Broken Promise

After watching the first two episodes of “The Promise” on Channel Four, I was sure Peter Kosminsky’s advertising-savvy, cinematographic trickery would whip the audience into a passionate frenzy of Israel bashing ferocity in no time. A few prematurely written rave reviews from predictable sources reinforced this probability.
However, halfway through the third episode confusion set in, and last night’s finale degenerated into farce, with what looked like a guest appearance from the bedridden old lady out of “’Allo ‘Allo,”(Will nobody ‘ear the cries of a poor old woman?) along with a risible Rachel Corrie moment as Erin bravely faces a Caterpillar as it demolishes an already blown-up house. “Oh no!” I thought, “she’s going to be martyred!” But no luck.

Left-wing Paul’s pensive soliloquy, something like: “We can do anything we like to the Palestinians; beat them, rape them, pat them and prick them and mark them with B; disembowel them, blow their houses down – and we Israelis just carry on swaggering, like the dirty European Jewish interlopers on Muslim lands that we really are” – evidently reflecting the director’s personal politics. I assume Paul’s ominous “Come back soon Erin, there’s work to do” has further significance. A sequel perhaps?

As if all that wasn’t enough, consider the interactive Q&A debriefing with the great man himself. Winsome looking Kosminsky reveals that he and six others spent eight years talking to Combatants for Peace and Breaking the Silence, consulting experts from the Jenny Tonge school of thought, reading the Guardian and watching the BBC so that his film could give a true picture.
An interactive participant called Leia, possibly some sort of comedienne, asks insightfully: “Do you expect a backlash from the Jewish community?
There was I, thinking his wistful expression was due to stress from being on constant lookout for a targeted assassination by terrorists from the Jewish community. But no. Kosminsky was philosophical. I paraphrase. “Unfortunately we’re not allowed to criticise Israel without being accused of antisemitism.”

After the Tweets on the Twitter thread, further indications of imbecility amongst Kosminski’s fans crop up in questions such as: “What is ‘The Promise’ in the series?
Instead of answering “The gigantic key, you moron!” Peter writes: “Hi Aisha. Thank you for your question. It has many levels, including I Promise to provide you illiterate cretins with a focus for all your pent-up frustration. Go forth and vent your spleens!! ….. promised land, Jews, nakba, catastrophe, etc etc.” (My paraphrasing again.)

‘Iman’, wonders if Kosminsky found it hard to put aside his preconceptions. “What a great question Iman!” No, Iman, it wasn’t hard to put them all aside because I didn’t have any in the first place.”
“Hi Peter, I’m Jewish and I thought it was one-sided.” Says Lucy from London.
“Hi Lucy. You would say that wouldn’t you. But it wasn’t, so there.” (I paraphrase.)

“What is your favourite bit?” asks someone else. “Gosh, so hard to choose – a Palestinian woman tries to prevent the IDF using her child as a human shield.”
What is he talking about now? He’s cherry-picked an incident where two IDF soldiers were convicted by an Israeli military court, and turned human shield-dom on its head. In fact the entire charade was made from a crudely tacked-together patchwork of things turned on their heads.
So we wait, with bated breath, for Mark Thompson to confront us with “The Other.”

If anyone doubts that the programme was an incitement, or to use the popular term a “recruiting sergeant” for antisemitism, they should simply read the warm review in the Palestine Telegraph. A resounding thumbs-up from “Journalist” Sameh A. Habeeb, with one small reservation.
Like the BBC, it was still too biased in favour of the illegitimate rogue Zionist entity.

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


Here, miracle of miracles you might at first think, the BBC website has reported a survey from the respected consultancy Verso Economics showing that the obscene rush to create renewable energy (mainly wind farms) in Scotland is actually losing 3.7 jobs for every one that it generates. The findings chime with dozens of other surveys, as is reflected in this article today by Christopher Booker. Credit to the BBC for publishing it.

But hang on to your wallets, there is a catch – as with everything the BBC does. When Richard Black and his cronies publish their climate change propaganda, such as here, or here, the stories are accompanied by scores of quotes from so called experts agreeing with the alarmism in all its varied forms. Not so with the Verso Economics story. Spot the difference. Less than a half of the story is about the actual report, and there is not one word about how the economists involved have carefully reached their conclusions.

