Wonder what you make of this news?

“Sebastian Coe is today being urged to step down from some of his current work commitments if he wants the role of BBC Trust chairman. The former track star and London 2012 chief is the frontrunner to replace Lord Patten, who stood down three weeks ago after heart surgery. However, MPs are today urging Lord Coe to step down from some of his 20 other jobs to dedicate his time to the demanding role.”

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

The More The Merrier


Will the BBC spend a day pouring relentlessly over this report, as they did with the ‘racial prejudice ‘ one,  that over the past 10 years overcrowding has become a huge problem:


The Telegraph reports:

Figures show surge in ‘overcrowded’ homes

More than three million people now live in a household with at least five other individuals, according to figures from the ONS

The number of people living in households with six or more occupants has surged by a quarter in the last decade, providing further evidence of how Britain is becoming an overcrowded nation.

New statistics from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that more than three million people now live in a household with at least five other individuals.

An analysis of Census data from England and Wales showed there were 543,000 households with at least six residents, making it the fastest-growing category of housing with a 25 per cent jump in 10 years.

The ONS said the surge was thought to be down to “economic or cultural factors”, reflecting more young couples living with parents because they cannot afford a home of their own or older couples living with an adult offspring – the so-called “sandwich generation” in which adults care for their aged parents as well as their own children.

The phenomenon will also include unrelated people living under the same roof, which is widely seen among immigrant workers in more expensive areas of the country such as London.



This is why people are concerned about immigration…its not racism but problems such as housing…..and yesterday the BBC examined in detail the price of housing…dodging the ‘immigration factor’ most of the time.

So we have overcrowding, over-priced housing, a massive need to build huge numbers of houses to home the massive influx of over 200,000 net immigrants a year…to be built where?  And paid for by whom?

And to raise concerns about that is ‘racist’?

Where is that rational, calm debate about immigration the likes of Yvette Cooper demands, just before denouncing UKIP’s stance on immigration?







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

Beware what anyone tells you about Brazil

Social Attitudes Survey

The BBC reports:

One third of Britons ‘admit being racially prejudiced’

Nearly a third of people in Britain admit being racially prejudiced, research has suggested.

The British Social Attitudes survey found the proportion had increased since the start of the century, returning to the level of 30 years ago.

Some 30% of the 2,000 people polled by social research company NatCen described themselves as either “very” or “a little” race prejudiced.

Penny Young, chief executive of NatCen, said the findings were “troubling”.



An organisation called ‘Natcen’ has conducted a poll of people in Britain asking them to reveal if they think they are racially prejudiced.

Now you would expect the BBC to leap upon the results which claim that 30% of British people admit to being racist.

The BBC did indeed leap upon the results but contrary to expectations the analysis has been fair and critical of the poll and its interpretation by various interests.

However the BBC did fall into its usual habit of providing the context, nuances and analysis in programmes like ‘Today’ but when it comes to the news bulletins all that good work is thrown away and the message we get is that ‘30% of Brits declare themsleves racist…a level not seen since the ’80’s…this could be explained by UKIP stirring up anti-immigrant feeling.’

Dan Hodges notices the same habit…one he says Sky also falls into:

What was amazing was the way it was clear neither Sky nor the BBC were taking the slightest bit of notice of their own output. They were engaged in a logistical exercise – “Let’s make sure we don’t miss the returning officer from Torquay” – rather than an analytical one.



We’ll start by looking at the poll first and see if its claims hold water.


First thing to note is that this poll usually comes out later in the year.  So that must immediately raise suspicions when it is now being released only days after UKIP trounce the pro-immigration parties….and the interpretation is that anti-immigration rhetoric increases racism…therefore UKIP is to blame.


In this graphic the pollsters show how prejudiced people with different political allegiances are….note the ‘other‘, being the highest,  coloured a  fetching UKIP purple…no doubt a deliberate choice to smear them by association…..just how true these stats are is questionable…….I know many Labour voters who readily express racist views….I doubt very much that there is such a gap, if any, between the parties’ supporters…especially as they can change allegiances so often.


