’ approach telling us to look at how much racism from nasty Brits they have to put up with..all caused by nasty ‘certain sectors of the media’….they brought us a football team in Northern Ireland made up of immigrants…why bother?  Any Premiership team would surely suffice….curious that the BBC is quite happy to ask whether football teams should have quotas for foreign players in order to promote British players….and no mention of crime and little emphasis on the massive infrastructure problems on the programme….oh hang on immigration has given us more than it has taken away.

All the guests were pro-immigration and all too ready to dismiss this as alarmist scaremongering by those ‘certain sectors of the media’ along with the innate hostility and hatred Brits feel towards any foreigner…..Dr Lez Henry, the dreadlocked black speaker, steeped in hostility and grievance, Bill Oddie in his Liberal issue sandals oozing hatred for Britain and Britons.

There is a lack of ‘true facts’ apparently….but  credit where due…we did get from two of them, Charlie Wolf, Michelle Dewberry, the message that uncontrolled immigration is bad for Britain….however wrapped up in the usual qualifications about alarmism and ‘untrue facts’….presumably along the lines of one ‘ethnic voice’ the BBC brought to us and who told us that essentially….’Britain is a very harsh place for immigrants…they get no benefits at all and have to rely on foodbanks to feed their children….Britain is not an attractive prospect at all for immigrants, life is very hard.’   Sian Williams agreed totally with that statement.

 

Thank god Britain is so unattractive…can’t imagine if it were attractive…perhaps we would have more than the 270,000 masochistic foreigners who emigrated here last year….where would they all go?

 

Just the usual BBC propaganda about immigration.

 

Shame…the propaganda failed.

Poll result: 27% of people who responded said Yes the UK is too hostile to immigration, while 73% said No.

 

 

 

 

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

Backlash

mcc2

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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

The Piffel Tower

 

Paris has the Eiffel Tower, we have the Matthew Parris, a tower of Piffel.

Matthew Parris, the wettest of wet Tories, the great mouldering tower of Piffel that he is, doesn’t like criticism….his critics, all rightwing fanatics….a bilious, bigoted, resentful underworld of fomenting Fascism given voice by the affable Nigel Farage….

 

Reading the comments on my Ukip columns, I finally understand the Nazis

It’s these voters’ opinions about their fellow countrymen, about foreigners, about immigrants, about Muslims, about MPs (all MPs), about the rich, about London, about culture, about business people, and about anyone of a liberal disposition, that have offered me the dismaying glimpse I describe. It’s a dark, bilious and resentful world down there among the readers’ posts.

I am coming miserably to the conclusion that a kind of collective mental illness can whip large numbers of people into a Gadarene rush — and reason is helpless in its path.

So no, these people aren’t Nazis and I’m sure never will be. But I have begun to understand the mass psychosis we call populism and, rather late in my life, almost to despair.

 

Remarkably, considering the title of his piece, he disengenuously claims he isn’t calling UKIP Nazis…..but, and there is always a but…they are really.

But I’ve had recently a glimpse into the psyche of populism in our era and country; and this has helped me understand how things might have felt in another.

 

That ‘other country’ of course being Nazi Germany.

 

Parris is conveniently offering us a ‘glimpse into the psyche of the liberal mindset’ as exhibited so well by those employed by the BBC…Parris so often being one of those.

The hatred of ‘populism’, which is a bit inconvenient in a democracy where the voice of the People is sacrosanct, the lofty condescension where someone of such superior intellect and morality has to ‘understand’ the mindset of the lower, inferior, less intellectually able classes…dismissed as ‘mentally ill’ by Parris, and the BBC’s so often aired narrative along the lines of its ‘Warning from history‘,   a narrative that gratuitously links UKIP to the ‘Far Right’ and Nazism.

 

Must be a full moon again in Parris’ Piffel Towers.

 

Here’s a little backup for Parris from a soul mate, Giles Fraser, as he retweets this…

and oh look who said it originally…Michael Rosen, that voice of sanity and reason…..

 

Embedded image permalink

 

 From DB’s archive…..

Michael Rosen, BBC Radio presenter First tweet on Margaret Thatcher’s passing:

 

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

The Rawanda Rewrite

 

 

The BBC broadcast this recently…

Twenty years on from the Rwandan genocide, This World reveals evidence that challenges the accepted story of one of the most horrifying events of the late 20th century. The current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, has long been portrayed as the man who brought an end to the killing and rescued his country from oblivion. Now there are increasing questions about the role of Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front forces in the dark days of 1994 and in the 20 years since.

 

The BBC is ‘challenging’ the accepted truth about the massacres in Rawanda but may be doing so using ‘evidence’ from those on the killer’s side of the murders.