The rest of the item is from those who are determined to shout Verso down, and those who financially benefit from wind farm development, including, of course, the Scottish government itself, which as Verso points out, is laughing all the way to the bank with its barrow-loads of subsidies from taxpayers elsewhere in the UK. The other objector is Scottish Renewables, a propaganda-scavenger, eco-fascist organisation that seeks to make maximum amounts of money from any damn green scan it can. One of the chief speakers at its forthcoming conference is Yvo de Boer, the former Executive Secretary of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and now an advisor to scam-consultant in chief KPMG, where surprise surprise, there is a BBC link – it’s where Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, the former BBC director of corporate social responsibility, also works.

So fanatical are the said Scottish Renewables about climate change that they actually believe the upheavals in North Africa have been caused by it. Shame on the BBC for including such a ludicrous end-of-the-world quote. And how predictable that they cover the Verso Economics report with such blatant bias.

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

Tea Party Movement Anniversary: Two Years of the BBC Getting It Wrong

Today is being called the second anniversary of the Tea Party movement in the US. The genesis of the movement actually began with a small taxpayer protest against the Democrat’s massive “Stimulus Bill” spending plan in Seattle, WA, on Feb. 16, 2009. They called it the “Porkulus Protest”. As it happens, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin actually referred to the Boston Tea Party when she posted about it on the day, although the name didn’t stick at the time. This was quickly followed by protests in Denver, Kansas, and a couple other cities, including New York.

It was on Feb. 19th, when Rick Santelli of CNBC made his on-air rant about how the country needed a new version of the Boston Tea Party that the name came to life. The impetus was already there nationwide, and word about the other protests had already spread like wildfire on the internet. And so a movement was born.

(UPDATE, Feb. 28: Paul Adams has done a report about the anniversary. It’s nearly good, but in the end the bias rears its ugly head. I discuss it in the comments below.)

Hundreds of protests large and small popped up individually all across the country. The BBC refused to mention any of it until reality forced them to acknowledge hundreds of thousands of people protesting on April 15. In case anyone has forgotten, or isn’t aware of how the BBC treated the movement and its participants, here’s a reminder. It’s no exaggeration to say that the movement was directly responsible for the Republican victories in November, and the current state of play in Congress.

With this background in mind, let’s look at the latest BBC article about the fiscal policy scene in the US.

Obama urges budget consensus to prevent ‘gridlock’

US President Barack Obama has urged Congress to find “common ground” over the budget to prevent a government shutdown.

Don’t expect any actual reporting, as this is just the BBC dutifully reproducing the White House talking points. Some may, of course, see this as a weakened President sitting on His hands, a substitute for leadership. Even the BBC News Online sub-editor understands this, and so makes sure to get in a word for the defense:

Although Mr Obama is empowered to propose a budget, it is up to the US Congress to pass it into law and then to distribute the funds.

Whew, that was close! A reader nearly thought He was weakened for a moment. Thank goodness it turns out that the office of the President never had the power to force things on Congress in the first place.

“Next week, Congress will focus on a short-term budget. For the sake of our people and our economy, we cannot allow gridlock to prevail,” Mr Obama said in his weekly radio address.

Naturally the BBC then has to spin the laughing-stock of a budget He actually proposed. Notice how they use His talking points again.

The president unveiled his proposed budget earlier this month and described the proposal as a “down payment” on future cuts to the US budget deficit.

He said the US had to live within its means and called for some reductions, but said “we can’t sacrifice our future” with drastic cuts.

No mention at all that it was a completely irresponsible budget proposal, and a deliberate defiance of the voters in November. Here’s a more honest point of view the BBC won’t let you hear.

But contrary to the call of Obama’s fiscal commission last December to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion by 2020 through deep spending cuts, elimination of scores of tax loopholes and major entitlement reform, Obama balanced his concern about fiscal discipline with a fresh round of spending on education and research, investments in infrastructure and high-speed wireless data network, and other programs he says are essential to the economic recovery and enhancing the country’s global competitive edge.

