Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

I notice that the latest BBC insult is not to wear poppies. ITV news presenters have been wearing poppy’s for a few days now, but no where is a poppy to be seen on the BBC.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I notice that the latest BBC insult is not to wear poppies. ITV news presenters have been wearing poppy’s for a few days now, but no where is a poppy to be seen on the BBC.
I thought the date for wearing poppies was 31 Oct.
 
This:


for me is a prime example of the insidious nature of the BBC and other media organs. So confident are they of the level of social engineering they have achieved, they make no attempt to mask it.

We are given no choice except to emote and suffer jointly with surviving family members. Within the space of 3 sentences, we are twice hit with '15-month old baby', the loss of which is creepingly laid at our National door.

The only element of personal responsibility is fleetingly covered and then brushed aside - 'The BBC has seen a series of text messages believed to have been sent by Ms Mohammad Panahi on Saturday, including one that acknowledges the danger of crossing the Channel by boat but concludes "we have no choice".. . .'

The final j'accuse moment is stark and simplistic, 'He added that the family "paid a lot of money" to get to the UK.'

The unwritten sub-text being, 'Because you won't let me and mine in, it's your fault that my family is dead'.

Actually, no, it isn't. The responsibility for this tragedy lies, ultimately, at the door of the now-deceased Rasoul Iran-Nejad. He was the one who brought his family to this. He is the one who believed that the lives and fortunes of him and his family would be best served by committing them to a tortuous trek through at least 7 countries at the height of a viral pandemic and, ultimately, commit their luck to a £500 unsuitable inflatable boat on one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, just before the onset of winter.

I have bad news, BBC: I feel no guilt at all.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This:


for me is a prime example of the insidious nature of the BBC and other media organs. So confident are they of the level of social engineering they have reached, they make no attempt to mask it.

We are given no choice except to emote and suffer jointly with surviving family members. Within the space of 3 sentences, we are twice hit with '15-month old baby', the loss of which is creepingly laid at our National door.

The only element of personal responsibility is fleetingly covered and then brushed aside - 'The BBC has seen a series of text messages believed to have been sent by Ms Mohammad Panahi on Saturday, including one that acknowledges the danger of crossing the Channel by boat but concludes "we have no choice".. . .'

The final j'accuse moment is stark and simplistic, 'He added that the family "paid a lot of money" to get to the UK.'

The unwritten sub-text being, 'Because you won't let me and mine in, it's your fault that my family is dead'.

Actually, no, it isn't. The responsibility for this tragedy lies, ultimately, at the door of the now-deceased Rasoul Iran-Nejad. He was the one who brought his family to this. He is the one who believed that the lives and fortunes of him and his family would be best served by committing them to a tortuous trek through at least 7 countries at the height of a viral pandemic and, ultimately, commit their luck to a £500 unsuitable inflatable boat on one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, just before the onset of winter.

I have bad news, BBC: I feel no guilt at all.
An inference from the 'we have no choice' comment is that the smugglers had said, 'It's now or never.'

In other words, the smugglers forced the issue.

Again - how is this in any way this country's or government's fault?
 
Mrs M.R & I were just watching the show on BBC4 about the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, cuts to BBC news report from the time. We both look at each other & say that's back when we could trust the BBC news ....
 
Judging by the content of the BBC News website, not much seems to have changed re. the liberal agenda of the Corp since Tim Davie took over. Has anyone noticed any substantial changes that I might have missed?
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
Mrs M.R & I were just watching the show on BBC4 about the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, cuts to BBC news report from the time. We both look at each other & say that's back when we could trust the BBC news ....
Sign of the time. We chose not to watch it in case events were 'interpreted' for us and there were apologies for the lack of BAME people rushing to escape the DDR.
 
This:


for me is a prime example of the insidious nature of the BBC and other media organs. So confident are they of the level of social engineering they have reached, they make no attempt to mask it.

We are given no choice except to emote and suffer jointly with surviving family members. Within the space of 3 sentences, we are twice hit with '15-month old baby', the loss of which is creepingly laid at our National door.

The only element of personal responsibility is fleetingly covered and then brushed aside - 'The BBC has seen a series of text messages believed to have been sent by Ms Mohammad Panahi on Saturday, including one that acknowledges the danger of crossing the Channel by boat but concludes "we have no choice".. . .'

The final j'accuse moment is stark and simplistic, 'He added that the family "paid a lot of money" to get to the UK.'

The unwritten sub-text being, 'Because you won't let me and mine in, it's your fault that my family is dead'.

Actually, no, it isn't. The responsibility for this tragedy lies, ultimately, at the door of the now-deceased Rasoul Iran-Nejad. He was the one who brought his family to this. He is the one who believed that the lives and fortunes of him and his family would be best served by committing them to a tortuous trek through at least 7 countries at the height of a viral pandemic and, ultimately, commit their luck to a £500 unsuitable inflatable boat on one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, just before the onset of winter.

I have bad news, BBC: I feel no guilt at all.
Here in lies a point that no one seems to mention. These "migrants" are apparently paying thousands to get to the UK, BBC have it as between 3,000 to 4,500 Euros per person. So this family may have paid between 15,000 and 22,500 euros to cross the channel, that's not including the getting to Calais part. That's more than a lot of people in the UK have to their names. The average annual income in Iran is £9,500.

So, either these people are not as destitute as they claim to be and are in their nation of origin, relatively wealthy. Or, they're getting the money from someone else. I would be so bold as to suggest if they are having their crossing paid for by someone else then it's likely one of these "charities", which to my mind makes them a criminal enterprise involved in people smuggling. Now that I've started thinking about it, this seems more and more likely. Those camps in Calais are widely reported as crime ridden, how long do you think a family would be able to hold on to that kind of cash if it was in their back pocket?
 
