Even on Remembrance Sunday, the BBC insults our glorious dead - "The BBC took up and indeed embroidered the story. On April 22 2021, the Breakfast news programme featured a summary by David Olusoga, introduced by Naga Munchetty, in which Olusoga stated as plain fact that the then Imperial War Graves Commission had been “complicit with other imperial organisations … just as committed to not giving equal treatment to black and middle eastern soldiers.” Almost predictably, Winston Churchill was stated, at Munchetty’s prompting, to have “deliberately signed off” on this policy. Regrettably, the War Graves Commission was seemingly panicked by the publicity into setting up a not-very-independent committee to report, which mostly endorsed the Olusoga-Lammy accusations of “pervasive racism”, and Boris Johnson and the Ministry of Defence feebly apologised. It was left to the redoubtable Professor Nigel (now Lord) Biggar to do what the government should have done and carry out a proper investigation. He found that the War Graves Commission had nearly everywhere carried out its stated policy that “all the soldiers of the Empire should be treated alike”, and where it did not, that was mostly due to difficult local conditions, and sometimes to respect for differing cultural practices. The evidence is literally carved in stone: on the Menin Gate “the names of Indians with no known grave join those of fallen British comrades cascading down the walls”, and at the cemetery at Noyelles-sur-Mer, “the burials of members of the Chinese Labour Corps are marked by individual headstones, just like those of British soldiers.” Not “pervasive racism”, then, but pervasive non-racism. Biggar’s report was published back in 2021, and predictably received no response from any of the institutions concerned. But the BBC should have realised that its claim on this Remembrance Sunday that “Many never received a proper grave [and] deaths were not properly recorded” is gratuitous, disputed and contentious... The small group of historians of which I am a member, History Reclaimed, submitted a report to the BBC in December 2022 listing distortions and omissions in its programmes on very sensitive historical issues: slavery, the slave trade, the Irish famine, the Benin bronzes, race, the 1943 Bengal famine and Winston Churchill. We concluded that BBC treatment of British history “never errs on the side of nuance and complexity, let alone generosity, but favours extreme and provocative claims [which] cannot be said to reflect serious scholarly opinion or even provide basic factual accuracy.”... Kemi Badenoch warned of the damage done by “a slow erosion of pride in our schools, our institutions, even parts of our media where the story of Britain is too often told through shame.” I am afraid that the BBC has been crucial to this erosion. It has betrayed its own history, and ours. It owes an apology to all of us."
Defund The BBC on X - "Oops! Bob Vylan lets slip that BBC staff loved his ‘death to the IDF’ chant. Of course BBC faithful Louis Theroux tries to play it down but Bob Vylan just can’t help spilling the beans. The corporation is rotten from top to bottom. #DefundTheBBC"
If the Picts were black, answer me this - "Addressing BBC staff after his resignation as director-general, Tim Davie said: “We have made some mistakes that have cost us.” I’m glad he accepts that the BBC was in the wrong. But is he quite sure about that word “mistakes”? Put it like this. Whenever football fans rage against the referee for making a mistake in the other side’s favour, pundits always patiently remind them that such errors “even themselves out over the course of the season”. And indeed they generally do. Curiously, however, this doesn’t seem to be the case with the BBC’s “mistakes”. For some mysterious reason, these “mistakes” always seem to suit the same side. For example, the BBC edited a speech by Donald Trump in a way that made it sound as if he was inciting violence – when, in reality, he’d told his followers to protest “peacefully”. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, the BBC has never edited a speech by Sir Keir Starmer to make it sound as if he’d said that the NHS is an exorbitant heap of clapped-out ideological rubbish that needs to be privatised pronto. Nor has it edited a speech by Ed Miliband to make it sound as if he’d said that net zero is a ruinously delusional folly. Or a speech by David Lammy, to make it sound as if he’d said that trans women are all just burly great blokes in frilly knickers. None of the BBC’s mistakes was anything like that. Instead, all the mistakes I’m aware of were ones that happened to suit viewers who hold Left-wing views: anti-Trump, pro-Palestine, pro-trans. How odd. Anyway, if the BBC wishes to avoid making this type of mistake in future, I offer the following piece of advice: don’t listen to the Lib Dems. In the Commons this week, Anna Sabine, the Lib Dem MP for Frome & East Somerset, declared that the BBC must be “free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas”. And the way to achieve this, she argued, was to “sack Robbie Gibb”. Yes, that’s the way to prove that the BBC is serious about tackling Left-wing bias. Fire the one man who isn’t Left-wing."