The next thing that might confirm the suspicion that this is a political stitch up is just who releases the information.  It isn’t Natcen themselves as they tell us:

Data released by the Guardian in May 2014 reveals there is more self-reported racial prejudice in Britain than there was 10 years ago.

The Guardian is the sole recipient of the information from Natcen….a mainly taxpayer funded organisation and supposedly independent….but one which is ‘troubled by the results’.

It looks as if the Guardian has released the data at a time most politically convenient to its own causes and has been interpreted by the Guardian in a way that doesn’t actually match up with reality.


This is their report title:



So racism is on the rise?  That’s not born out at all by the data as you’ll see later.

They then use this photograph of the EDL underneath the title…..

English Defence League


The EDL was not racist, it was an organisation set up to campaign against islamic extremism and so should not be used by the Guardian to illustrate an article on racism.


Nearly all the voices in the Guardian article are immigrants or from ethnic minorities…here is a sample of their rather poisonous narrative:

Omar Khan, acting director of the Runnymede Trust – Britain’s leading independent race equality thinktank – said the data should be noted by all the main parties.

“This nails the lie that the problem of racism has been overcome in Britain or that somehow when Jeremy Clarkson said the things he did it is some sort of anomaly that does not tap into a wider problem.


So we’re all racist…if you’re white that is.


The white voice given a say?….One carefully selected to portray a certain image by our clever metropolitan elite in the Guardian offices who tell us…..

“What we need to do is get better at creating public spaces where people can mix, at serving really diverse communities and addressing some of the underlying problems of poverty and isolation.”

Christine Deeming

However, some people remain unconvinced. Christine Deeming, 71, is waiting at a bus stop around the corner from the polling station in Smethwick.

“If I got the chance and the money I would leave tomorrow,” she said. “I have been here all my life but, you know, it’s not Great Britain any more is it? … To be honest I feel like the foreigner these days.”


Ah yes…you’re meant to think…. old, white, working class, ‘uneducated’, ignorant….therefore she can be dismissed as ‘prejudiced’.


So that’s the Guardian…so much so usual for that Tabloid-like paper.


But how does the actual poll stand up to scrutiny?  Not well at all.


Firstly the results don’t show more people are prejudiced, they show only that people are ‘more prepared to admit racial prejudice’.

And just how many are ‘prejudiced’?  30% or 3%?

Natcen claims 30%….but admits that the reality is that 3% described themselves as “very prejudiced”, 27% said they were “a little prejudiced”, and 68% said they were “not prejudiced at all”

So only 3% admit to being very prejudiced….but what you might ask is ‘a little prejudiced’?  That could cover a whole range of alleged sins.

What did the people think was ‘racist’…..what were they admitting to?  We don’t know.

Natcen claims the rise in racism started in 2001 post 9/11….if they claim that link then the ‘racism’ is not racism but more than likely a natural concern about Islam when Muslims seem to have a launched a war against the West.  Hardly an irrational fear or prejudice. Certainly not racism….Islam is not a race for one thing.

Similarly the claimed link to mass immigration…the concerns about the NHS, housing, schools, jobs and wages being undercut are all perfectly legitimate, rational ones …and not therefore ‘racism’.

It is almost a racing cert that what  those polled classed as ‘a little bit prejudiced’ was in fact a result of the guilt imposed upon them by years of the left barraging them with accusations that such thinking is racist… therefore any admission of ‘racism’ is likely an unwarranted guilty feeling that they may be ‘a little bit prejudiced’ when they are merely reflecting the propaganda of the left….there has been no one to stand up to defend their views…the BBC joining in with the Left’s views.

But just who are these people in the polls?

You may well be wondering how we carry out the survey and select our sample. Each year, addresses are randomly selected from the Post Office’s postcode address file. We write to the inhabitants, and then it is up to our interviewers to knock on their doors and convince people to take part. We usually interview around 3,300 people each year.

So the people could be anyone, any race, and indeed immigrants…Natcen tells us:

Once the survey is over we compare the profile of the people we have spoken to with the true demographic makeup of Britain (as recorded by the census) to make sure that our results are properly representative.


