Daily Mail attacks BBC over Radio 1’s BNPgate
The Mail on Sunday lays into the BBC today for its recent soft interview with two BNP activists. Obviously the Daily Mail has an agenda to undermine the BBC but I’m not supporting the latter. Even for the Mail, it is spot on. via Lancaster Unity. Most tellingly, the BNP spokesperson says:
We were surprised not to have faced more difficult questioning but Radio 1 is not a heavy-duty political organ like Radio 4. It is an informative thing for young people. It is not too serious.
Not too serious is exactly how I’d describe their journalism.
Update: Peter Hain writes an article criticising the Beeb over the interview too. The Guardian has also finally picked up the ball.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Media
Mail does come through some times. I’m still impressed by them putting the Stephen Laurence scum on the front page naming them as killers even though the law said otherwise. Reading the full interview again made me laugh mind.
“Joey: Civic-ly British they are”
Hello Yoda. That answers the question ‘what planet are they on’ at least
“Mark: If I went to live and work in another country then I would still adhere by their culture and they should adhere by ours.”
But you don’t, do you Mark? How many times have you been to a Spanish resort and ordered baked potato with cheese and beans and how many spanish words have you learned? Imbécil
The BBC often runs into outrage from someone or other because inevitably it confuses its legal obligation to “impartiality” with “moral equivalence”.
Thus, the BNP gets patsy questions and the journo steers clear of the underlying immorality of the BNP’s founding philosophy.
The Beeb’s reluctance to delve into moral issues weakens its coverage of all kinds of questions. I recently saw a Panorama programme on illegal immigration. It covered all aspects of the debate, bar one: not once did the journalist ask the aspirant migrants about the morality of their queue-jumping and whether they understood the outrage their behaviour creates among voters in their destination countries.
Other examples of moral equivalence by the BBC: the treatment of the Soviet Union (and its apologists in western Europe); the treatment of Gerry Adams in the 1980s; all the airtime to clowns like Trevor Brooks etc. etc.
I guess the net result of all this moral equivalence is that extremists of both spectrums get too much airtime whereas voices in the centre-right and centre-left get diluted.
At least when you buy a copy of the Mail or the Guardian you know you’re dealing with a partisan organ. By contrast, the Beeb claims to have “impartial” coverage, whereas a better description would be, in the most literal sense of the word, “amoral”.
I think I saw that Panorama programme that Cauldron is talking about.
The one which showed the overland route from west Africa to Lybia.
Asking migrants or would-be migrants about any morality to what they were doing is stupid.
Morality doesn’t come into it.
Would an Irish person fleeing the potato famine in the 19th century be asked about how the place he was heading for (New York) had alredy experienced a bit of anti-Irish feeling. And there had been newspaper editorials saying the influx should be slowed down, so maybe he should stay in Ireland and take his chances?
It doesn’t mean that this illegal migration route isn’t a huge problem for Europe though.
It would be interesting to hear those two young BNP goons give a commentary about that Panorama programme.
(Btw, maybe because they were so young, the radio one programme was exploitative of them)
A snippet from the response sent by the BBC complaints team on this:
” Debbie Randle’s handling of the interview was extremely rigorous and the bulk of the tough questions she asked were inspired by or directly quoted listeners themselves.”
Damon @3. Maybe you’re right and these illegals don’t care about the morality of what they are doing. But if they don’t give two hoots about the country to which they are “fleeing” then I’d like to know that too. It’d certainly put some of the Refugee Council nonsense in perspective.
There are plenty of poor people in developing countries who respect the law. So why should our sympathies be directed to the queue jumpers?
I think that you can’t expect people to wait in queues when there is no real prospect of getting to the head of that queue.
I don’t know if your average Mauritanian has any grounds for asylum or any chance of getting to the front of any legal immigration queue, but it says on wikipedia that the average per capita income is $2,055.
What to do with them if they force their way over the Mediterranean I have no idea. Maybe just being humane and easygoing about it is the best you can do.
Or giving them a bit of money and sending them back?
I’ve looked for guidance from the left on this issue, but it seems most people duck it. It is a hard one though. (Although open borders is one solution that I’ve seen put foreward… the trouble is that it’s a tiny minority view).
It’s interesting to read the Mail-reader’s comments at the bottom of the article. Every ‘Best Rated’ comment is sympathetic of the BNP, and every ‘Worst Rated’ comment is critical.
