A Biased BBC reader notes…

“Reporting on the grilling of the three intelligence chiefs before a Parliamentary Committee these were the newsworthy headlines reported under that heading immediately after, on three web sites:”

BBC’s top headline: 

Web inventor criticises spy agencies

Sky News headline:

Leaks by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden have played into the hands of terrorists, say Britain’s spy chiefs.

ITV’s top headline

Spy chiefs believe Snowden leaks caused damage…

No bias whatsoever, right?

You have to hand it to the BBC, they are determined to push the global warming meme even when it is..erm, cooling!

The levels of gases in the atmosphere that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric CO2 grew more rapidly last year than its average rise over the past decade. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide also broke previous records  Thanks to carbon dioxide and these other gases, the WMO says the warming effect on our climate has increased by almost a third since 1990.

Let’s stop at the first line and weigh up the sort of contrary scientific opinion the BBC does not like to find safe for. Why does the BBC feel such a compunction to continually present scientific OPINION as scientific FACT?

Ah, will the BBC ever get over the death of ol’ Yasser – that Jew hating terrorist loving piece of Palestinian slime?  …sorry, I meant that much loved and sadly missed Leader of the most oppressed people ever. I mean when BBC reporter Barbara Plett openly wept at his funeral, those were our tears she expressed, right?

Anyhoo….the issue of Arafat’s death has been a tad tricky for the BBC.  The fact that he died from Aids — or so his doctor said — seemed unsatisfactory for the comrades so far better to fantasise on those conspiracy tales that those evil Jooos had poisoned him with polonium.

You have to admire the way the BBC can take an issue and spin it to suit the trenchant anti-Coalition narrative that lies at the heart of all it has done since 2010. Take the story of that for ‘cor blimey” Brit Mohammed al Mohammed.

Somalian-born (natch!) Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed is believed to have evaded police observation by disguising himself as a woman in Islamic dress. The 27-year-old went to pray at a mosque in West London on Friday and has not been seen since, Scotland Yard announced last night.

So we have a suspected Jihadist going to a MOSQUE and then evading police scrutiny by dressing up in a Burqa. BBC not interested in why this Somalian terrorist was going to a Mosque and what that may say about what is preached within its confines. BBC not interested in whether the Burqa should be banned from the public square when it is used for such evasion. BBC not interested in why Mr Mohamed is even IN the UK.  No —- the BIG issue for the BBC is the efficacy of the TPims put in place by the Coalition. So, another Somalian poses a threat to the UK population and the BBC turns its guns on Theresa May.

Here you go, as requested! Seen any bias? Well, could you MISS it?

64% of Britons are satisfied with life.

The BBC has been pushing Labour’s ‘cost of living crisis’ hard recently (Ed Miliband: Only Labour can secure ‘recovery for all’) but seems not to want to make much of  this:

Britons happier than before financial crisis as contentment plummets in Europe – OECD

OECD says quality of life in the UK has been only “modestly affected” by the global financial crisis with happiness and even trust in government rising – in marked contrast with its neighbours in the Eurozone

The BBC’s response to the OECD’s report was very muted compared to its extensive and one sided coverage of immigration statistics.

Financial crisis hits happiness levels

Countries worst hit by the global financial crisis saw their happiness levels fall as a result, a survey has suggested.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), levels of “life satisfaction” fell sharply between 2007 and 2012 in countries like Greece and Spain.

Trust in governments also deteriorated over that time.

The OECD said the findings showed the far-reaching impact of the crisis.

However, the UK saw its happiness levels rise 1% between 2007 and 2012, putting it in the 20% of happiest countries in the OECD, alongside the likes of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand.

The UK also bucked the trend by showing a rise in trust in the government, up from 36% to 47% between 2007 and 2011.

“The global economic crisis has had a profound impact on people’s well-being, reaching far beyond the loss of jobs and income, and affecting citizens’ satisfaction with their lives and their trust in governments,” the 34-member organisation said.

Note how it emphasizes the bad news and only then slipped in the ‘but Britain is doing better‘……and note that sly ‘the UK saw its happiness levels rise 1% between 2007 and 2012‘.

Satisfaction risen…but by a mere 1%…nothing to cheer about eh?  Let’s downplay the truth.

Why not report what was actually said?:

‘The percentage of British people declaring being very satisfied with their lives increased from 63 per cent to 64 per cent.’

Which tells us that a good majority think their lives aren’t so bad as Labour tell us, via the BBC.

Immigration has cost a minimum of £62 billion between 2001 and 2011

If you’ve been listening to the radio you may have heard the BBC telling us that ‘immigration’, not just EU immigration, has benefited this country as ‘immigrants’ pay more in tax than they take in benefits.

Recent immigrants to UK ‘make net contribution’

Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a “substantial” contribution to public finances, a report says.
The study by University College London said recent immigrants were less likely to claim benefits and live in social housing than people born in Britain.
The authors said rather than being a “drain”, their contribution had been “remarkably strong”.