One conclusion from the poll was that the inner cities were less prejudiced…but why might that be?  Is it becausse they are all remarkably progressive and cosmopolitan or some other reason?

The reason is because there is a high percentage of immigrants and ethnic minorities in those locations, a high churn of population who don’t care and a rich, metropolitian elite who also don’t care as they aren’t ‘touched’ by immigration in a directly negative fashion…..and few of whom will admit to being racist.


There is a fairly disgraceful slur being spread about those who oppose immigration….that it is mainly the old, white, uneducated, working class who are so prejudiced….and that the highly educated, cultured, well-off elite are far less so…..a slur readily accepted by the BBC who seem prepared to demonise some sectors of society in their drive against UKIP.

The problem is of course that this poll is based purely on self admitted prejudice….and as we saw that may not in fact be prejudice but ‘fair comment’….but another problem is that people may either be lying or have a genuine belief, but mistaken, that they are not prejudiced…when in fact, naturally, they are.

Such an attitude is a recognised fault in these type of polls:

Aversive racism is characteristic of many White Americans who possess strong egalitarian values and who believe that they are not prejudiced. But many also possess negative feelings and beliefs of which they are either unaware or try to dissociate from their images of themselves as being non-prejudiced.

As for mainly ‘old’ people being so prejudiced…who is it that actually carries out most of the racist attacks?

60% of the attacks are perpetrated by children or young adults under 25, many of whom are active in gangs.


What of the statistics themselves….Natcen claims racism is shown to be on the rise from 2001, before that it was falling.

How then do they explain these police records of racist incidents from 1996:


Recent s95 statistics showed that in 2003/04, there were 52,694 recorded racist incidents in England and Wales (Home Office, 2005). The number of recorded incidents, unsurprisingly, varied between forces, in line with their size and resident population. Figure 2.1 shows that between 1997/98 and 1998/99, recorded racist incidents in England and Wales rose by two-thirds, increasing from 13,878 to 23,049. In the following year, incidents doubled to 47,814. They rose by 11 per cent in 2000/01, and by a further two per cent in 2001/02 to 54,351.

However since 2004 the recorded incidents have fallen:
The overall number of racist incidents recorded by the police decreased by two per cent from 56,387 in 2008/09 to 55,056 in 2009/10.
The overall number of racist incidents recorded by the police decreased by seven per cent from 54,872 in 2009/10 to 51,187 in 2010/11.

The overall number of racist incidents recorded by the police decreased by 8 per cent from 51,585 in 2010/11 to 47,678 in 2011/12.

So the reverse pattern to Natcen’s claims is shown by actual recorded racist incidents…a rise pre-2001 and a fall shortly after….continuing to the present day.



It is fairly obvious that Natcen’s, and the Guardian’s, claims are unfounded and based more on wishful thinking and a creative interpretation of the ‘evidence’ than any substantial proof of a genuine rise in racism or racist feelings.

To conflate concerns about immigration and Islam with racism is lazy and dishonest, designed to promote a certain political agenda as illustrated by the Guardian’s take on this which pronounced that racism is on the rise…driven by UKIP’s immigration policies.


Interestingly today I heard that there had been a poll in Brazil along similar lines. (19 mins)

The result?

97% claimed they were not prejudiced.

A similar number, 99%, claimed they knew someone who was.

Somebody was lying.

Brazil is famously racially divided.

The BBC journo’s conclusion…‘Beware what anyone tells you about Brazil.’


The same could be said for polls conducted by left wing organisations filtered through a left wing newspaper.



But how did the BBC report this poll?  I have already said they did do some good analysis and raised some challenges to the pollster’s claims…let down by the news bulletin’s simplistic and seemingly more ideological, pro-immigration approach to reporting the poll.