Kismet
“How many times have you been to a Spanish resort and ordered baked potato with cheese and beans and how many spanish words have you learned?”
Come-on! There’s a huge difference between a holidaymaker and an immigrant. People like you, who seem to believe that it’s okay for foreigners to come to Britain and continue to act, think and even speak as if they were still in a foreign country, are the equal and opposite extreme to the BNP.
And as long as extremists like you exist, then you legitimize the existence of the BNP.
” Come-on! There’s a huge difference between a holidaymaker and an immigrant.”
British immigrants create ghettoes, want access to their indigenous foods & shops, institutions to provide translation services and change the indigenous culture to fit in with their specific tastes.
See below excerpts from a chap giving the case to move to Spain, including (patronisingly) how Spain is prepared to change its ‘backward’ cultural ethos of ‘Manana’ to accommodate ex pats:
“Being aware of the date but going about my busy tasks in Gibraltar, after a couple of early meetings, and a trip to M&S, I found myself in Morrison’s Supermarket … In addition to the local shoppers, the vast majority were expats getting their hit of McVities’ Digestives and Heinz’ salad Cream…..They live, I expect, within a 100 km radius of Gib which covers much of the Costas de la Luz and del Sol and the inland regions from Antequera to Ronda, Jerez to Arcos de la Frontera…
A recent report carried at the Department of Work and Pensions has calculated that over 1 million Britons retired abroad over the last decade.
A friend of ours in Marbella was this week admitted to hospital for tests. He speaks a very small amount of Spanish and was obviously concerned by his care. The hospital retains a bank of official translators to ease the stress on non Spanish speaking patients seeking comfort at such a worrying time.
Old Spain was very much about “Mañana” but it is no longer backward looking. New Spain is much, much more about “Tomorrow”. It is fast realising that the influx of new residents of all ages have a wholly different set of requirement to the bucket and spade brigade of the 1970’s.”
Article by Mark FR Wilkins 2005 (Marbella)
The same article also makes the following statement:
“…..it is common BNP practice to mobilise members to post supportive messages on websites whenever their party is in the news.”
persephone
“British immigrants create ghettoes, want access to their indigenous foods & shops, institutions to provide translation services and change the indigenous culture to fit in with their specific tastes.”
And I believe that those British immigrants are behaving appallingly. They are demonstrating a disrespect for their host nation which is bordering on contempt.
No one claims that they are ‘culturally enriching’ Spain, or benefiting the host nation in any measurable way.
Why is that? Why is it that immigrants to Britain that behave in this way should be tolerated, nay ‘celebrated’ for clinging to their ancestral values, customs and languages, whereas those Brits are quite rightly criticized.
My views on this are completely consistent. But yours are not.
And you should question whether your anti-white racism is a factor in that inconsistency.
bnp policy is simple, if you aren’t ‘white’ you dont belong
here, it doesnt matter how much you try and accept ‘British’
culture, the only thing that will be left is your non-white DNA,
which they do not want.
Case in point, Ashley Cole … immigrants are causing
problems because they won’t accept the British way
of life and no one is forcing them, well, even if
every single immigrant of a non white background
did exactly that… would the bnp be happy? no
bnp will never accept an immigrant that isnt
European white therefore there can never be
full ‘integration’.
Melanin is the new black.
If mixed relationships continue to increase as expected then a larger proportion of the universal population will have melanin, which may protect better against global warming. There may come a day when everyone will be hankering to ‘look like a p*ki”
Scientists are looking to patent inventions to disperse melanin into the atmosphere and in sunscreen:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION: This invention is a process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere by dispersing melanins, their analogs, or derivatives into the atmosphere. By appropriate choice of melanin composition, size of melanin dispersoids, and their concentration, the melanins will absorb some quantity of ultraviolet radiation and thereby lessen its overall effect on the inhabitants on the Earth’s surface who would normally encounter such radiation. Depending upon melanin chosen and the method of introducing it into the atmosphere, the melanin will absorb variously UVA, UVB, or UVC ultraviolet radiation.
The use of melanin to protect human skin is known. Particularly, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,806,360 and 4,855,144, to Leong et al., show variously melanin-containing compositions made of small polymeric particles and methods of producing the particles. The resulting compositions may be used as sunscreens in a variety of products such as sunscreen products per se or as a component of cosmetic composition.
“My views on this are completely consistent. But yours are not. And you should question whether your anti-white racism is a factor in that inconsistency.”