It is a classic ‘whatiffery’ from the BBC….questioning the long and reliably established story about any event using the thinnest of evidence from people who have their own agendas.  The BBC then never again mentions this unique insight having done its bit to add to the conspiracy theories swirling around out there..theories now given ‘credibilty’ by a BBC ‘investigation’ that can be used to provide quotes to back up the wildest assertions.

What you may have is a BBC team desperate for a ‘scandal’ or a high profile story the re-interpretation of which will be so contentious that it will undoubtedly make a mark somewhere in the consciousness of the world.  In essence this is ratings chasing by the BBC….not for viewer figures but in terms of ‘serious journalistic investigation’…..this is the BBC patting itself on the back having allegedly unearthed another injustice in the world…..but is it just a manufactured piece of journalism designed to tick the box justifying the BBC’s existence and its claim to be a serious player in the world of investigative journalism?….Paxman of course said that they weren’t….more inclined to read off an AP or Reuter’s feed than do their own real journalism.

 

The Spectator publishes an article that suggests the BBC’s ‘Untold Story’ is untold because it’s untrue…..

The Rwandan genocide story that the BBC didn’t tell

On Saturday 200 UK-based Rwandans, including many genocide survivors, protested outside the BBC offices in response to the documentary ‘Rwanda’s Untold Story’, which aired earlier in October. The demonstration followed a letter of complaint sent to the BBC’s director general, written by the survivors’ organisation Ibuka.

They point out that despite the BBC’s commitment to upholding truth and objectivity, the programme contained factual inaccuracies and seemed intent on reopening wounds in Rwanda. They expressed disbelief and disappointment that:

‘[A] few people who have their differences with the current government or the country were given a platform to politicise the Genocide and deny the planned and systematic killing of over one million people.’

 

It is hard to lecture countries like Rwanda to raise media standards when the BBC airs documentaries with such shocking lack of balance. This week, as part of a group of scholars, journalists and lawyers, I added my voice to the protest in this open letter.

James Smith is the CEO of Aegis Trust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

The BBC Liberal’s Burden

File:The white mans burden.gif

 

Rudyard Kipling is described as an imperial racist by the BBC which can prove that contention by quoting to us Kipling’s poem ‘The White Man’s Burden’.

This poem supposedly encourages Imperial conquest and obliges White people to go forth and civilize the more brutish and barbaric parts of the world….or you could interpret it as…if you are going to invade and turn a part of the world into a bit of your empire then it is your duty to serve the native population well….a subtle but entirely different take on the poem.

‘Imperialist racism’ is a very simplistic and prejudiced view of the poem if you read its sentiments as Kipling probably intended them to be read.

However it is ironic that the BBC should denounce Kipling for jingoistic imperialism and his apparent call to ‘Whites’ to do their duty and civilise the world as surely the BBC Charter itself proclaims the same values  The BBC World Service and its Media Action arm are the poem in motion subversively encouraging democracy, freedom of thought and expression, environmentalism, as well as ‘good governance’ and people power, through development of a sophisticated media and use of campaign groups…in other worlds bringing ‘civilisation’ to the barbarous, unruly nations of the world….and of course that obligation for the BBC extends to the wilder parts of the UK where unreconstructed Tories, UKIPPers, members of the EDL, any member of the  white working class, Islamophobes, Euro and climate sceptics lurk…all in need of re-education courtesy of the white liberal class ensconced at the BBC.

 

The Royal Charter guarantees the editorial independence of the BBC and sets out its Public Purposes. These are defined as:

  • sustaining citizenship and civil society
  • promoting education and learning
  • stimulating creativity and cultural excellence
  • representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
  • bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK

 

When we hear people denouncing the West for not heading out to Africa and curing Ebola, or not tackling ISIS or not sorting out the Middle East are those people then racists?  Surely they would be if judged on the same basis that Kipling is….and Kipling was a man of his times…what excuse do these paragons, these latter day saints, of the modern Liberal society have for their advocacy of the imperialist supremacy of the Western nations?

 

Melvyn Bragg & Co had a look at Kipling and it was interesting how they all took it for granted that Kipling was racist and an imperial propagandist…Bragg describing him as ‘a major apologist for the British empire’.

Well first, why should anyone need to apologise for the British Empire?  That’s a very prejudiced view taken by a very select group of people and Bragg seems to be guilty of being trapped in group think rather than thinking for himself.  Kipling wasn’t an apologist for Empire, he just lived through it and wrote about it as it happened….and he was critical of it much of the time…indeed ‘White Man’s Burden‘ is a call to treat the native populations well…which obviously leads to the idea that he believed they might not always be so treated.

We are told Kipling’s poems and stories have a stigma attached to them by virtue of Kipling being a supporter of the British Empire…and his poems and stories are ‘contaminated by his politics‘.