John Humphrys on the Today programme pretty much dismissed the poll as worthless in his interview and forced an admission out of the Natcen rep. that it was not more people admitting racism but:

People ‘more prepared to admit racial prejudice’


Nicky Campbell of course tackled the subject but surprisingly drew a line when his ‘expert’ commenter from an ‘African think tank’ claimed only white people could be racist, and the programme was quite fair in its approach….however clips taken from the show to use in later news bulletins highlighted a call attacking the British attitude to Muslims from someone it’d be hard to take a shine to (38 mins 40 secs) with his self righteous, naively sanctimonious views…he isn’t prejudiced himself because he has a very close Muslim friend….the rest of us are just ignorant and don’t understand Islam.


Derbyshire and Fogarty both followed on but just accepted the figures from the polls and no doubt Jeremy Vine, Bacon, 5Live Drive and Nolan would have followed suit….I hazard a guess there based on past experience.

The BBC certainly went to town on this story despite it being old hat and not showing that alleged increase in racism at all.

Here is the Mail in 2012:

Is Britain a racist nation? One in three Brits ‘admits to being racist’, according to poll



The best I’ve saved till last….someone you would never expect to diss the poll has come out very definitely against it…Mark Easton.

I have often criticised Easton for his decidedly pro-immigration, pro-Europe reports, so if he says he can’t support the conclusions of a report that prima facie undermines UKIP’s position by alleging they are successfully stirring up race hate then something must be seriously wrong with that report.

Easton asks:

Is Britain really becoming more racist?

Journalists like their stories to fit into an accepted current narrative. With domestic politics dominated by concerns over Europe and immigration, and the rise of the far-right elsewhere in the EU, it is understandable that editors are alert to evidence of rising racism in Britain.

But today’s figures are not evidence of rising racism. In fact, if anything, the trend is of flat or declining levels of self-reported racial prejudice.

To suggest that the latest figures represent a return to the racism levels of the 80s is clearly premature.

There is another difficulty with this data – it is a self-reported measure. We cannot be sure what people mean when they agree they are “a little bit prejudiced against people of other races”. Could it be that the phrase today has as much to do with anxiety about the arrival of East European migrants as a belief that those from a different racial group are inferior?


Flat or declining levels of self reported prejudice….and a confusion over exactly what that ‘prejudice’ actually is.

The complete opposite of the conclusions reached by Natcen and the Guardian….and trumpeted unfortunately by the rest of the media…..including the BBC in its news bulletins…..only saved from total embarrassment by Humphrys, Campbell and Easton.


It is unfortunate that not all responsible Media haven’t taken the time to critique the claims made by Natcen and the Guardian….the highly damaging effects of those claims can be seen in this article in the Telegraph which has taken the bait and declared that Britain is getting more racist:

The deeply distressing and rapid rise in racial prejudice among the British people over the past 13 years maps on to a period of uncontrolled mass immigration. Cause and effect could not be clearer. Nor could the solution. I only hope it’s not too late.


Just who are those ‘British people’ though?





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

The Recruit

Climate Change


David Attenborough has long had a fan club amongst the climate change fraternity….they had already co-opted the BBC to their cause with Roger Harrabin’s help but  felt they needed the likes of David Attenborough, TV Royalty, to successfully sell the global warming message to a doubting public exploiting the status, authority and respect he has built up over the decades.

He finally surrendered to the lobbyists and is now busy promoting the ‘science’….not all are convinced that he hasn’t sold his own soul in doing so:

From WUWT:

Has David Attenborough Become A Propaganda Mouthpiece Promoting Climate Fear?

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.

David Attenborough was my favorite wildlife cinematographer and each year I fed my students numerous clips to make biology and ecology come alive. Researching the plight of the polar bears, I began to worry that “my hero” had decided to use his spectacular wildlife videos to promote catastrophic climate change.

The first example that raised my suspicions was his portrayal of polar bears feeding on walruses, with a narration suggesting it was a new behavior desperately driven by climate change. But for us ecologists who know better: shame on you David Attenborough. He ignored documented wildlife history, and cherry-picked a dramatic scene to promote climate fear.

Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows polar bears have been hunting walruses since recorded history, and most certainly before that time.

Shameful propaganda Sir David!



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

The Science Of Broadcasting Science



Via Bishop Hill.