A couple of points. Using real life examples to show the hypocrisy of a minority does not make me an anti-white racist or inconsistent.
Such examples do show that globalisation has freed previously land locked people to act on their preferences to settle in other places for the weather, beaches etc but that they also have preferences for things from their country of origin. The inconsistencies are that I do not see the (indigenous) Spanish:
- victimising the British ex pats for their free preferences (ghettoes, translation needs, food)
- forming groups such as the BNP/EDL in reaction to the British – if anything in the quoted story it assumes British immigrants see it is right for Spain to adapt its culture to their ‘progressive’ needs – relics of the modus operandi of the British Empire
And the empire is long dead. I can see that must be frightening for those who believed in the comfortable supremacy it brought to them and their lives. The erosion of it has left them with little to cling to as that was the basis of their very being. What is left for them is a hankering to revert to the good old days of race hate, labelling others as foreigners (now immigrants), divide & rule, racist name calling and reviving far right groups.
But no single culture or skin colour can predominate. Long live globalisation.
I don’t buy into ‘indigenous or asian culture’ to set the prescriptive tone for a country. And my so called ‘assimilation’ (I prefer to call it personal tastes) is not at the cost of hating a background/skin colour that I originate from.
Reza, if you don’t already have one, I think I may buy you a hair shirt for Xmas.
persephone
“The inconsistencies are that I do not see the (indigenous) Spanish:
- victimising the British ex pats for their free preferences (ghettoes, translation needs, food)”
I have a friend living in a British ghetto on the Algarve. I’ve visited him a few times. Anyone visiting would get the impression that the Portuguese don’t like the Brits very much. And visa versa.
But numbers of Brits there are still relatively small. If the British population was to grow to the point where British ‘community leaders’ begin making demands on the Portuguese to adapt and change in order to accommodate the British cultural needs, then I have no doubt that the locals would get very pissed-off, very quickly.
By the way do you have any evidence that the Spanish provide translation services? I’d actually heard the opposite.
“And my so called ‘assimilation’ (I prefer to call it personal tastes) is not at the cost of hating a background/skin colour that I originate from.”
I don’t hate my skin colour or where I originate from. Indeed, I think that skin colour is utterly irrelevant and should be ignored, by racists and multiculturalists alike.
In fact, I’m very proud of and interested in my Iranian heritage. My family and I always get-together to celebrate Nowruz (Persian New Year). But I don’t expect my host nation to make any accommodation for this. I don’t want a public holiday for it. I don’t demand for the host nation to ‘celebrate’ my ancestral culture. It is my business.
In my experience, Iranians are pretty good at integrating, and given the fact that virtually all of my relatives here and in the US are married to non-Iranians, I would even say assimilating.
The problem I have is with those groups forming culturally distinct ghettos. And the short-sighted lefties appeasing them.
Because therein lies the road to hell.
@ Reza you mean ghettos like South Kensington (French), Harrow (Gujurati), Hanger Lane(Polish), Golders Green (Jewish), Leicester Square (Chinese)? I haven’t seen any road signs in those ghettos directing me to hell. Or do you have a problems with people, immigrants, that do not have the same personal tastes as you?
“numbers of Brits there are still relatively small. ”
I gave you figures that showed it to be higher than levels in the UK in another post?
” I’d actually heard the opposite.”
Please cite statistics from a creditable source?
“I don’t demand for the host nation to ‘celebrate’ my ancestral culture”
I have never taken off any indian festival days either & not had the urge to enforce them. Btw that does not make me right wing or ‘assimilated’ or any other catch all label.
Painting and assuming that all ‘multiculturists’ and British asians (for want of a better word) want to enforce an aspect of their thinking or ‘culture’ is quite erroneous and simplistic as well as impossible because of the latitude with which individuals live and practice their ‘culture’.
“ host nation”
Such terminology gives the impression that you are under the yoke of immigration speak/mindset and positions you as a parasitic outsider. Don’t you provide a benefit to the UK? It gives the perception that you feel that you do not belong despite being ‘integrated’ through marriage?
“those groups forming culturally distinct ghettos”
Thats what the BNP are seeking to create but on a country wide level.
Lastly, having a one size fits all perception/solution is part of the problem. Especially if it means what one skin colour relates to or dictates…. think about it.
persephone
-“I have never taken off any indian festival days either & not had the urge to enforce them. Btw that does not make me right wing or ‘assimilated’ or any other catch all label.”