Last edited:
Here in lies a point that no one seems to mention. These "migrants" are apparently paying thousands to get to the UK, BBC have it as between 3,000 to 4,500 Euros per person. So this family may have paid between 15,000 and 22,500 euros to cross the channel, that's not including the getting to Calais part. That's more than a lot of people in the UK have to their names. The average annual income in Iran is £9,500.

So, either these people are not as destitute as they claim to be and are in their nation of origin, relatively wealthy. Or, they're getting the money from someone else. I would bold as to suggest if they are having their crossing paid for by someone else then it's likely one of these "charities", which to my mind makes them a criminal enterprise involved in people smuggling. Now that I've started thinking about it, this seems more and more likely. Those camps in Calais are widely reported as crime ridden, how long do you think a family would be able to hold on to that kind of cash if it was in their back pocket?
Careful, you sound like one of those old fashioned journalists who bother to go out and actually dig deeply into a story to find the truth..... These days its journos sitting in there houses and getting press releases emailed to them from charity groups and the myriad of progressive think tanks and then pumping the raw sewage out as fact.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Judging by the content of the BBC News website, not much seems to have changed re. the liberal agenda of the Corp since Tim Davie took over. Has anyone noticed any substantial changes that I might have missed?
I don't think the content has changed much, takes a while to turn a VLCC! However I feel that questioning by political interviewers has become slightly less virulent. Fewer (not none) interruptions and less obvious chasing of an agenda.

It's a start but a long way to go.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Here in lies a point that no one seems to mention. These "migrants" are apparently paying thousands to get to the UK, BBC have it as between 3,000 to 4,500 Euros per person. So this family may have paid between 15,000 and 22,500 euros to cross the channel, that's not including the getting to Calais part. That's more than a lot of people in the UK have to their names. The average annual income in Iran is £9,500.

So, either these people are not as destitute as they claim to be and are in their nation of origin, relatively wealthy. Or, they're getting the money from someone else. I would bold as to suggest if they are having their crossing paid for by someone else then it's likely one of these "charities", which to my mind makes them a criminal enterprise involved in people smuggling. Now that I've started thinking about it, this seems more and more likely. Those camps in Calais are widely reported as crime ridden, how long do you think a family would be able to hold on to that kind of cash if it was in their back pocket?
Not as much that, as that families are grouping together to raise the money to send people. That, or people are indenturing themselves (that's the polite version of enslaving) in order to get here.

I know several Filipino people whose (to us) rather small monetary despatches home are the living for the whole family back in the old country. I've mentioned a Bangladeshi friend of mine on here numerous times. Unfortunately, her father died as a result of Covid last week. This made the local papers back 'home'*; his charitable contributions literally kept some communities afloat, and collectively they are currently in mourning.

The people coming here illegally are promised riches. They are going to be the cash cows and, once they get citizenship (if ever), sponsors for further migrants.

That's one reason why I'm happy that we're finally putting people up in shitholes that we used to have to put up with former army camps. It sends the message that the streets aren't paved with gold. (And, incidentally, among all the bleeding heart 'news' stories of dirty toilet facilities, I don't understand how these economically able individuals aren't being made to keep their accommodation clean as part of earning their keep.)

I've said it before: it's not for this country to put right the economic and, more importantly, the political failures of the countries that these people are coming from. That's a conceit that such as the trollop from Care4Calais ought to be made to take on board.




*I say 'home'. I mean that very much in the past tense. The gentleman concerned was a lovely individual. Gentle, quietly religious and hard-working. He came here many years ago, worked hard and built a successful business. He was, as far as I'm concerned, British - as is his daughter. But he never forget where he came from, or his ties. His is a sad passing.
 
Here in lies a point that no one seems to mention. These "migrants" are apparently paying thousands to get to the UK, BBC have it as between 3,000 to 4,500 Euros per person. So this family may have paid between 15,000 and 22,500 euros to cross the channel, that's not including the getting to Calais part. That's more than a lot of people in the UK have to their names. The average annual income in Iran is £9,500.

So, either these people are not as destitute as they claim to be and are in their nation of origin, relatively wealthy. Or, they're getting the money from someone else. I would be so bold as to suggest if they are having their crossing paid for by someone else then it's likely one of these "charities", which to my mind makes them a criminal enterprise involved in people smuggling. Now that I've started thinking about it, this seems more and more likely. Those camps in Calais are widely reported as crime ridden, how long do you think a family would be able to hold on to that kind of cash if it was in their back pocket?
They pay a minimal amount to get the ball rolling and the majority once they arrive in the form of slave labour.
 
Here in lies a point that no one seems to mention. These "migrants" are apparently paying thousands to get to the UK, BBC have it as between 3,000 to 4,500 Euros per person. So this family may have paid between 15,000 and 22,500 euros to cross the channel, that's not including the getting to Calais part. That's more than a lot of people in the UK have to their names. The average annual income in Iran is £9,500.

So, either these people are not as destitute as they claim to be and are in their nation of origin, relatively wealthy. Or, they're getting the money from someone else. I would be so bold as to suggest if they are having their crossing paid for by someone else then it's likely one of these "charities", which to my mind makes them a criminal enterprise involved in people smuggling. Now that I've started thinking about it, this seems more and more likely. Those camps in Calais are widely reported as crime ridden, how long do you think a family would be able to hold on to that kind of cash if it was in their back pocket?
In sub-Saharan Africa the villages send the brightest and best, they even have a whip round to pay for it.
 
Top