Saturday morning and Justin Webb announced (08:54) that ‘You can’t consider London ‘English’‘ in a discussion about what constitutes Englishness.
So the capital of England is no longer ‘English’ by race or culture.
But the BBC, Mark Easton in particular, thinks immigration is a good thing….and is prepared to be economical with the truth to defend that position.
The BBC’s reaction to an EU report on migration to the UK was slow and when it eventually came up with something it was designed to play down the effects of migration.
EU study on migrants rebuffs ‘benefit tourism’ claims
A European Commission study has found that jobless EU migrants make up a very small share of those claiming social benefits in EU member states.
The study, carried out by a consultancy for the EU’s executive, suggests that claims about large-scale “benefit tourism” in the EU are exaggerated.
This is the BBC’s favourite part of the report which it emphasised and headlined on news reports:
The European Commission says EU migrants continue to make a net contribution to their host countries’ finances, by paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
That is disingenuous.
It isn’t the real picture because the BBC and the EU aren’t including housing, use of NHS services, access to police and legal services, schooling, social services and all those other indirect benefits that migrants receive living in this society…..never mind the cultural and social costs to Britain as a whole as it is forced to take these migrants without anyone asking them whether this is acceptable or not.
The Telegraph notes:
The EU, the consultants, the report on benefit tourists and £71m in fees
The authors of an official European Commission report used to suggest that “benefits tourism” is largely a myth have received more than £70 million in consultancy fees from the European Union, The Telegraph can disclose
and then examines the BBC’s reporting:
Analysis: Was the BBC’s reporting of migrant issue fair and balanced?
Last Monday night the BBC’s 10 O’Clock News – its most popular television news programme – broadcast a bulletin by Mark Easton, the home editor, in the wake of the publication by the European Commission (EC) of its report on migration.
What the BBC said
Introduction by presenter Huw Edwards: “The European Commission has found that jobless migrants from different parts of the EU make up a very small share of those claiming benefits.
“The study suggests that claims about large-scale benefits tourism in the EU are exaggerated.
“But the British Government still wants tougher EU rules and the Commission has asked the Government to publish any evidence it has to back up its claims. Our home editor Mark Easton reports.”
What the BBC said
Three Polish migrants interviewed by Easton each say they have “never met anyone” from their country coming to Britain just to claim hand-outs. One of the three unnamed interviewees says he came here in 1943.
Easton: “Well, reflecting the views in this restaurant, today’s European Commission report quotes research suggesting that, actually, EU migrants are less likely to claim benefits than British citizens and describing ‘benefit tourism’ as a ‘canard’, or a myth.”
Analysis
The word “canard” does not appear in the 276-page document, nor does the word “myth”.
What the BBC said
Easton: “Three years ago the Commission asked the UK Government for evidence of benefit tourism but says ministers have failed to provide any.”
Unfortunately for the incompetent or corrupt Mark Easton the BBC’s own reporting recently backed up the ‘myth’.
On Friday Victoria Derbyshire spoke to Syrian migrants attempting to get to Britain...after travelling through Turkey, Italy, Germany and France…….for once the BBC was open about the reasons the migrants were making a mass move towards the UK.
They were asked why they wanted to come to Britain….and told that ‘all the migrants want to come here.’
The reply was universal…for the money they would be given, free houses, jobs and ‘papers’, i.e. they would become ‘citizens’ of the UK with all the rights and benefits associated with that…and also their family will be able to come to the UK also.
Why wouldn’t they stay in France? because ‘France wouldn’t treat them well.’ That is, it wouldn’t give them all those handouts and free housing.
The deputy mayor of Calais said Britain was a soft touch…that it should change its rules if it wants to make it harder for migrants to come here.
Though these were Syrian migrants it is a racing certainty that the same attitudes and expectations prevail amongst many other migrants attempting to ‘slip into’ the UK illegally, and amongst those who come openly as EU citizens able to claim many benefits as soon as they enter the country especially if they have children in tow.
