Couple of interesting comments that went completely unremarked…and considering the huge political fuss about energy companies raising prices you might have thought they were somewhat noteworthy.

Ed Davey, energy minister, on Today (08:16) stated that:

‘Rising gas prices have been the cause of rising energy bills at the moment.’

Cameron when talking about the nuclear power station deal and pricing said that it was cheaper than all other non-carbon sources……ie wind farms and solar. (No link)

So….rising bills are in fact caused by wholesale prices and not greedy energy firms…according to the energy minister (and Ofgem confirmed prices have risen 8%)

…and for all the fuss over the price of the nuclear power in 2023 it is still cheaper than wind or solar.

As I said….might just have been two very relevant statements…but the BBC seems to have completely missed them.

Yet another religious wind bag (apologies to anyone who actually likes religious windbaggery).

Even a Labour man looks askance at the new Archbishop of Canterbury as he does a bit of pious grandstanding on behalf of the Labour Party (and is always given a headline or two on the Beeb)….without any solutions to the problems he raises it might be added.

Dan Hodges cocks a snook:

The C of E used to be the Tory party at prayer. Now Justin Welby is Polly Toynbee in a cassock

Amid all the excitement of over the cull of the Blairites and the promotion of this week’s Next Leader of the Labour Party, Tristram Hunt, one major shadow cabinet appointment was overlooked: the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Justin Welby is the new shadow minister for Moral Indignation. And it’s a wide-ranging brief. Over the weekend he intervened on energy policy, attacking the Big Six power companies. “Having spent years on a low income as a clergyman I know what it is like when your household budget is blown apart by a significant extra fuel bill and your anxiety levels become very high,” he said.

Can someone explain to me exactly what it is that the BBC finds so compelling about Mehdi Hasan?

Because the more you see of the real Mehdi Hasan, the Islamic preacherman, the less there is that could surely justify the BBC’s elevation of him to the position of authoritative, credible and ethical spokesman for Muslims.

We looked a while back at the two sides of Mehdi Hasan, his slick Western suited, self proclaimed secular,  progressive side…and his Muslim, and presumably real, side….but there’s more…

Trending Central has dug up yet another piece of evidence that suggests the BBC Mehdi Hasan isn’t being honest with us:

Hasan is having a rant, and it is a rant, about a Caliph who has apparently transgressed against Islam…he is a homosexual, a dog lover and a music lover…..

‘….but the fact is, and this is important, Yazid was not simply a Fasiq (transgressor) he was an out and out Kafir!’

A homosexual, a dog lover and a music lover…all apparently fail to get Hasan’s approval.

The BBC would almost shut down without a mix of those three.

But what about the Kafir eh?

There’s a ‘transgressor‘…and then, according to Hasan there’s ‘an out and out Kafir’

Kind of tells you all you want to know, if you didn’t know already, exactly what Hasan thinks of the non-Muslim….the lowest of the low…..why is that not considered hate speech just because it  has its origin in a religious text?

And yet the BBC court’s him and gives him pride of place on their programmes.

When he propagates hate and division, sanctifying it as the word of God, is he in reality any different to Nick Griffin?…what if Griffin wrapped up his racism with words from the Bible…would he suddenly find himself on the speed dial?

Perhaps the BBC should look a bit more closely at the ‘sainted’ Mehdi Hasan.

The BBC is determined to ensure that whatever the Coalition does, it is never quite enough. For decades, the BBC seemed content at the impasse that has been created over the future for nuclear energy here. Now, at last, a decision IS made and the UK can expect one new nuclear power station in ten years time, and good old Aunty is doing everything possible to pour cold water on it. Given the vast amount of power the BBC must consume, I would have thought they would be happy but I suppose that unless the energy source is a windfarm then it’s never going to get a thumb up.

I can see the old one is full up so here is a new one to start the week? Seen any bias, HERE is where to detail it.

Is the BBC biased? draws this to our attention:

From the Independent:

The British public has such “poor religious literacy” that a modern audience would be baffled by the Monty Python film The Life of Brian – because it would not understand the Biblical references, a senior BBC figure has claimed.  

Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics, told The Independent that failings in religious education over two generations were undermining public understanding of contemporary national and international issues.

This is probably his scariest comment:

“You had generations that missed out. We have poor religious literacy in this country and we have to do something about it,” he said.

Scary because you just know exactly what he intends….though we are told:

“I’m not saying for one second that everybody has to understand religion and therefore become religious,”

Yeah…right.

This is probably his most laugh out loud absolute hogwash of a statement…because we all know the real reason few people make jokes about Muhammed:

Ahmed also claimed that a key reason that Islam is not the subject of more humorous discussion is that the life of the Prophet Muhammad is poorly understood by large sections of the British public. “How can anybody tell a joke about Muhammad when they don’t even know how to spell his name, let alone anything about his life? The day we have people standing up and telling detailed jokes about Muhammad and have the audience understanding that humour, then we will have come a long way in society and we will have a lot more religious literacy about a major world figure.

Let’s give that a go…..here’s a satirical cartoon based upon most people’s understanding of Muhammed and his legacy….most people know what the Koran says about killing the infidel, the House of Islam and the House of war, and they know what is done in the name of Islam by some, many, Muslims, hence they think this cartoon represents a true picture of what Islam means to them:

That is their understanding of Islam and Muhammed…..I imagine that is not what Ahmed requires them to think….and he’d want to censor that….for the likes of Ahmed there is only one way to ‘understand’ Islam…..and it’s not the medieval warlord using religion to excuse the  plundering and killing of the non-believer….as historian Tom Holland tells us happened.

Ahmed is right in way of course….not as he intends….because it is the fact that some people, the BBC for instance,  refuse to accept that image of Islam, that definition of Islam,  because they refuse to accept such an ‘understanding,’ they see no problem with the Islamic ideology and therefore cannot see the need for a ‘cure’, for reform, as Tommy Robinson and Tariq Ramadan both urge, no need to think hard about the effects a growing Islamic influence is having on society and politics….but they are all too ready to blame the ‘West’ instead…its foreign policy or alleged discrimination at home ‘alienating’ and radicalising Muslims.

Melanie Phillips says:

Until our leaders admit the true nature of Islamic extremism, we will never defeat it

If politicians refuse to acknowledge the true nature of this extremism, they will never counter it effectively.

They see only good in the Koran and refuse to accept that it can lead to a great deal of harm….because to accept that would mean they would have to do something about it…and that is the last thing they want to do.

On Christianity the BBC are a lot harsher….on Thursday Melvyn Bragg had a reverential look at the Book of Common Prayer….but reverential though he was he still managed to openly admit that it was a book that ‘split the nation’, that it was ‘poisonous’ in its effect….and that was a book that didn’t insist you kill anyone if they didn’t believe the same as you. (and Bragg tells us that the English Civil War cost more lives per capita than the First World War…something to chew on)

Ex-nun, Karen Armstrong, has called the Bible a ‘toxic arsenal that fuels hatred and sterile polemic’…..about time we had some honest debate about what’s in the Koran as well.

When the likes of the BBC admit that the Koran is not a ‘good’ read then we will have come a long way in society and we will have a lot more religious literacy about a major world figure.

Boris Johnson of course already understands:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

Janet Daley in the telegraph suggests that the frequent claims that the American political system is broken are without merit:

The power of the people is being stolen

How strong should central government be, and how much of our money should it spend?

The first is that the American democratic system is now so damaged that the country’s ability to govern itself effectively is in unprecedented peril. In fact, what has been impaired is the temporary credibility of the federal government, which has relatively little effect on the lives of most Americans. It is state governments that run the affairs that govern most civic and economic activity.

Hardly a day passes when one of the BBC’s political commentators does not indeed spout that smug assumption.

The likelihood being that they do so because if they claim the system is broken then there must be someone who broke it….and that’s, sure as eggs is eggs, going to be the Republicans, the Tea Party to narrow that down.

Many a BBC journo has wistfully announced that perhaps the ‘decisive’ Chinese method of government would be the ideal….and it was John Humphrys who, visiting Tibet, cheerfully applauded the Chinese invasion and talked in awe of the wonders that the Chinese railway was bringing to the Tibetans…along with the hundreds of thousands of Chinese ‘immigrants’…or occupiers as some might call them…not Humphrys though…and never mind the ‘cultural genocide’.