This article examines the changes that have been wrought on the BBC’s science broadcasting….essentially the dumbing down and the belief that the audience can’t understand the science and therefore should just ‘obey’ the diktats of scientists and their TV promoters:

The excellent 1996 Horizon episode on Fermat’s Last Theorem was directed by Simon Singh. Whereas Singh in the 1990s had high expectations of his audience, his more recent comments suggest that his view of his fellow humans has diminished:

I suspect that climate numpties (numpty (noun): a reckless, absent-minded or unwise person) are far more common than we might think, and they can be found in the most surprising of places.

This became apparent to me when I was having lunch one day with five physics undergraduates from a London college. They were clearly bright, devoted to physics and fully paid-up fans of the scientific method. However, not one of them was committed to the notions that climate change was happening, that it was largely caused by human activity (eg the burning of fossil fuels) and that there would be trouble ahead unless something changed.

I was baffled – why would little versions of me (for I was a physics undergraduate over two decades ago) not accept manmade climate change when it was backed by overwhelming evidence and endorsed by the vast majority of climate experts, Nobel Laureates and even David Attenborough?

A climate sceptic can either be intelligent or honourable, said Singh, but not both at the same time.

This gesture, like so many other comments made by science commentators/communicators reveals much about how they see the public. Singh’s injunction to the 5 delinquent physicists was not to find out for themselves what the state of the science is — i.e. ‘trust no one’ — but to obey the edicts issued by David King and David Attenborough


 From informing to performing

Put simply, science as it is conceived of by the BBC’s commissioning editors is not a way of understanding material phenomena. It has become instead something to gawp at in slack-jawed wonderment. It has become a spectacle. The transformation here is in the broadcasters’ expectations of the public. Over the course of 14 years, the BBC’s estimation of its audience diminished.


As well as reflecting the broadcasters’ diminished estimation of the viewing public, the transformation of British science broadcasting reflects the transformation of British science. It is remarkable that the descent of Horizon occurs over the era in which the cultural authority of science increased, while institutions like the BBC and Royal Society increasingly seem to express contempt for the public. Whereas Britain’s public institutions once sought to elevate the public, they now condescend, hector and belittle them.



The article finishes off with the thought that climate change has become something that institutions like the BBC have made so essential to their credibility and identity that it just has to be true regardless of whether it is or not:

There are many lessons in Ehrlich’s failures, which reveal the ‘politics and ideology’ at work in the ideas that are still promoted by the BBC and Royal Society. They have not been thrown away by Horizon. Indeed, just as climate change rescued Ehrlich’s ideas, climate change and neomalthusianism ideas seem to have rescued the institutions that identify themselves with them. That’s not to say that ‘climate change is not happening’, but that if it wasn’t, The Royal Society, The BBC, the institutions that fund public science, and so many tired old broadcasters might have to invent it.




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

Carbon Criminal Criminals


I think this could be filed under ‘Mission Creep’ for the climate alarmists who find ever more ingenious ways of inflicting their madness upon us.

Nothing to do with BBC bias but an astonishing illustration of how the lunacy is taking over every aspect of life……they now want to measure the carbon footprint of criminals….putting an environmental cost on crime…and they speculate that perhaps police could respond not to the seriousness of the crime but to the amount of carbon emitted by the perp….no seriously…via Bishop Hill:

From one of our illustrious MPs (Labour):

In terms of crime itself, I think what they are getting at in the carbon cost of particular crimes is that murder is by far the top of the list, serious wounding second. Serious wounding there is a lot more of so it generates a much bigger carbon footprint. Do you think we will ever get to the day, for instance, where police response times will be analysed not just on the physical and emotional nature of the crime but the carbon nature of the crime? What I am thinking is that the analysis showed that the carbon footprint of crime by non-dwelling is higher than crime by dwelling itself. Do you think we would ever make crime in a non-dwelling a higher response?





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

The Independent BBC?