The reality on the streets is far different to the happy picture that the BBC paints of a multicultural society joyously embracing the ever increasing diversity that enriches our society…and makes us less racist….as we of course are in the BBC’s eyes.
and nice irony that Dykes, the man who said the BBC was ‘hideously white’, should now be embroiled in his own bit of ‘hideously white’ controversy as he packs an FA commission with white faces (though he did try and recruit some of the, er…BAME community)….the ex-BBC man being bitten by the same ‘race card’ bullies that the BBC usually so readily gives airtime to.
The BBC reporting admitted the argument that immigrants are of net benefit because generally they are more in work than British people and so contribute more, proportionately, to the tax take than British nationals. Such a notion of net benefit is easily challenged, even on its own narrow terms, because it ignores the fact that immigrants are taking jobs which ought to be done by British nationals, who then being unemployed, must receive state benefits. Naturally the BBC did not raise this obvious point.
Wrong.
They fill highly skilled jobs in many sectors because there are properly trained UK staff available.
At the lower end, immigrants have always come in to do the jobs that Brits don’t want to do. Plus the employers don’t want to pay a decent wage so have to bring them in.
Look at the growing number of stories of people being treated as slave workers and you get a feel some of the conditions at the bottom end.
I didnt know packing shelves was a skilled profession?
‘ do the jobs that Brits don’t want ‘
Makes you wonder how those jobs got done before the advent of mass immigration -perhaps you mean jobs that you feel are beneath you or your children
No. They were better paid, so people were willing to do them. Its all basic economics covered by Adam Smith. But socialist pro migration people don’t really concern themselves with reality.
Dear Doris
‘The study — whose details were first disclosed in The Telegraph — showed that more than 600,000 “non-active” EU migrants were living in the UK at a possible cost to the NHS alone of £1.5 billion a year’.
Do you have trouble understanding English, or just economics?
This whole “immigrants work harder/they do the jobs Brits don’t want to do” myth is so tedious, not to mention incredibly prejudiced. Most people here want to work.
Dear Doris
Please read the Telegraph report – you’ll find far from either ‘highly skilled’ or menial jobs the Eastern Europeans interviewed did pretty ordinary jobs most unemployed Brits should be having a go at, such as care worker and van driver.
And there’s always an argument that you’re better in any kind of work than no work at all! (opportunity for recognition, new contacts, other openings, keeping up your CV etc etc – not rocket science, eh?)
Sort your myths from your facts, then come back on here and have a proper grown-up debate.
They do the low paid jobs do they ?
Explain why I walked into my local chemist to get my prescription, horrified by more than a dozen in there, only ONE other white face, (most African muslim women in hijabs) when I finally got served – by a white LOCAL face – she was fuming. With a very quiet voice, she seethed she had not been thanked ONCE, most couldn’t speak english, and the ONLY ONE PAYING WAS ME
The costs in terms of courts and policing are considerable. Check out these leading enrichers:
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/wanted/#7
Surprisingly (not) neither Alan nor GeorgeR picked up on this:
“One tenth of Britain’s total expat population claim up to £23,318 in employment benefits each year from Germany.
Official figures show more than 10,000 British citizens living in the country receive the benefits subsidised by the German government.
Nine in ten of them have been deemed fit to work.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2468189/Dont-mention-ze-dole-One-tenth-Britains-expat-population-claiming-23-000-unemployment-payments-Germany-benefits-Europe-revealed.html
And your point is?
In Germany? I wonder how many of those are British in any sense that Arthur Wellesley might recognise?
Just a question you understand
Is that Aurthur Wellesley, born in Dublin?
Just a question you understand.
But famously said when told that he was Irish “a dog born in a stable is not a horse”
Just the answer you understand
Who would want to be Irish? Curious that Vance denies he’s Irish because the old racism (No blacks, Irish or dogs) still pervades this site!