Sounds a lot like Labour-speak, no? No wonder the BBC supports Him to the bitter end. In fact, His budget adds more than $7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. This is not fiscal responsibility by any stretch of the imagination. If He hadn’t given the finger to the voters like that, we wouldn’t be facing gridlock right now, and He wouldn’t have to call for togetherness like this. This situation is His own fault, but the BBC won’t tell you that. Instead, they’ve decided that – surprise! – blame lies elsewhere.

But Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, do not think the cuts go far enough in tackling the deficit.

Republicans put together an interim proposal to cut $4bn (£2.5bn) in federal spending on Friday as part of legislation to keep the government operating for two weeks past the deadline.

House Democrats have reportedly responded positively to the plan, according to CNN.

Neither party wants to be blamed for a government shutdown, but the Republicans say any plan will have to include cuts.

“Our goal as Republicans is to make sensible reductions in this spending and create a better environment for job growth, not to shut down the government,” Senator Rob Portman said in his party’s weekly address.

You’re meant to take away from this the idea that, no matter what happens, it’s going to be the Republicans’ fault, and that the President tried to stop them.

The BBC won’t spend a moment acknowledging the Tea Party movement’s anniversary, or what it has accomplished in spite of the vicious attacks from the media (including the BBC) and the Leftosphere. There’s much more to do, of course, and 2012 is still a long ways away. But whatever happens in future, don’t trust the BBC to inform you.

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


In recent days, the BBC has been leading the charge against what it alleges is our evil arms trade. Nicky Campbell is currently running such a debate on his dreadful Big Question programme. The meme is that we need to wind up this awful immoral trade, sack all those involved, and give peace a chance. Such 1960’s hippy tripe is evidently deeply embedded in the BBC DNA. The leader of the Respect Party, Salma Yaqoob was on to lend her heavyweight insight and denied that the UK should have ANY Arms Industry.

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


Was watching Peter Mandelson on the Marr programme. Now the Marr sofa’s prime purpose is to provide a platform for a series of leftists to come on and attack the Coalition but Mandelson, as ever, pushed the envelope. With a straight face, he emphasised to Marr the need to sustain “fiscal responsibility”. This coming from a member of the Government which has devastated British finances! Marr never challenged Mandelson’s claim and thus it is being established that Labour were fiscally prudent. 24 hour propaganda in every guise.

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


Did you see that  David Cameron has hit out at the BBC for whingeing about his Government’s cuts.

The Prime Minister blasted the ‘British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation’ for publicising every reduction in spending without properly explaining why efficiencies were necessary. Downing Street is understood to be increasingly frustrated with the way the corporation is reporting the Government’s austerity programme. Mr Cameron made his comment after giving an interview to a BBC reporter on youth unemployment. 

The interview took place last week, before his Middle East trip, which was overshadowed by the revelation that he was accompanied by arms dealers and by criticism that the Government was failing to get Britons out of war-torn Libya. In a parting shot, at the end of the interview, the Premier said this was a ‘good news story’ and the ‘BBCC’ should treat it as such. The reporter asked him: ‘The BBCC?’, to which Mr Cameron replied: ‘Yes, the British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation.’

My question is this; What is Cameron going to DO about it? Go along with installing CINO Chris Patten as the next Chairman? The BBC needs confronted, undermined, punished for its bias.
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


The BBC seems to have determined that the Tunisian narrative ended when the protesters chased the repulsive President Ben Ali. Democracy has spoken and freedom is now in the air. Except, of course, that is not the case….

But last week, faster than you could scream ‘Allahu Akbar’, hundreds of Islamists raided Abdallah Guech Street armed with Molotov cocktails and knives, torching the brothels, yelling insults at the prostitutes and declaring that Tunisia was now an Islamist state. 

As soldiers fired into the air to disperse them, the Islamists won a promise from the interim government that the brothels would be permanently closed. In other cities, brothels were targeted, too; and there have been demonstrations throughout the country — whose economy is heavily dependent on the vibrant tourism industry — against the sale of alcohol. 

Suspected Islamists otherwise preoccupied themselves with slitting the throat of a Polish Catholic priest, which, if confirmed, would be the first such sectarian murder in modern Tunisian history. And anti-Semitic slogans could be heard outside Tunisia’s main synagogue: this in a country with no history of persecution of its Jewish minority. 