We know that the Tories allegedly joined forces with the Guardian to spread racist smears about UKIP….but it turns out there might have been a third person in that marriage of convenience:

David Cameron woos BBC News chief at Chequers and ‘says he relies on him as antidote to Eurosceptic Press’

David Cameron will have been pleased the BBC wheeled on EU enthusiasts Tony Blair, Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine to portray the victory of Ukip as a ‘populist’ aberration.

The PM entertained BBC news chief James Harding at Chequers, telling him – according to Broadcasting House talk – that he relied on the corporation to provide an antidote to the Eurosceptic views of some newspapers and voters.


The BBC in cahoots with a political party to do down another political party during an election?

according to Broadcasting House talk ‘…..if it was found to be true, and Nigel Farage should be making a hell of a stink about this allegation to find out if it is, who would go?  Surely Tony Hall not just Harding.

The BBC might claim that they Cameron may have made such a suggestion but they didn’t act upon it…..some might counter that with evidence from the BBC’s actual coverage which might be less than supportive of the BBC’s case.

Probably one of the most damaging and dangerous allegations about the BBC that could be made….so it owuld be interesthing to see if anything is made of this by UKIP or other Media.





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

Desperate Dan


Dan Hodges has become ever more desperate at the prospect of UKIP getting a permanent place in the hearts and minds, and on the voting slips, of the British people….even more so than the BBC, almost.

He’s denounced them as racist, and when he realised that this was not such a good idea as UKIP routed the other parties and he was ridiculed by thousands of comments under his articles, he’s decided to claim well, actually, not many people really voted for UKIP at all…apparently the Tories won the elections.


Anyway here is a comment, from ‘dissidentjunk’, under Hodge’s cry in the wilderness which might be of interest…..


dissidentjunk4 hours ago

The BBC’s election coverage is poor because BBC news reporting is no longer “old hack” journalism; it is, more or less, propaganda engineered by over-politicised reporters and commentators.

Many moons ago, when I trained as a journalist, I was taught by old Fleet Street hacks that journalism was about asking a group of wildly disparate people the same set of questions about an issue and giving the answers to another set of people, always in mind of what the other set of people really wanted to know. The mark of a good journalist, I was taught, was that they understood that if they didn’t know what the other set of people wanted to know, they should go out and damn find out before they did anything else.

When you adhere to this formula, any kind of journalism is automatically fairly impartial because a journalist is merely a conduit that passes information from one group of people to another.

The BBC has three problems: one, it no longer conveys information in this straight manner; two, it doesn’t ask wildly disparate people the same questions; and three, it has no idea what the other (ie. the public) really wants to know.

Instead, the BBC feeds personal prejudice and attitudes into the information it conveys, it asks people different questions or asks the same questions to the same types of people, and then it tells the public what it thinks they should hear. This is, fundamentally, propaganda.

Any decent journo that had been taught by the old guard would have known UKIP stood to gain in the Euro elections … because they, as I, would have been taught that the best way to gauge the mood of “the street” is to be “on the street”: in Britain, this tends to be pubs (little wonder Farage has caught the zeitgeist); in other parts of the world, it’s coffee shops.

But journalism in Britain has become this strange commentariat …

The best beat reporters were always working class because they had a direct connection through environment, family and friends in their locality. At one time, these reporters used to be recruited up to Fleet Street so they took that approach with them onto nationals.

The rot really set in when “the media” became an upper-middle-class career goal. Okay, you would have always had an toff editor on a national, but the lower reporting ranks would have been quite gritty. Now, we have reporters and journalists that use their air time or print space to engage in a kind of *philosophical exploration of the mind*, which is what I would argue our friend Dan here does.

Of course, it is interesting and we are all commenting on his piece, but where exactly is the journalism here? Why hasn’t Dan contacted the BBC and asked them why their election night journalism was, to his mind, so strange? Why hasn’t he spoken to Sky and asked them what their editorial policy is surrounding election nights?

Where is the information that we, the public, could use to inform ourselves?