But what is British…it isn’t English nor was it such.
can you produce any evidence that there were once signs in windows saying “no blacks irish dogs”?
you can’t because there wasnt any. Just great extreme left wing propaganda by a bunch of marxist muppets, just like you.
Doris = Nck Lowles
How’s you’re friend comrade Delta doing?
Doris’s definition of racism: any argument condemning the Left’s internationalist agenda.
the left want a one world government with them running it.
Well the Germans should toughen up their welfare rules just as the UK should.
The BBC has lied so much to us about immigration being ‘a good thing’, that it is getting tangled up in its own web of deceit.
Firstly , there has never been any democratic sanctioning of mass immigration. A point the BBC NEVER mentions.
Secondly, how can having a several million unemployed Brits not be connected in part, to having imported millions of people, often young, who will work for less money. The BBC is always so concerned about the unemployment figures, particularly youth unemployment.
Thirdly , if a substantial number of immigrants bring with them disease , eg TB , how can this not place a strain on the NHS , which the BBC is so ready to label as over-stretched.
How can importing millions of immigrants not affect housing availability which the BBC is so concerned about.
The list goes on and on but the BBC is caught up in its liberal left lies and deceit that it simply has to carry on with its obviously stupid contradictions and denials.
Quite so, and if we hadn’t killed, through abortions, circa 200,000 English babies each year over the past many decades then we wouldn’t have needed a single immigrant to fill those vacancies that the socialists keep telling us there aren’t enough indigenes to fill them.
Waooo!!!!
Women have no right to decide on giving birth because we need to outbreed the immigrants.
Logic of a mouse.
Better to have a mouse’s logic than no logic other than to take the opposite point in order to get attention.
It’s not all about women’s rights, you know, Doris.
The teenagers who have had EIGHT abortions: Shocking figures show girls use ‘traumatic’ procedure as a form of contraception
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149753/Teenage-girls-EIGHT-abortions-let-appalling-way-38-000-undergo-termination-single-year.html#ixzz2iI4ko6MY
And:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18249026
‘In 2011, 68,105 women having an abortion had already had at least one termination – up from 64,303 in 2010.
Careful, start making loathsome comments like that and Guest Who will accuse you of being a false flag (in his inimitable, incoherent fashion). Because it is unthinkable that any regular contributor to this site would write anything quite so distasteful.
Oo, luvly, a new name from the Borg box joins us! Welcome. It’s not as if there isn’t plenty of room to join the others in the human denial of service wave this miserable Sunday.
But, what’s this, nothing to do with BBC Bias, more in hoping of covering up its being exposed, and so another debut solely gunning straight for other posters? Say it ain’t so!
‘will accuse you of being a false flag’
‘Accuse’ is such a harsh word. And often deployed on what may simply be the view of another. Still, it can rally the troops, so why not?
And in any case, why would I need to raise such a thing as it appears it is one you are sensitive enough to to introduce yourself unprompted.
Your future sensibility-aware contributions of taste and relevance must be eagerly anticipated.
Not to mention the ‘minimum wage’ which allows employers to employ people from abroad at virtually slave levels whilst pricing out UK Nationals from the job market.
How do the BBC report it?
Albaman, a real joy to see you finding the.. Daily Mail… to be an original source of data you appear to find now serves, for your first post of the day… that again has nothing to do with what the national broadcaster too often misreports or fails to address.
This rather pulls the rug from under at least one of the weekend team overnight of Borg-cyclers.
Well done, you. But dark looks over the half of shandies at the lunchtime debrief one fears.
One looks forward to you working through all others in your Philip Madoc notebook of naughtiness, naming names of those who haven’t mentioned something about political matters that suits you.
“…………………. that again has nothing to do with what the national broadcaster too often misreports or fails to address.”
Are you suggesting that Alan’s original comment has nothing to do with the BBC?
“But dark looks over the half of shandies at the lunchtime debrief one fears.”
