Thanks to Stewgreen for the link to the NUJ’s guidelines on how journalists should report on race.
This piece of advice provoked a thought…..
‘A fairer term to use for someone who has outstayed their visa is “undocumented” or “irregular”.’
Hmmm…but the BBC uses the term to describe illegal immigrants and not people who overstay their visa…who wouldn’t be migrants as such.
And why aren’t Israeli settlers ‘undocumented migrants’ in the BBC’s eyes? What’s the difference between the Jewish settlers flooding into the West Bank and the Mexican settlers flooding into the US? Is it just that they are Jewish? BBC anti-Semitism? Must be.
Oh, and actual ‘illegal immigrants’ should not be called ‘undocumented’ but ‘refused’…
Don’t use terms such as “bogus”, “illegal” or “failed” asylum seeker. If necessary, use “refused” asylum seeker instead.
That’s assuming of course that they have been caught in the first place.
Then there’s this…
‘Use the term “immigrant” with caution, it is still wrongly used to describe people born in Britain. Asylum seeker, refugee or EU migrant worker? Get the terminology right. Asylum seeker is a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another country. A refugee is someone who was an asylum seeker but who has now been granted refugee status.An EU migrant worker is someone who has moved to the UK to work. Their stay in the UK may be temporary or longer term.’
The BBC mixes in economic migrants with refugees and calls them all ‘refugees’…even acknowledging this but deciding, off their own bat, as this is not a UN definition of refugee, that because they face a level of poverty in their own land they are seeking ‘asylum’ from that poverty…thus they are really asylum seekers despite being purely economic migrants….so let’s let the whole world in because the BBC journalists make it up as they go along to suit themselves and their own liberal elitist agenda.
‘Get the terminology right‘? LOL
The NUJ/BBC could usefully add another category:
“Person who moves to another country, but rather than assimilate and integrate they retain their own language, customs, traditions and demand special treatment to accommodate them, plus try to impose their ways on the host population. The term to be used here is colonist and a person who helps them is a collaborator.
P.S. Israelis can’t be migrants or settlets in their own country…
What is the correct term for a young man who leaves his own country, crosses numerous borders, does not claim asylum in any of them, and then heads to a camp in northern France, where he plans to hide in the back of a lorry until he reaches Britain, where he can live “undocumented” amongst people from the very country he left?
I’d suggest “piss taking bastard”. Is that too harsh?
If I try to enter BBC premises by falsification , either by by verbal claiming or forged documents , am I bogus or just refused ?
I reproduce my earlier comment from the old Midweek thread
NUJ race reporting guidelines and EFJ manifesto
EFJ= European Federation of Journalists
If you google ‘NUJ race reporting guidelines’ it doesn’t take long to see that the practices we see are institutionalized. Basically they insist on leaving out the essential data and, if in doubt, consulting ‘community groups’ to make sure they have it right. When dealing with ‘racist groups’ the consultation would be with anti-fascist groups to inform us as to what the racists are doing. It’s all presented as if it was the most reasonable thing in the world.
The problem here is the double standards cos whilst going soft on immigrants the press seem to ramp up the extremist language against anyone challeniging immigration ie use “emotive, value-laden language” and push bogus stats like the ‘hate crime REPORTED’ stats instead of actual CONVICTION stats.
Global Pants just has its top of the hour headlines.
Number 1 was Don’s MOAB does Arab, makes noise, and they have assembled three dozen unlucky losers.
Then something else, then something else… then… a British lady tourist is killed by a Palestinian in Jerusalem (I think).
It will be interesting what NUJ priority set came out with that order. Maybe Mishal drew them up?
I wonder how the BBC will cover it, if at all.
“Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of English socialism. . . The purpose of Newspesk was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of English socialism, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”
George Orwell, 1984.
“Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of English socialism. . . The purpose of Newspesk was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of English socialism, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”
George Orwell, 1984.
Totally sick to back teeth with all this emotive language shit . Just call them wasters from wherever they come from.
1. Too lazy to make a go of it in their own shit hole of a country otherwise it wouldn’t be a shit hole scrounging cunts. OK maybe not all of them But most of the cunts. Pig sick of hearing about them. And sick of the fucking bbc et al not using the term ‘Muslim terrorist’s’ for Muslim terrorist’s. ….When they do then and only then can the problem be addressed. i.e. They murder innocent people because their book tells them too.
It is one thing to flee with one’s family young & old from the destruction of one’s house & livelihood, pushing all one’s property in a battered shopping trolley from a Syrian town or South Sudanese village rampaged by mad Islamic warmongers. It is quite another to be a fit healthy guy travelling from outside Europe up through several safe countries to camp in Calais & threaten lorry drivers to try to get illegally to Britain. The latter are just chancers & I’d say cowards by abandoning their families & not staying to make any effort to improve their own countries that are rarely in the dire state of Syria & South Sudan.
That the BBC insists on calling both ‘asylum seekers’ is a gross calumny against the poor folk in the first category – many of them Christians.