Kipling’s politics, his race theories were ‘unendurably horrible‘.

But….we are told…if we can look beyong his ‘unendurably horrible racism’ and his apologia for Imperialism then we can see the merits of his writing, in a technical sense.  How very good of them to so condescend.

I have the sneaking suspicion that none of them on the show have a clue what they are talking about. They weren’t there with Kipling, they haven’t experienced ‘Empire’ as he experienced it, they haven’t moved amongst the natives, or amongst the maharajahs or the colonial officials.

They are imposing their own views of what they think the Raj was and how people such as Kipling ‘must’ have really felt about it…and doing so from the comfort of their ivory towers in academia and the media far from India and so very far from the times that Kipling wrote about.

Kipling’s ‘racism’ or imperialism are purely the concerns of a very select group of people who make it their job to search through history to denounce anything or anyone they feel has offended the censorious Liberal morality.

 

So, kids, you can read Kipling and enjoy the stories, but as you read bare in mind that they are an anachronistic relic from a bygone age in which attitudes of casual racism, racial supremacy, colonisation, violence, misogyny, apartheid, homophobia and religious mania held sway.  Use the occasion to learn about the terrifying, and unendurably horrible, attitudes held by white people towards others merely because they do not have the same skin colour.

The Koran, by way of contrast, is a wonderful book, the cornerstone of a faith that brings peace and harmony wherever it is practised.  The BBC highly recommends you read it, grow a beard and learn how to shoot a gun…er…only to defend yourself against those appalling Kipling-like Islamophobes who, through ignorance, prejudice and hatred, link that lovely religion to untold misery and violence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Labour Skulduggery?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Hurray For The European Empire

 

The BBC announced that it, in the shape of The Media Show (13 mins), would investigate the ‘Media’s’ reporting of Europe….

A new report from the Reuters Institute of Journalism [John Lloyd] argues that the British media’s coverage of the EU is falling short.

In spite of increased column inches and headlines since the Eurozone crisis hit, the study claims mainstream papers and broadcasters still struggle to distil and dramatise the complexities of EU policy and process.

 

I immediately thought ‘Great…the BBC has finally turned the camera upon itself and was about to ask a few difficult questions about its infamously biased reporting on the EU.’

Naturally I was badly mistaken.

The problem, we were told, with reporting of the EU is the ‘Press’, the irresponsible newsapers which chose to spread fear and loathing of the EU using polemical rants and a focus upon the absurdities and errors of the EU that are preferred to fact.

So the EU is not absurd nor does it make any errors?…never mind its accounts have never been signed off as they are so not based upon those precious ‘facts’ but upon lies, fraud and corruption.

The report tells us that the newspapers attitude is one of misguided stridency unconcerned with details and unfortunately presenting a powerful message to the Public.

However their scepticism was useful as it did show a problem with the EU….it was set up to be a federalist state but is in fact run by individual, sovereign nations….there has been a failure of the federalist ideal.

I thought that the problem, as highlighted by the papers, was that the EU is all too powerful and continues to grow ever more powerful at the expenswe of the sovereign nations…that is the problem…the complete opposite to  what this report by John Lloyd tells us….Lloyd being a big fan of the EU.

Whilst Lloyd bashes the papers he thinks the ‘Broadcasters’ ‘do pretty well’….such as the BBC which even in its own report on its EU journalism had to admit it was institutionally inclined to be pro-European.

The problem for those Broadcasters, apparently,  is that the EU is a pretty dry subject….lots of men in suits, all very technical, repetitive, too complex and lacks drama.

If only it were more exciting the Public would take an interest in this vital subject and realise that it is very important for their own interests to pay attention to what is going on in Brussels….and of course don’t listen to those nasty, rude sceptical papers….hmmm…I thought the Public were only too aware of what went on in Brussels, that’s the problem, they know the truth.

When Kelvin Mackenzie said he wished the Sun was more sceptical and reported even more of the absurdities of the EU project the presenter stepped in to demand if that was being ‘responsible’.  So we know that reporting errors and absurdities of the EU is ‘irresponsible’ in the opinion of the BBC….an attitude it takes to much in life such as climate change and Islam.

The programme turned out to be the usual BBC half-baked, self-serving piece of twaddle as it tells us that the EU is great if only people realised that and didn’t listen to those dreadful, sceptical newspapers….the BBC’s job is such a hard one battling ignorance and prejudice whipped up by the Redtops whilst the complex and undramatic nature of events in the EU political sphere make reporting on it so much more difficult that they can’t get anyone to listen to their siren messages.

Good job then that Labour imported millons of EU citizens who will vote for the EU should Cameron actually, for once, do what he said he will do and hold a referendum.

Another reason the BBC loves mass immigration.

 

 

 

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