Really? Once again you suggest I “work” alongside others and once again you have not a shred of evidence to support this very tedious assertion.
Your struggle with a life of tedium I can only sympathise with. Maybe a change in work or what passes for a life mission?
That said, success in again seeing you prove your true aims here posing, but not answering, does entertain chez GW.
Why are you not to be found when a supposedly impartial, professional broadcaster is caught with its frillies knotted ‘reporting’ all manner of things that end up costing innocents reputations and the licence fee payers yet more that does not go to programming?
But in the literal sense of the word, if defence of the BBC is your role or desire, it is indeed clear that you here fail to “work” for them by any measure.
Now, to Stewart’s most apposite question, ignoring tabloid press, how does the BBC report what so exercises you so?
Just the answer would be good… It may even be on site by now.
Go on, you know you want to.
And who knows, maybe then a matter of BBC coverage at last to bring to the debate?
I can’t understand a word of this.
Stay away from the left wing cant for a while and you’ll find your cognitive ability’s will improve.
Then get an education. There’s no ambiguity to that comment whatsoever.
‘I can’t understand a word of this.
Or much of anything, evidently.
Doesn’t seem to stop you making great show of this constantly, though.
Noticing you and Alabaman are now both doing everything possible in support of each other not going near relevant questions, now today’s latest chicken run has crashed and burned.
“Noticing you and Alabaman are now both doing everything possible in support of each other not going near relevant questions………..”
Yet another invalid assertion – are you on a “quota”?
‘are you on a “quota”?’
Happy to answer.
Nope. Popped in for lunch.
Just matching you, post for post.
Difference being, I like this forum and want to be here. You seem… conflicted, at best, in why you are here and how it makes you feel.
And my posts are simply in response to yours trying to steer away from discussions of BBC bias.
So, how’s about you answer some posed of you, if the experience is not too ‘stunning’ for you? You really don’t need to look too far.
“Your struggle with a life of tedium I can only sympathise with. ”
Stunning assertion from someone who does not even know me. This baseless comment sums you up very adequately.
Albaman,
If you are unhappy with someone else’s opinion of you how can you then make the same baseless comment about them?
In my opinion after reading many of your posts you constantly fail to provide any evidence to back up your own claims, you resort to name calling and strawman arguments, and it seems that when shown factual evidence which highlights your own fibs you resort to your favourite trick of calling the other posters liars.
So actually I agree that you are a tedious little person. This opinion I have come too after reading your own body of work which unfortunately litter this site and your complete lack of ability to debate.
Flawedlogic joins the band of bBBC regulars who resort to insults when anyone deems to challenge the “chosen few”.
As he appears to take a great interest in my posts perhaps he can evidence where I have called “other posters liars”.
‘Flawedlogic joins the band of bBBC regulars*’
More like another who does not share or agree with your views and/or attempts to impose them by crashing around butting in with off topic comments, demanding answers and refusing to answer any yourself.
And when you are pwned completely, again, you resort irony-free to flailing about making personal accusations to avoid being drawn back to areas that leave your paucity of argument totally exposed.
‘perhaps he can evidence’
Don’t tell ‘im, FL… he has ‘taken interest’ in you now, whipped out his notebook and you’re now on his ‘list’ too!
*’We few, we happy few, we band of brothers”
Few in number true, vs. an armada of BBC supporters, but a cheery bunch in the main. Certainly beats being like the po-faced miserabilists epitomised by today’s knackered Staffel.
Weak, illogical points are the foundation of all leftists rhetoric.
So that’s 10,000 compared with the 600,000 inactive European ‘migrants’ in the UK.
Albaman
Gun
Aims
Shoots
Oh, no – just when his foot was getting better from his last ‘accident’.
You really need to look a bit further than a Telegraph “scare story”.
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/are_there_600000_unemployed_eu_migrants_in_the_uk-29237
And you need to read the ‘scare story’ properly. Where does it say ‘unemployed’?