Black Lives Matter made our elites lose the plot – and they’re finally starting to admit it - "Michael Wharton (aka “Peter Simple”) worked in a freelance capacity for the BBC. One evening, in March 1953, he set off to meet a group of BBC colleagues for drinks. He arrived to find them all sitting in mournful silence. “What’s the matter?” he asked. “What’s happened?” One of the group looked up, and said solemnly, “Haven’t you heard? Stalin is dead.” Not sharing their grief, Wharton snorted: “Pity he was ever born.” So disgusted were his BBC colleagues by his appalling lack of respect for the great Communist mass-murderer that an entire fortnight passed before any of them would speak to him again. For a little while after, the BBC continued to accept Wharton’s contributions, but never offered him a full-time staff role. He discovered why when he stumbled upon a file which described him as “not really BBC material”. Well, clearly. And thank goodness for that."
Allison Pearson: The BBC has just signed its own death warrant - "We have become accustomed to BBC journalists lying by omission and the prioritisation of pet subjects – I swear there isn’t a spark caused by two sticks rubbed together in southern Europe that hasn’t been seized on by climate editor Justin Rowlatt as evidence of man-made global warming. But here we have a flagship factual programme deliberately misrepresenting the words of the most powerful man in the world. There can be no defence for inventing criminal speech – for that is how incitement to riot would be seen in a court of law. I do hope the president sues, don’t you? It recalls the infamous 2007 promotional trailer for the documentary, A Year With the Queen, which showed her late Majesty “storming out” of a photoshoot when she had done nothing of the sort. The BBC issued a public apology for the error resulting from “misordered footage” and the scandal led to the resignation of BBC One controller Peter Fincham. But that was in the days when the corporation was still led by honourable people who understood that journalistic integrity was everything. Increasingly politicised and walled up in a sense of its own virtue, today’s BBC is more likely to defend its inaccuracies. As we saw when Jeremy Bowen claimed a missile fired by the Islamic Jihad group had been launched by Israel and hit a hospital causing a suspiciously round number of casualties. When Bowen was later presented with the facts, he said he did not regret his story and he still holds the job of international editor, so we can presume his BBC bosses don’t care about fair and honest reporting either. On Tuesday, Gordon Rayner’s Telegraph exclusive on a leaked BBC dossier confirmed a bias towards Hamas in the BBC Arabic service. Allegations made against Israel were “raced to air without adequate checks – suggesting either carelessness or a desire to believe the worst about Israel”. Unfortunately, that hasn’t only happened in the Arabic service; such hostility is endemic throughout the news division. Well, that’s what you get when you hire a bunch of upper-middle-class journos, steeped in white guilt and loathing of the West at their posh private schools, who wear recreational keffiyehs at the weekend and enjoy their avocado toast with a side of anti-Semitism. The BBC loves to boast about diversity, but the crucial diversity it lacks is diversity of social class and opinion. The Tristrams and Tallulahs share the same politics: pro-Labour, pro-Remain, pro-migrant, pro-trans rights, pro-net zero. (Is there anyone in Broadcasting House who plans on voting for Nigel Farage? Apart from the security guards and canteen staff?) This homogeneity of views irritates the hell out of millions of licence-fee payers who increasingly seek their news elsewhere. And don’t get me started on Newsnight’s Victoria Derbyshire being surly and rude with the leader of Reform UK. And yet most of us have a long history with the BBC. It makes for complicated feelings as we watch it squander a glorious inheritance... In 1981, the day before he was due to read his final bulletin, [Kenneth] Kendall complained that the BBC had “lost touch with ordinary people”. (Prophetic words, Kenneth!)... Like “our NHS” – another self-satisfied national institution haemorrhaging public trust – the BBC acts like a religion issuing divine writ to the faithful. Unbelievers are rebuked or excommunicated. The pretence of impartiality is threadbare. The establishment of BBC Verify – “experts in disinformation and fact-checking” – was an act of hubris which now meets its nemesis after the shameful misrepresentation of Donald Trump by Panorama. There are calls for Tim Davie to resign as director-general of the BBC. Resignations and apologies are the very least we can expect after such a scandal, but how can they be enough when the “fake news” is not a mistake? It’s the reality the institution believes in. When the BBC shows it dislikes so much of the nation, it can no longer call itself the national broadcaster. It’s no longer “our BBC”, it’s theirs. And we aren’t prepared to pay for it."