When the Tunisian revolution started last month, it was hailed as a template for the rest of the Arab world. But if revolutions are judged by their outcomes rather than their intentions, then the story of post-revolution Tunisia is equally instructive. 

Why is the BBC so disinterested in what follows when the people speak in these lands? Answers on a Koran…

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

Question Time LiveBlog 24th February 2011

Tonight, Question Time comes from Newport; birthplace of Wales’ first billionaire. The area has two Labour MP’s – anonymous all-woman shortlister Jessica Morden and the serial weirdo Paul Flynn.

On the panel we have Sec of State for Wales Cheryl Gillan MP, “Baroness” Shirley Williams, perma-tanned vandal and bank robbery suspect Peter Hain MP, Lord of the Rings extra Elfyn Llwyd MP and the undeniably sound Fraser Nelson. Umbrellas and earplugs have been issued to protect the audience from Janet Street-Porter. WARNING: the combined visual and audio effects of JSP may damage your television and fry your brain.

In addition to the traditional B-BBC bingo, a prize will be awarded to the first commenter to correctly identify the current colour of Hain’s fake tan. Pantone numbers and descriptions only for valid entries, please.

The LiveBlog will also cover the surreal This Week, with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo.

David Vance, TheEye and David Mosque will be moderating the abuse here from 10:30pm, so we look forward to seeing you!

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

Democracy the Panacea

Before the Egyptian uprisings we were told that we in the West must support tyranny to maintain stability. After the uprisings we were told that our newly discovered duty is to oppose tyranny and support democracy.

Our government strove for stability by maintaining a harmonious relationship with “tyrants,” but now they’ve seen that turning a blind eye to tyranny was morally wrong, and universal democracy would be morally right.

Many people suspect that “tyrants” were all that stood between the fragile stability and the dreaded clash of civilisations. However, for the BBC and, it seems, Cameron’s government, democracy is a thing with magical properties. If it comes, lo and behold, it will turn the Islamic street into a secular wonderland.

Meanwhile, (as if we had any choice) we’re plumping for toppling tyrants and keeping our fingers crossed this will bring about liberty, freedom and peace – and abracadabra, turn the Arab World into the West.

No longer must we turn a blind eye to tyranny. Now our blind eyes are turned to the baying mobs chanting “Death to Jews” in Tunis, the stars of David scrawled on Mubarak posters, and the sinister signs of religious bigotry rather than secular liberalism that are emerging from the angry rioting crowd. The BBC’s eyes are the blindest of all.

Many people, apart from the BBC, think this is quite important. Should ‘free and fair’ elections materialise, and the Arab World democratically elect their governments of choice, and hey presto, should their choices involve the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk, the glorious revolution will, with our blessing, have brought back tyranny. Plus an inharmonious relationship with the West, and lashings (excuse the pun) of extra insecurity and instability thrown in for good measure.

A reader has sent me this:

“There has been so much misinformation circulated that the Egyptians have not used their demonstrations to attack Israel.

The massive crowd (possibly over a million) is first incited by Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi who as part of his victory speech (following the resignation of Mubarak) calls upon the crowd to pray for the conquest of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. The crowd goes wild. Al-Qaradhawi is the “moderate” muslim leader that condoned suicide bombing of Israeli civilians and advocated the murder of homosexuals. He is now banned from entering the UK after his last visit as a guest of the then mayor of London Ken Livingstone.

Shortly afterwards, the crowd erupts into chanting in unison “To Jerusalem we go, for us to be Martyrs”

So it may be true that the Egyptians were more interested in overthrowing their despotic leader than a Palestinian state, but don’t be misled into thinking that they are likely to set up a wonderfully democratic country with good relations with Israel anytime soon. How could they, if all they’ve been used to receiving on their TV sets for the past 3 decades are programmes inciting the hatred and murder of Jews.”

Our government and our BBC will say, ‘that is how democracy works,’ so like it or lump it.’ Our foreign policy would have to be slightly adjusted, our appeasement of Islam ramped up, and William Hague could stop defending Israel’s right to exist, a stance that looks more faltering and unconvincing each time he declares it.

If they believe that a settlement freeze will hasten the peace process, they must have little or no idea at all what the conflict is about, probably through misleading journalism courtesy of the BBC.