And are you suggesting that ‘inactive’ immigrants do not take money out of the economy? What about the impact on housing BBC/Labour are constantly bleating about? The NHS? Education? The whole infrastructure of the country put under the strain by all these additional people an unelected bureaucracy has forced upon us?
Perhaps you are willing to pay any price to see your internationalist/EU superstate agenda succeed, but when the country descends into chaos I trust you will have the guts to put your hand up and say ‘my fault, mate’.
Lets assume some future UK government decides that all “inactive” EU citizens currently in the UK have to return to their country of origin. In response all other EU member states reciprocate and demand that “inactive” UK residents return to the UK. Based on 2008 figures this would see a not insignificant proportion of the 350,000 UK citizens in Spain having to return to the UK.
Click to access KS-SF-09-094-EN.PDF
Without considering the latter the Telegraph article remains a “scare story”.
So you are saying inactives come here for the weather?
And how many of those 350,000 are retirees with their own income e.g. pensions, which they will continue to draw if they returned? – you know, mainly people who have worked most of their life in the UK?
You really should think about what you write before hitting the ‘send’ key.
By the way, yet again you’ve avoided answering the question.
And by the way (2) if you’re an expat in Spain and can’t speak the lingo you don’t get an interpreter paid for by the taxpayer.
10,000 Brits in Germany claiming benefits would, I think, cost far less to the German taxpayer than 600,000 migrants from the E.U. cost us.
Groping for excuses for NINE TENTHS of the third world immigrants living UNINVITED on benefits in Britain.
People like you are as big a problem as THEY are.
Let me have a wild guess – you work for a publicly funded area ? Council most likely, but right up to BBC – where the corrupts get their mates and same sex lovers comfortable jobs lecturing the rest of us and ranting “homophobia” when it wasn’t even part of the discussion, eh ?
Every bit as fascist as those you rant against
Alan doesn’t seem to do much research. Indeed London is not an English city nor has it been for a long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London
But let’s not get facts in the way of another groundless rant.
A long time? since the last labour government you mean, based on your own evidence.
control the past control the future
Nothing like someone contradicting their own invalid opinions with their own sources. The trolls really are out in force today.
Have you got an Atlas, Doris?
Last time I looked London was, in fact, situated fairly and squarely in the beacon to democracy, openness, fairness and tolerance that is England. Also it is still governed from England, and has an English mayor. Despite your wish for every city and borough up and down the country to be more like Newham than the New Forest, I’m afraid England and its culture very much prevails despite yours and your comrades’ undemocratic efforts to destroy everything good that we stand for and replace it with attitudes, customs and laws from some of the most primitive and inhumane cultures on this earth.
So, rather than sweat your tiny little bollocks off trying to destroy what is good, go forth into the world and try to change what is bad. There are plenty of places to choose from (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Nigeria, North Korea……)
Toodle pip, old chap!
Dear Doris
A tired old myth you and your fellow England-haters repeatedly parrot: ‘Britain is a nation of immigrants’.
More people have now migrated to the UK in a single year (2010) than did so in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime.
In fact, in the nearly 900 years between 1066 and 1950 just a quarter of a million people migrated to what is now the UK, mainly Jews and Huguenots, excluding the Irish of course who were for a long period a part of the same country.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/briefingPaper/document/269
I disagree with Justin Webb on most things.
However, I used to live in London and he’s right to say that it isn’t English anymore. Nor is it British. It’s a foreign country.
There are very few of the original inhabitants left there, except maybe in a few middle class enclaves.
If New Labour had been honest about their plans to institute the biggest mass immigration for over a thousand years they’d never have been elected.
At least the BBC is finally telling the truth about it. Now that its too late to undo it.
You may not have noticed but the capital cities of the world are now very cosmopolitan. Look at the mix of people murdered in a shopping mall in Kenya. From all four corners of the world.
Go to any major city in the world and the is now great diversity as people travel and move and work and fall in love and stay.
What’s wrong with it?