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

It’s Gonna be a Long Year

One year to the general election….we could probably fill an open thread every day with the BBC’s bias as the charities, pressure groups and think tanks clamour for airtime, so readily given, to pronounce the coming apocalypse if the Tories get voted into power again….only today we heard the anthem for doomed youth blasting out on the BBC as yet another left leaning charity, Save The Children, warns us that welfare cuts and the cost of living crisis are going to  ‘sentence’ the young to a life of poverty in the near future….sounding remarkably like a Labour Party broadcast.



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

The People Have Spoken…The Bastards!



As noted in the last post the big battalions are mobilising to defend the European Supremacy and Domination over us.

You might note a couple of things…that when the die-hards list the benefits of the European Adventure the BBC doesn’t counter with the disadvantages….that when UKIP, and its voters, are called nasty and racist the BBC doesn’t step in to challenge that….that when some dissembling politician says he is in favour of ‘controlled immigration’ and that UKIP wants to stop all immigration and start a race war the BBC again doesn’t correct that claim.


You could have heard all those claims, and more,  made today in an interview on the Today programme between Jim Naughtie and Tony Blair (08:10).

Why Tony Blair should be given prime spot on the Today programme is beyond me….or would be if I didn’t think the BBC had an agenda.

You might think that the BBC had dragged in Blair to point the finger of blame at him for the mess the political parties find themselves now in due to his policy of open door immigration and ever closer submission to the EU behemoth…but you’d be wrong.

It turned out to be a lightweight session with Naughtie lobbing in a few feeder questions to allow Blair to justify mass immigration, staying in Europe and to smear UKIP and its voters.

Naughtie asked the questions, Blair gave his spiel and they moved on to the next one without Naughtie challenging anything.  Job done.

Should the EU hand back some powers to the nation states?   Yes…but…..we can’t really do anything serious without Europe….we must take on those who are  anti-Europe, anti-Immigration….confront, expose and take them on.

You want a more positive case made for Europe?  Yes…..the rationale for Europe is stronger than ever….it’s all about power…weight, influence and power…you need alliances to exercise that…Europe is the answer (not NATO or the US? Naughtie doesn’t ask)   and this was the man who spurned the UN & Europe…..


[Note here Blair admits the purpose of Europe was to diminish the nation state]

Isn’t the likelihood of exit higher than ever?  No…and it is against the interests of the country.

What would you advise Ed Miliband to do?  Say no to referendum and keep the borders wide open.

Nick Clegg tried that argument and look what happened.  The problem with the LibDems is that their failure had nothing to do with Europe…or Immigration…their problem is that they are too right wing.

Did you make a ‘mistake’ about immigration when you were in office?   No,  you have to have proper controls but to allow that to trend into anti-immigrant feeling is a huge mistake…..if you look a little deeper at UKIP’s facade you get something a little nasty and unpleasant…..

Nothing nasty and unpleasant about Blair & Co….


…and Blair excitedly tells us……just look at the wonders of London and the incredible vibrancy and cosmopolitan feel that immigrants have brought to it.

So no difficult questions, no challenges to his answers and no counters to the smears he propagates against anyone who wants to limit immigration or divorce Europe… accusations that Blair himself is the architect of this ‘disaster’.

Note Naughtie suggesting Blair’s immigration policy was merely a ‘mistake’….that suggests they had a genuine attempt at implementing a suitable immigration policy but got it wrong….whereas we know that the strategy was a deliberate and calculated attempt to carry out a policy the results of which were known and expected…..mass immigration, job losses and wage cuts for the working class, housing shortages and social problems.

Blair says he is all in favour, and always has been, of controlled immigration…an obvious lie….Naughtie said nothing.

Blair then claims UKIP wants to stop all immigration and incites anti-immigrant feeling….again not true….they accept immigration but want it controlled…just as Blair said he does.  Again nothing from Naughtie.

When Blair calls UKIP racist Naughtie again says nothing…and yet there is nothing racist about UKIP’s policies…to conflate a few tweets from fringe members with party policy is highly dishonest….there are just as many such people in any other party which have their own fringe elements.


Just another ‘interview’ from a Labour supporting Naughtie on the pro-immigration, pro-Europe BBC feeding questions to the boss and giving him a platform to perform.

The machine is in motion.  It’s going to be a long year.




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