Logic says that anyone who accepts that the Palestinian Authority’s demand for a settlement freeze is a valid prerequisite for ‘coming back to the table’, should equally wonder what’s to stop Israel feeling that Arab recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence is a jolly valid prerequisite for the resumption of negotiations too?

How can anyone expect Israel to come to a peace agreement with neighbours who insist loud and clear that they will never renounce violence and will never ever recognise Israel’s right to exist?

Yet because of heavily slanted reporting, which ignores previously negotiated and agreed territorial apportionment in order to portray all settlement construction as defiant, and a mere land-grab, Israel is not only unjustly given the role of intransigent, swaggering obstacle to peace, it is expected to make concession after concession whilst its enemy sits back and waits for more Hamas-like Islamist-style democracies to load the dice more and more heavily against it.

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

The Other

Several other bloggers are alarmed at the recent tidal wave of films and documentaries we’re being bombarded with, which subtly or overtly misrepresent Israel. Many have been brought to us by the BBC, but the most seductively beguiling of them all is on Channel Four. On last night’s Newsnight, in a wider discussion on the role of the media, I heard Mark Thompson say that BBC is obliged to “confront people with the other.

In the light of that, I feel justified in explaining why I find The Promise so disturbing, and why I feel that under the principle of confronting people with “the other”, it’s high time the BBC made and aired a programme that shows Israel in a truer, fairer light.

After Louis Theroux, Michael Morpurgo, and some upcoming radio plays which have clear anti Israel agendas, I suspect that as far as Israel is concerned, the BBC may not even be aware that there is an “other”.
A state of emergency should be declared.

Peter Kosminsky has spent several years, some say eight, some ten, devising and incubating this drama. He uses his considerable cinematographic skills to produce a slick advertising-savvy film with an agenda that subliminally and openly reconfirms what many think they already know about the Israel Palestine conflict. Namely: ‘Rich European Jews are transplanted into Muslim Lands by the British in a blundering attempt to atone for the holocaust, with the unintended consequence of penalising the innocent indigenous Arab population.’

The filmmaker has so far used two cheap tricks to mimic balance. One. Gratuitously and voyeuristically-inserted ‘real’ footage of emaciated concentration camp corpses. Two. A cafe suicide bombing in which two of the characters we’re following are injured. These two devices represent Israel’s case for the defence, while everything else represents the case for the prosecution.

Rich, heartless Jews versus poor, noble Palestinians; the giant key symbolising the right of return; left wing, European-born Israelis; checkpoints, the wall, stolen land, brutal Israeli soldiers, heroic, wronged Palestinian schoolgirls, Jewish terroism, stony-faced settlers.

Peter Kosminsky has even turned reality completely on its head! The stone-throwing children were not Palestinian, but Israeli! The Israeli hostess calls Palestinians ‘animals’ when Kosminsky really ought to have known that it’s Jews that are the desendants of pigs and apes. Ruthless Zionists tarred and feathered the female spy as a bluff to make our hero trust her. And though terrorism is the current method of resistance of the Muslims, it was brought to you first by Jews; and guess who were ‘put into prison camps’ by the Jews.

All this, and still one episode to go. But these things have all been done before, though perhaps less slickly and perhaps less seductively.

The website indicates that Kosminsky hopes to introduce a wider audience to the Palestinian cause. They are to learn the “truth” Kosminsly-style, through drama.
Comments, tweets, and even a liveblog, which Kosminsky himself has graced with his interactive presence, are all provided on the website. The gullible media addicts have tweeted and texted their appreciation in droves. They were captivated, amazed, thrilled, and ever so grateful that the hitherto mystifying Israel / Palestine conflict has been set out in technicolour for easypeasy digestion, painlessly and enchantingly.
What is alarming is that this advertising propaganda masquerades as enlightenment.
Kosminsky, far from trying to warn people that his partisan film isn’t a substitute for a fully comprehensive education, graciously accepts the plaudits. Lindsey (No I am not an anti-Semite) Hilsum provides a handy Potted Political History. Comments pointing to the omissions and obfuscations therein are dismissed by a Channel Four spokesman – because Lindsey Hilsum is an expert, so there.
I know it’s not part of my remit to comment on Channel Four business, so, if only because of the BBC’s obligation to confront people with “the other”, I rest my case.