Everything
You think ‘diversity’ is only possible with state-enforced racial and ethnic mixing. Speaks volumes for the contempt you have for the British people.
Indeed. Its comparable to the Khmer rouge amd Nazi Aryanism. The second you allow politicians to determine racial mix and ethnic make up – you cross the line.
I wouldn’t fall in love with a place where I could be shot in a shopping mall with my kids by some muslim idiots.
Indeed, the only reason that the 2012 Olympics came to London is because the bid committee kept emphasising that London wasn’t British.
Wasn’t British? What games were you watching?
Or are you one those sad men who hated the VERSION of Britain on display as you are no longer part of it?
Union jacks dominated the proceedings because for a change the racists had lost the argument and flag could represent us all.
The Union Flag always represented us all. It was only you left-wing fascists that tried to makee out it didn’t. You are trying to do the same for the Cross of St., George. You are such bigots.
Continual BBC-NUJ bias for mass immigration into U.K.
Even in its newspaper review for Sunday, Beeboids ignore the ‘Sunday Telegraph’s (£) main front page report on Immigration (and BBC bias),
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx
Instead, Beeboids go with the ‘Telegraph’s secondary story about high-cost ‘green’ agenda:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24599964
Beeboid’s political bias in its pro-immigration propaganda:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?pageOffset=&pageSize=&sel=site&searchPhrase=bbc+bias+on+immigration
The report on the confrontation between police and native protesters in New Brunswick is very interesting but what happened to the link to the Telegraph?
Accordng to the BBC’s Mark Easton
Another figure quoted is that £1.5 billion of NHS spending goes on workless EU migrants. The Commission says this represents as little as 0.7 per cent of health service spending and EU workers contribute more into the UK economy than they take out.
Mark chooses not to tell us that this 0.7% is an estimate and that the EU also estimate that it could be as much as 1.1%.
According to my calculations, £1.5 billion represents 1.44% of the NHS budget for the relevant year (2012), or 1.38% if you include an additional capital spend of £4.5 billion. I think EU might be cheating here, including both NHS and private sector health spending in the total healthcare spending figure. Even so, I can’t see how they arrived at the low estimate of 0.7%.
The actual number on jobseekers is 60000. The rest are retired, students or spouses who still have to register their presence. How many similarly jobless people of British origin live in France or Spain who are retired etc? And use local services. Send them all back then? Do you want 100000 geriatrics to turn up next week in the UK? Be careful what you wish for.
Thanks for the strawman.
Now perhaps you can offer a comment on what I did write about – the accuracy of Mark Easton’s reporting.
Think about what you write, Doris. Those expats in France, mainly retirees, are living off their own income which they earned from a full working life in the UK, unlike the ‘inactives’ of mainly Eastern European extraction living here on Treasure Island and enjoying everything the country can offer for absolute zilch.
Not only that, JTF, a pensioner can get a Form S1. Armed with this, they can get their healthcare costs paid in the EU country in which they reside – paid by the NHS. A pensioner would be stupid not to do this, but do they do it? Well, the very same EU report shows us that the estimates of the cost of EU ‘non-actives’ to their healthcare budgets is 0.2% for Spain and 0%* for France (same figures for both upper and lower estimates). So it is likely that in very large part we are already covering the healthcare costs of our pensioners in these two countries.
* Yes, that is correct – 0% the report says. How the French, and some others, achieve this I don’t know. It’s certainly something Mark Easton wasn’t going to explain to me.
People here have constructed lists of the BBC’s worst “comedians”.
How about the BBC’s worst “reporters”. The people who you know will be lying through their teeth, twisting the story, as soon as they come on. The ones who have proved themselves time after time after time to be totally untrustworthy as a source of unvarnished news.
Mark Easton is way up there – and so is Roger Harrabin. And Mark Mardell.
Any more ?
Dominic Casciani.
Lyse Doucet.
Norman Smith.
Mishal Husain.
Barbara Plett.