Good for you. But are we agreed that immigrant ‘groups’ should not demand that the ‘host’ country must adapt or change to accommodate them?
-“Don’t you provide a benefit to the UK?”
Yes I do. As I’m sure you do.
But answer me this. How has the wave of Somali immigration benefitted the UK? On average, do the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities have a positive or negative impact on the UK’s ‘balance-sheet’. (I gave a reliable link, with the answer in another post. If you didn’t see it I’ll post it again.)
And finally, (and I’d really like an answer to this one) isn’t it reasonable to refuse to accept immigrants who are unlikely to “provide a benefit to the UK”?
-“Thats what the BNP are seeking to create but on a country wide level.”
Exactly! The BNP are multiculturalists, through and through. Only they also want to define and distinguish the ‘white’ indigenous population in order to give them special treatment and privileges. That’s why I hate the BNP.
“And finally, (and I’d really like an answer to this one) isn’t it reasonable to refuse to accept immigrants who are unlikely to “provide a benefit to the UK”?”
It is not only reasonable but it is needed and most British Asians would support a coherent policy on that one — unless you add value then one should not be let in.
And as a born British citizen I do not know why the hell would I even want to get into a discussion about the value I add. I belong here – I was born here so that;s the end of the story on that one.
Shamit
“It is not only reasonable but it is needed and most British Asians would support a coherent policy on that one — unless you add value then one should not be let in.”
My views exactly. In that case, why are we arguing?
“And as a born British citizen I do not know why the hell would I even want to get into a discussion about the value I add. I belong here – I was born here so that;s the end of the story on that one.”
And I agree with you 100%.
But I’m not sure that everyone here will agree with you. For example what value does a ‘fetched’ spouse from an internationally arranged marriage, who is unable to speak English and unlikely to join the work force, likely to add?
Isn’t there a case here to deny a British Passport to ‘fetched’ spouses?
Reza
“But are we agreed that immigrant ‘groups’ should not demand that the ‘host’ country must adapt or change to accommodate them? “
I believe that those who are British Citizens through naturalisation or birth have equal rights to any other British Citizen. The country has to adapt & change in response to citizens needs and wider environmental pressures. Citizen who are benefiting their country (and as a citizen it does become theirs & not a ‘host nation’) have every right to challenge the status quo and push for change.
“isn’t it reasonable to refuse to accept immigrants who are unlikely to “provide a benefit to the UK”?
Yes & that includes overseas arranged marriages – and I repeat my stance on this – especially those with high incidences of forced marriage & human rights abuse of women.
“How has the wave of Somali immigration benefitted the UK? On average, do the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities have a positive or negative impact on the UK’s ‘balance-sheet’ “
Depends what the interpretation of impact is and what can be exemplified as a benefit in a balance sheet. For example, contributing to education through wider appreciation of art and music from other countries, broadening understanding of the world as part of globalisation.
What benefits do you think are offered by unemployed teenage mothers with several children from different fathers (who do not pay maintenance because they are too young, unemployed, in prison, suffer from mental health issues, just awol) on long term welfare? I’d like to see that on a balance sheet.
You have not answered my first question. I believe British immigration was at 5% in Spain (in the link I provided) and in England Asians comprise 4%
@ Reza, initial influx of Somalian in to this country was as a result of famine as a consequence of war. As GB has signed up with 147 or so other countries to the 1951 convetion they have a duty take these people in. As do other countries.
The economic value of any stay-at-home spouse is quite considerable and is seriously taken in to account when calculating life insurance policy payouts. Anyway, would your views be the same for the English men who shop for brides in Thailand? No doubt you would claim so.
So as I said before, you seem to be wriggling around in each argument trying to prove some point about immigrants not fitting in and this being the root cause of all ills. You keep changing tack, you keep changing you claim, from broad to narrow. Whatever it takes to prove a petty point. A petty little man with a petty little soul.
persephone
-“I believe that those who are British Citizens through naturalisation or birth have equal rights to any other British Citizen. The country has to adapt & change in response to citizens needs and wider environmental pressures. Citizen who are benefiting their country (and as a citizen it does become theirs & not a ‘host nation’) have every right to challenge the status quo and push for change.”