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

Congressman Allen West (D-FL) Speaks Truth To Islamic Power. Any Thoughts, BBC?

Republican Congressman for Florida, Col. Allen West vs. the Executive Director of the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR). No prizes for guessing who comes out on top. Unless, that is, you work for or defend the BBC, in which case this video clip will make your head explode.

The only time the BBC actually mentioned Col. West before was right before the elections last November, where Kevin Connolly (he who insulted hundreds of thousands of people on air and online with a sexual innuendo) briefly discussed one of West’s campaign ads, in which Candidate West tries to discourage voters from choosing his opponent by tying him to the President (not counting the separate page where they posted the ad with a short blurb). He barely got a mention for his victory on election night, as if he didn’t exist and wasn’t a huge smack in the face of the BBC’s lie about how racism is a main factor in the Tea Party movement.

Connolly was unable to process the information even then, and made the following very revealing statement:

It is a common enough practice in tight races where the presence of a political big-shot can tip the balance.

What makes the ad unusual is that it is paid for by a Republican candidate, Allen West and he is gambling that Mr Obama’s intervention in the race will be a plus for him and a negative for his Democratic rival, Ron Klein.

It’s unusual for a Republican to do this? Um, yeah, NO. This is Beeboid Connolly simply unable to grasp the concept of a black man not slavishly (oops!) siding with another black man in politics. Of course, the BBC generally supports and understands people voting along racial lines: when it’s non-whites doing it. So it’s only natural that Connolly would be confused by this black man opposing a black President. Connolly is so out of touch that he also said this:

The biggest single factor contributing to those declining ratings is the economy. There is an iron rule in American politics that when unemployment is high, as it is here in Florida, the presidents gets a pummelling.

But there is more to it than that. Somehow the two signature achievements of Obama’s first two years in the White House are being made to feel like electoral liabilities.

Somehow the “two signature achievements” are made to feel like liabilities? As if those “achievements” aren’t connected to the crap economy in any way? His bias prevented him from grasping two simple concepts. Thankfully, the BBC has since transferred him out of the US.

In any event, don’t hold your breath waiting for the BBC to report this, or anything positive about Congressman West at all. They sure as hell don’t want you to know about this. In fact, this is a discussion forbidden on BBC airwaves by anyone.

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


The Daily Mail today notes that more than 3m legal immigrants were allowed into the UK under new Labour, with the total swelled by a further 1m illegals. This, it observes, has been the biggest invasion for a thousand years, even though their election manifesto in 1997 vowed to control our borders. (Presumably it means proportionately the largest, because the population of the UK was only around 3m in total 1,000 years ago) Sir Andrew Green, the persistent, well-researched and erudite head of Migration Watch UK, says that a major factor in allowing the influx was the attitude of the BBC. He writes:

Another major factor was the attitude of the BBC and, in particular, its devotion to multiculturalism. For years it avoided discussing immigration if it possibly could.

Although in the autumn of 2005 official statistics for the previous year showed an increase of 50 per cent in net immigration, there was no mention of this on the BBC.

Its own report into impartiality, published in June 2007, concluded that its coverage of immigration amounted to bias by omission.

Last December the corporation’s director-general admitted: ‘There are some areas, immigration, business and Europe, where the BBC has historically been rather weak and rather nervous about letting that entire debate happen.’ Indeed so.

The overall effect was to deter any serious discussion of immigration and to give plenty of space to the Left to accuse anyone who raised the subject of being a covert racist. On this matter the BBC failed to meet its own standards of objectivity.

Back in 2003/4, I did research into the BBC’s coverage of immigration, and it was blatantly clear that all those who opposed Labour’s policy were ignored, the only people interviewed about the topic were fervent multi-culturalists, and people like Sir Andrew Green were cast as bigoted xenophobes. As usual, what I submitted was ridiculed. Not much has changed, even though Mark Thompson has now admitted that there was a problem. The real issue is that no matter what it says, the corporation’s desire for what it sees as multi-culturalism is an integral part of its credo. I can hear their purring agreement with Labour’s verdict on the figures:

This is an unbalanced, misleading and highly political report. Migration levels increased initially because of the strength of the British economy over many years.

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