Lyse Doucet seconded…and a lifetimes tossing achievement award for Laurie Taylor and his son Matthew…the Brian and Nigel Clough of sociology.albeit without a prize…ever!
Oh Lord – I forgot Jeremy Bowen.
“Framing the news” is the insidious technique they often use – to twist and distort. (But some of them just lie deliberately and directly.)
So it could be the “Hall of Frame” ?
By the way, ‘doris’ is just Conspiracy Theory Central, Maurice, The Men In White Coats etc. using yet another screenname to try and make it look like his vapid, baseless comments have more support than they actually do. And yet he doesn’t even bother to change his typeset even slightly or choose any kind of different phraseology (he always makes sure to say “why let facts get in the way” among other clues). It’s pathetic how desperate he is to try and get attention from people he claims not to respect.
“London is not an English city”
My atlas be out of date then because it certainly seems to be in England according to the 2012 edition.
Not for INBBC to report?:-
“Britain: Muslim Polygamists to Get More Welfare Benefits”
by Soeren Kern
(2012).
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3234/muslim-polygamists-welfare-benefits
“London is no longer an English city and that’s how it got the Olympics, says John Cleese”
(2011).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032956/John-Cleese-London-longer-English-city-thats-got-2012-Olympics.html
“600,000 move out in decade of ‘white flight’ from London: White Britons are now in minority in the capital.
“Census figures show that 620,000 white Britons left the capital in a decade.
“White Britons are the minority in London for the first time.
“They make up 45 per cent of London’s population, with Asians being the second largest group.”
By JACK DOYLE.
(Feb 2013).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281941/600-000-decade-white-flight-London-White-Britons-minority-capital.html
“The Islamic future of Britain.
“Britain is in denial. If population trends continue, by the year 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.”
By Vincent Cooper.
(June, 2013).
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain
Really good article this…a must read I`d say.
Just to observe that the BBC canteen contingent has successfully diverted this thread – as was, I suspect, its sole reason for posting comments – from Alan’s retailing of the Telegraph’s open and shut case concerning BBC bias. Not one of the canteeneer’s comments contradicted the Telegraph’s/Alan’s chapter and verse evidence on this one. All we got was an, apparently, concerted effort to obscure the fact that the BBC was caught bang to rights here. The BBC official response, which was set out in the original article in this morning’s Telegraph, was pathetic in its weakness and ineffectiveness: a weakness and ineffectiveness mirrored by its employees’ contributions to this thread.
‘Asked to reply to a series of detailed questions about its bulletin, a BBC spokeswoman said: “Our coverage of this report was fair, balanced and impartial.’
Well, if she says so.
But often that is not enough for some, eh, guys?
It is also intriguing that the BBC seems almost unique in being accorded the useful case closer of having un-named spokespeople whose views, doubtless, also ‘do not reflect the views of the corporation’. But this would obviously be impossible to challenge further as even staff representative names seem their unique ‘little secret’ too.
I had posted a link to the Telegraph stories early this morning in the Open Thread – because the Telegraph gave a line-by-line fisking analysis of Easton’s deliberate mis-reporting.
You can bet there is no-one in BBC management putting the weaselly Easton on the mat – “Why was your reporting so warped ? – the Telegraph has torn it to shreds.” Nope.
Because any criticism from the Telegraph is axiomatically wrong, BBC “reporters” can do no wrong. Even if their report gets thrashed by the lead story of a major UK newspaper, there won’t even be a slap over the wrist. Just the usual a kneejerk defence – of a jerk “reporter”.
Well said, JA and Umbongo. If you read the Telegraph’s analysis of what was being said in the report and by the politicians vs how the BBC chose to interpret it, it’s pretty clear the BBC put its own spin on things to some fine tune. Not so much clumsy misinterpretation, more downright misrepresentation to fit an agenda.
And that was leaving aside the biased slant of the interviews and time afforded to the two sides of the argument.