The trouble is ‘immigration’ as a whole does not benefit us….but that fact is missing from the BBC reports.

The source for these ‘facts’ is the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, funded partly by the European Union…..and staffed by mainly immigrants:

Research staff

External fellows

In 2007 this is what they were telling us:

Policy formation is likely to be influenced by the subjective opinion of domestic residents. This creates a dilemma for policy: while liberal immigration policies may benefit the industrial society, these may be difficult to implement due to public antipathy. 

Understanding the process of attitude formation and how it works through the media is essential to an appropriate policy response. 

That good old ‘Manufacturing of Consent’.

The BBC is happy to oblige, trying to persuade us that immigration benefits us….they do that by missing out essential facts…as does the CRAM.

This is what we are told:

The net fiscal balance of overall immigration to the UK between 2001 and 2011 amounts therefore to a positive net contribution of about 25 billion GBP.

Unfortunately that isn’t so……hidden on page 41 we get the real figures…..

1995-2011  Non EU immigrants cost  £104 billion

2001-2011 Non EU immigrants cost £87 billion

Now subtract a positive £25 billion from a cost of £87 billion and I make that a total cost of £62 billion.

Immigration has cost a minimum of £62 billion between 2001 and 2011

And that doesn’t include all the costs of course.

Take a look at the ‘research’ for yourself.

It’s fairly opaque in style and is impossible for most people to check their sources and conclusions.

But wander through it and cherry pick things that catch your eye and some of these might be of interest and raise a few questions:

The first point is that that whacking great loss isn’t quantified in the body of the text…you have to dig for it yourself….which raises the question as to why?

Fair comparison?

A major point is that immigrants don’t have all the costs put onto them that the natives do…..things that would be paid for whether or not immigrants were here, ‘pure’ public goods, such as defence, roads, the Civil Service and Government etc, are left out….but such costs are included for the natives when comparing expenditure by government on them and taxes paid…hardly a fair comparison…..

We assign the cost of all these “pure” public goods only to natives, meaning that the expenditure column represents the cost of pure public goods that natives would have to bear in the absence of any immigrant population.

Wages

The report says by ratio immigrants are better educated than natives but….

These stark educational differences between immigrants and natives are not, however, reflected by wage differences, as we show in Table 2a: the median wages of natives and non-EEA immigrants are nearly the same, while the median wages for EEA immigrants are substantially below those of natives, by about 15% in 2011

Hang on…..immigrants apparently pay more taxes and yet they earn less than the natives?

Employment

Whilst EU immigrants are apparently slightly more likely to have a job by percentage than the natives, non-EU immigrants are far less likely:

Since the mid-2000s, employment rates have also been slightly higher for EEA immigrants than for natives, 75% versus 70% in 2011(see Table 2b). The employment rate of non-EEAs, on the other hand, is substantially lower in all years, only 62% in 2011

But all those unemployed….25% of EU and 38% of non-EU immigrants will be claiming benefits or costing us in some shape or form.

Housing

The report tells us:

‘…recent immigrants overall are over 3 percentage points less likely to live in social housing than natives

Recent non-EEA immigrants, in contrast, are 2.6 percentage points more likely than natives to live in social housing.‘

Hmmm….2/3rds of immigrants are non-EU…..so 2/3rds of immigrants are 2.6% more likely to be in social housing than natives…..

…and yet the report says that overall, immigrants are 3% less likely to be in social housing.

I don’t know about you but I find those figures, em, confusing.

And what isn’t quantified is the cost of all those immigrants filling up the housing stock

Some more doubtful figures

Between 2007 and 2011, recent EEA immigrants made a net contribution of 15.2billion GBP (expressed in 2011 equivalency) to UK public finances, which amounts to an annual average of 2,610 GBP per capita over the 5-year period. Over the same time frame, the annual net fiscal cost of UK natives amounted to about 1,900 GBP per capita and the net fiscal cost of recent non-EEA immigrants to about 332 GBP per capita.

So EU immigrants contributed £2,610 each to the economy whilst a British native cost £1,900 over and above taxes paid annually….that’s around £100 billion annually (based on a population of 60 million).

Of course they did.

The trouble is that not all the costs of immigration are taken into account….housing for a start…the massive house inflation and subsequent lack of housing, NHS,  the schools costs, the roads and maintenance of those, the policing, judicial and prison systems, cost of unemployment of natives unable to get a job etc.

In 2007 they recognised such costs were relevant, not just financial but social, political and religious….

Over the years labour migration has been important for economic growth and contributed to economic prosperity in Germany and the UK.  It remains a crucial issue (economically and politically) and is one whereby economies can remedy unforeseen skill gaps which may otherwise have detrimental effects on the competitiveness of industry. 