Democracy is so yesterday.

Or as Evan Davis says …the Americans are asking how politics can be reformed to avoid partisan showdowns of a kind that brought government to a standstill…yes Evan, let’s see what Obama wants…and then vote ‘Yes’.  We can’t have any ugly dissent can we.

Davis goes on to claim that:

‘There’s one special and distinctive feature of American politics…gerrymandering….drawing boundaries of congressional seats to suit political ends… to wipe out rivals or to create safe seats for your party.’

Yep….that would never happen here, it’s certainly a distinctive and special feature of US politics alone.

Britain’s electoral system unfairly gerrymandered in favour of Labour

In his piece on David Cameron’s road to Number 10, Iain Martin touches on a crucial issue: “The geography and the electoral map are against the Tories: they need a 10-point lead on polling day to get an overall majority of one seat”. He cites research from YouGov pollster Peter Kellner showing that if Labour and the Tories were to gain an equal share of the vote at the next election, Labour would get 80 more seats. 

Good old BBC tunnel vision…only seeing what it wants to see as long as it supports its narrative…US politics are broken…broken by Republicans…the Republicans need to be ‘fixed’.

Last week Thursday seemed to be a 24 hour Labour Party political broadcast on the BBC.

The BBC attacked the Tories on all fronts blaming them and the dreaded Capitalism for the ills of Society..a veritable Pearl Harbour attack launched at dawn on the Today programme:

Wonga pay day loans

Energy prices

Free schools (asking ‘Is there something rotten within the Free school system?)

Miliband’s ‘Predistribution’…now renamed ‘The Living wage’. (Alan Milburn…back to his Labour roots as he promotes Miliband’s policy under the guise of a ‘report’)

Pensioners who live the ‘high life’ whilst the young are abandoned.

Not a bad agenda for a single day.

When you consider what ex BBC journo Robin Aitken in the Telegraph has to say you may consider that the BBC’s innate affinity with Labour politics is a problem:

The BBC can pretty much dictate terms when it comes to the national debate – and it’s a power it exercises in full measure.

This underlines a truth not sufficiently acknowledged – that all journalism is a matter of selection. The running order of the BBC’s main bulletins is not ordained by some higher authority; instead, it is merely the preference of BBC editors. And to understand why the BBC chooses as it does, you have to understand who makes those selections.

BBC selection boards naturally enough tend to go for candidates made in their own image and likeness. Like other organisations, the BBC chooses people who they feel are “right for us”. In this way, the system becomes self-reinforcing. Aspiring young BBC journalists know that they will be expected to show an interest in a particular type of story. So an internal culture is constructed, recruit by recruit, which reinforces an established world view.

The way the day is structured in the BBC’s main news centre encourages an insidious orthodoxy. Each morning, the senior editors meet to discuss the day’s agenda. A consensus emerges, and because the corporation is fiercely hierarchical, the juniors – nurturing their promising careers – take their cue from their elders and betters. Which is why from morning to midnight, from Today to the Ten O’Clock News and right on down the chain to local radio, the same stories lead the bulletins.

This amplification effect is what gives BBC news output such enormous clout. More than 90 per cent of us listen or watch the BBC every week. For many people, the BBC is their constant companion – from dawn to dusk it is the background soundtrack in the lives of millions.

That is why, uniquely among media organisations, the BBC performs the role of gatekeeper to the national debate.

If the BBC doesn’t run with a story then, arguably, it isn’t a story at all.

Impartiality is not an optional extra for the BBC – it is at the heart of its contract with the licence-fee payers.

The BBC used to inspire near-universal trust: it can no longer take that for granted.

The Mail tells us that:

Dyke’s all-white panel comes under fire from black FA chief for lack of ethnic diversity

And the Mail goes on to explore the story more fully, unlike the BBC’s sport’s editor, David Bond, who does a hatchet job on Dyke and fails to report the fact that Dyke did try and bring non-white people onto the FA commission:

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.