A lesson in good journalism from the Telegraph today for those grubby, arrogant, socialist hacks at the BBC.
Funny how the Defenders of The Indefensible have flocked here today, as though primed to expect something.
In all their left wing, economically-illiterate glory they prove with their unequivocal support of everything BBC that it truly has a leftist bias.
LLDD (Lefty Logic Deficit Disorder) – a sadly incurable disease.
I think it simply that multiculturalism is one of the most sacred constructs of their pseudo-religion , to question immigration and especially the BBC’s reporting of it , is to attack that.
Also it gives them a chance to fling around words like ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ like chimps with their faeces.
I say old chap, cant have monkey jokes ya know!
It may not be too late to go out and get a copy of the Sunday Telegraph’s magnificent journalism today, not to mention its editorial on BBC Bias.
It has six or seven pages on the report on the 600,000 unemployed (‘economically inactive’) EU migrants and a brutal dissection of Mark Easton’s despicable reporting on the BBC’s 10 O’Clock News. Another subject of investigation is the overly well-paid BBC go-to ‘expert’ on immigration Jonathan Portes.
Easton is so overtly and ceaselessly biased always exuding complacency and laziness.
Buy it now.
I have never its like before.
Something must be happening out there.
The unsayable is being said.
The BBC must be actually worrying about its charter renewal.
The campaign must be for a licence reduction to £100 and an end to their destruction of the local and national press with their news websites.
“The campaign must be for a licence reduction to £100 ”
—
While there is much to applaud in what you write, this seems… ‘modest’… in ambition, possibly? Such a level will serve only to enable senior management to sustain all that is wrong with the status quo but provide excuses to cut services, such as they are, on the back of continued compelled funding no matter what.
It has probably already been said but needs reiterating.
If any area of a once homogenous nation ceases to be lived in by the indigenous inhabitants in a majority it becomes something other than an integral part of that nation.
Maybe better maybe worse but it becomes different.
Such a situation is fast approaching in London. A city state in the making with is losing contact with the shires. In my small shire town there are very many people of all ages who have never been to London and have no desire to go.
No historical precedent anywhere gives cause for optimism .
Human nature is unchanging and we have every reason to be wary.
Liberal fantasists who wish the world to be as they desire have played a dangerous game with an ancient nation.
In that TELEGRAPH (19/10/13) article we learn that the BBC (and Guradian) were paid to endorse the EU Commisioners report on immigration. How odd is that ?
The EU report costing 71 million pounds (for just 276 pages), will allow more freedom for migrants to visit the UK as a planned EU legal challenge). ‘The analysis was written by two private consultancies and published last week by the office of Laszlo Andor, the European Commissioner in charge of employment and social affairs. Mr Andor, a socialist, is bringing a legal action through the European Court of Justice against the Government for allegedly discriminating against EU migrants over their rights to claim social security benefits.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10391164/The-EU-the-consultants-the-report-on-benefit-tourists-and-71m-in-fees.html
*The Telegraph reported that the NHS of non-active EU migrants is estimated at (just) £1.5 billion.
i.e. BBC costs 3Bn a year.
As of March 2011 the UK national debt for every household was £1900 per year just to pay off debt interest, (the full debt burden on every single person in the UK was £14,814 each and increasing). Now in October 2013: We owe £19,135* for every man, woman and child in the country (or more than £42,322 for every person in employment). That is already over 900 billion of debt that we can never pay off. The benefit system of EU ‘rights’ will cripple the country and the BBC is involved in yet more EU propaganda playing down any concern about more EU regulation ‘rights-for all’ to come to the UK unhindered until collapse. *http://www.debtbombshell.com/
Yet the BBC always pushes for more integration, no matter what the cost, no matter what the debt to push for the shangri-la socialist republic of Europe when the BBC already has condemned Russia as right wing (gay rights). Was it not Trotsky that said that the western economies must fail to bring about their new communist utopia. Are we there yet, surely we are by now?