However, although migration can offer benefits by leading to relief of skill shortages, it may also adversely affect labour market prospects of resident workers, put additional strain on the welfare system, lead to an increase in criminal activity, or otherwise unfavourably affect social cohesion (see Dustmann and Glitz 2005 and Dustman et al. 2005 for discussion). While the primary motivation for allowing immigration is because of temporary labour market demands, migrants and their children tend to remain in the receiving economy long after labour market conditions have changed. All this may lead to questions whether the possibly short term benefits from immigration may be outweighed by other consequences.

I don’t know about you but I find the ‘research’ from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration  less than convincing on my quick overview and the BBC’s reporting highly partisan and clearly designed to emphasise apparent benefits of immigration whilst hiding the negative.

You have to believe the figures and the interpretation put on them by the researchers to believe that overall EU immigrants benefit the economy.

I don’t believe the CRAM is independent and I believe it starts off from the point of view that immigration is beneficial and has been looking for facts to prove that….its hiding of the costs of non-EU immigration might suggest that attitude on their part.

New Open Thread…..

“….far from being an ally in the fight against extremism, the MCB is part of the problem…”

Andrew Neil lays into the extremist Muslim Council of Britain for:

It’s attitude towards women.

Its alliance with the most fundamentalist of Islamic mosques.

Its toleration of intolerant views, hosting ‘extremists’ at the East London Mosque.

Its willingness to be counted among such people and organisations.

Not to mention a senior member signing a document that threatens death to British troops…and that another of its senior members, a founding member, is now a convicted war criminal.

On the other hand the BBC surrenders its editorial independence to the same organisation….as revealed by Rod Liddle in the Spectator:

Brave, non-denominational freedom fighters

Those of you who wonder why the BBC is so politically correct, so craven in its expressions regarding, for example, Islamic terror, may find a partial answer here:

To:
Stephen Whittle
Director of Editorial Policy at the BBC
Dear Stephen,
We have received many complaints over the last 24 hours from British Muslims regarding the use of the phrase ‘Islamic terrorists’ by your news reporters in connection with the struggle for Kashmiri independence.
We believe this phrase it totally inappropriate and adds nothing to the story and even distorts what is a long-standing struggle by the Kashmiri people to gain control of their own destiny.
Mr Inayat Bunglawala
Secretary,
Media Committee,
The Muslim Council of Britain

Response from Stephen Whittle:
Thanks for your note. I have discussed this with the various output editors. It is not our policy to describe Kashmiri separatists in this way and that has been made clear. It was an isolated incident and will not be repeated.

Curious that Bunglawala  takes such an interest in Kashmir…because he is completely uninterested in talking about war crimes and terrorism in Muslim Bangladesh:

Inayat Bunglawala says it all with regards to conflict in Bangladesh: 

I was born in the UK and am not Bangladeshi, so to be honest, I very rarely think about the 1971 war. I reckon it is of much more import to those of Pakistani/Bengali backgrounds than to me.
I do nothing whatsoever to bring justice to Muslims in East Pakistan. I have enough on my plate here in the UK.

The MCB: The Taint of Genocide

In May 1995 a Channel 4 documentary ‘Bangladesh, War Crimes File’ directed by David Bergman made allegations of the involvement of three British Bangladeshis in the genocide committed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971.

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, one of those individuals named in the documentary, was alleged to have been instrumental in plotting the assassinations of intellectuals, journalists and students with the al-Badr death squads, assisted by the Jamaat-e-Islami.

A UK Muslim leader and a US citizen have been sentenced to death over crimes committed during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence.

UK-Bangladeshi Muslim community leader Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khanwas were being tried in absentia by a special tribunal in Bangladesh.

They were found guilty on 11 charges relating to the abduction and killing of 18 independence supporters.

Not long ago we were told that:

The Muslim Brotherhood are no different to the Greek ‘Golden Dawn’  Neo-Nazi party.

Which is why you might wonder when Jeremy Bowen slips back into his ‘aren’t the Muslim Brotherhood just so cuddly’ mode:

The jailed joke-cracking Muslim Brotherhood leader

The core of the movement stayed patient, and non violent, deepening its influence by providing the closest thing poor Egyptians had to a welfare state.

That’s the oldest trick in the terrorists book…providing ‘welfare’…Hamas does it, Hezbollah does it.  It’s a recruiting device….hearts and minds….but it doesn’t negate the essential fundamentalism of the groups…their reason for existing and their methods.

Bowen goes on:

….in government President Morsi and his people were incompetent, alienated too many Egyptians, and the army removed them from power in the coup in July this year.

Well….that wasn’t the problem…the problem was trying to impose fundamentalist Islam on Egypt….and it wasn’t ‘the Army’ that removed them from power but a massive uprising by the population.

The BBC’s Middle East Editor should pay more attention surely?

He continues….

Essam al-Erian is now back in Tora prison, with the rest of the Brotherhood’s leadership.

Hosni Mubarak is there too, with his sons, and his chief lieutenants, including Habib al-Adly.

I doubt they are all in the same wing, but if they did sit down to lunch together imagine the table talk.

Yep…imagine the table talk….

‘Here’s Bowen’s phone number…….he’s very reliable…..’