I agree with you. Any other way would create first and second-class citizens; an idea I utterly oppose. However, the fact that all citizens must have an equal right to change the status quo makes it so important for the existing population to ensure that people wishing to join our society must overcome reasonable ‘barriers to entry’. For example, they must speak English. They must support Parliamentary democracy. They must support peoples right to choose; their religion, their marriage partner; their sexuality. Otherwise, we are diluting our values and creating potential conflict. France has barriers to citizenship. So must we. Would you agree with that?
-“Yes & that includes overseas arranged marriages – and I repeat my stance on this – especially those with high incidences of forced marriage & human rights abuse of women.”
Yet why are the left so frightened to grasp nettles such as this? Don’t you see that keeping these important issues out of the public arena gives a monopoly to the racists of the BNP. Why can’t reasonable people ‘grow a pair’ and debate inconvenient truths about immigration in an honest and forthright way. Trust me, if we did then the BNP would have nothing to offer concerned voters except for racism and far-left economic policies.
‘”Depends what the interpretation of impact is and what can be exemplified as a benefit in a balance sheet. For example, contributing to education through wider appreciation of art and music from other countries, broadening understanding of the world as part of globalisation.”
Your ‘benefits’ are all subjective, and therefore carry little weight. I believe that the issue can be resolved by simply having sensible immigration controls that discriminate against no one but ensure that anyone being allowed into Britain, and more importantly, being given British citizenship, must demonstrate that they are a benefit to society. For example, someone who is here under ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ should never be given British Citizenship if they have not worked or if they have committed crimes whilst here. And if their country of origin is safe, then they should be deported. Would you agree with that?
-“What benefits do you think are offered by unemployed teenage mothers with several children from different fathers (who do not pay maintenance because they are too young, unemployed, in prison, suffer from mental health issues, just awol) on long term welfare? I’d like to see that on a balance sheet.”
These people provide no benefit. However, as we agreed in the first paragraph, they have equal rights as British Citizens. We have a duty as a society to try to improve the condition of the British underclass, whatever their ethnic background. But it doesn’t make sense to add to their numbers. Does it?
-“You have not answered my first question. I believe British immigration was at 5% in Spain (in the link I provided) and in England Asians comprise 4%”
This example is irrelevant in this debate. I fundamentally disagree with British immigrants to Spain refusing to learn Spanish and living in ghettos. Furthermore, I believe that they are NOT a benefit to Spanish society or social cohesion. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of British immigration to Spain is not comparable to third-world immigration to Britain. Immigrants to Spain tend to be elderly and affluent. They aren’t having a lot of children. They make far fewer demands on Spain’s resourses. And under EU law, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
STERILISE POOR WOMEN LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
MRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGNGHGHHH
MRRRRNGHHHHHHHHHHFFGHHGHGG
MRRR
mrrrrr
Yes, sterilize all poor black people, sterilize all immigrants ideally, not only those who refuse to ‘assimilate’ but all as there are surely not enough willing native white people with the correct cultural norms to marry these people and breed them out. LMFAO
LOLZ
They should be encouraged to just disappear. So that people like Reza can’t be embarrassed in public by their funny clothes/languages/smells. Reza does not want to be tarred with the same brush as those from the bush
JokeZ! If they just vanish and stop sticking out, Reza would be allowed to just get on with whatever he wants to without this ghastly ‘race’ business cropping up.
Otherwise, you know what will happen wont you, that’s right, it will only encourage the BNP. Reza is only worried about not encouraging the BNP. LOLZ
Let the petty man be.
For all the digs, I’ve got to say I can empathise though. I remember watching Blind Date many years ago when an Asian contestant came along and sang, and so horrific was my cringe, I jumped behind the sofa and screamed:
‘Mummy. Mummy. There’s an Asian man on telly. He’s embarrassing me.’
Reza
I would not follow in Frances footsteps – for eg I cannot imagine the UK allowing a Minister to be in offfce if he/she had admitted to a penchant for renting Thai boys.
As to indefinite leave, other than working, some may do voluntary, charitable work or provide social benefit in another way (eg unpaid childcare) which all have a balance sheet value so I would not put a blanket policy on that.
“Your ‘benefits’ are all subjective, and therefore carry little weight. “
If you look at the value and perceived benefit of European Art it is not subjective. Its not subjective to say that asian art, cuisine, music etc have value and are of benefit too.
“But it doesn’t make sense to add to their numbers.”
Yes to reformation of the welfare system but not based on your subjective groupings linked to country of origin.
“This example is irrelevant in this debate “
You asked for such figures. You play quite an obvious game.