The ‘noble lies’ of the BBC - spiked - "What we are witnessing is the full exposure of an elitist mindset, one that’s been central in driving the worldwide populist revolt of the past 10 years. The BBC is the epitome of an aloof class that exists in all Western countries. It has behaved mendaciously because it not only believes itself to be more intelligent than the rest of us – it believes it is morally superior to us, too. Those at the corporation who misleadingly spliced the US president’s speech, who have automatically deferred to the trans lobby, and who have mechanically taken the side of the Palestinians, did so for the same reason: they believed they were doing the morally right thing. Some time ago in the United States, many used to worry about the influence of the conservative Christian ‘moral majority’. But now we have a different type of clique holding sway: those armed with a sense of moral superiority. And a sense of righteousness can be a dangerous thing, because once you possess it, anything is permitted. The ‘noble lie’, a falsehood deliberately circulated to advance a cause deemed ultimately good, may strike many as something that’s only officially sanctioned in totalitarian states. But telling lies is what people with strongly held convictions invariably do. Over the past fortnight, even when reminded how BBC editors twice doctored a Trump speech from January 2021, the corporation’s most stubborn defenders have sought to justify the manipulation on the basis that Trump was ‘in essence’ inciting the mob violence of the ‘January 6’ riot. What was broadcast on Panorama and Newsnight captured a truth of sorts, they argue. In other words, it’s legitimate to doctor film footage of Donald Trump, if you sincerely believe that Donald Trump is dangerous and evil. Our overlords have been similarly deceitful over Gaza because they deem Palestinians to be deserving victims who automatically warrant sympathy against Israel, the oppressor. They have propagated falsehoods on the trans issue because this group is also presumed a persecuted minority, and because they feel they have a right to educate the masses in accordance with their ‘compassionate’ vision. In this new counter-factual reality, a man can get pregnant and a woman can rape someone with ‘her penis’. It matters little if this, or any other esoteric truth they take a fancy to, sounds absurd to normal people. Indeed, the more exclusive the ‘luxury belief’, the better. The elites revel in determining what constitutes knowledge, and making sure everyone knows the righteousness of the truths they dispense. This is why they get so exercised by ‘misinformation’, or have been eager to dictate what ordinary folk say in private through ‘hate speech’ laws, ‘non-crime hate incidents’ or the Online Safety Act. This is why they double down on ‘offensive’ and ‘inappropriate’ language. They don’t like it when words are used without inhibitions and restrictions and when knowledge is diffused without supervision. This is why they dissemble, mislead and prevaricate over truths that are inconvenient or unpleasant. Hence the cowardice and dishonesty about the rape gangs in the north of England, or their indignation when a newsreader – someone whose job it is to impart facts – rolled her eyes when prompted to read aloud that fraudulent construction: ‘pregnant people’."
BBC Clothes Show ex-presenter boycotts licence fee over ‘bias’ - "The former presenter of the BBC’s Clothes Show has stopped paying his licence fee in protest at “extreme bias” at the broadcaster. Jeff Banks, the fashion designer and former BBC presenter, said he was being pursued by licence fee collectors after he stopped paying the annual charge... “In my day, the World Service was held in esteem. It’s not any more. People are doubtful whether it’s actually telling the truth and the BBC has become extremely biased... Banks, awarded a CBE in the 2009 Queen’s Birthday Honours List for services to fashion and charity, founded Warehouse, the high street chain, in the 1970s. In 1986, he was co-host of The Clothes Show, the influential fashion programme which began life as a segment on the Pebble Mill, the BBC daytime show. In his video, Banks said: “I had the pleasure of working for the BBC from 1980-2002. I did a number of shows and worked with the team at Pebble Mill, which was a brilliant organisation with great producers, great directors, fantastic cameramen, lighting men and sound engineers. It was a great period which I thoroughly enjoyed.” However, he said that Lord Reith, founder of the BBC, would be “turning in his grave” at the state of the corporation today. “[Lord Reith] created it in 1927 on the principle that it would not bend to government or politicians, it would uphold the law and it would be completely independent and unbiased. That is not the situation, however, that exists today. “Scandal after scandal – and the last big one, obviously, with the president of the United States being badly represented.”"
Damn far right extremist! He just wants billionaires to control the media and produce biased news to push their agenda!
There is no Right-wing plot against the BBC. Its troubles are of its own making - "To listen to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, the problem with the BBC is straightforward: there is a sinister cabal of politicians obsessed with doing the organisation down. The broadcaster is “a light on the hill” for the British people; MPs who dare to assert that “institutional bias” could be an issue are attacking “a national institution that belongs to us all”. Some of the BBCs high profile champions have gone further and claim that shadowy forces on the Right, aided and abetted by their allies in the media, are attempting to pull off a coup against this bastion of impartial reporting. A member of the BBC board, Sir Robbie Gibb, has been singled out for opprobrium. His sins are being a Tory and a Brexiteer. Sir Robbie served as Theresa May’s director of communications and was appointed to his current position by Boris Johnson. But Sir Robbie is no BBC ingenue. He enjoyed a long career with the broadcaster as a producer and editor of political programmes. Sir Robbie understands the Corporation. It is not Sir Robbie, or indeed the BBC’s critics, who created the current crisis. They did not edit Donald Trump’s speech, creating a deeply misleading impression. And the Panorama debacle stands far from alone. It is only one in a long list of serious misjudgments at the BBC... Removing Sir Robbie from the board would do nothing to stop such problems from recurring. If anything, it would make matters worse as fewer people within the Corporation would see that there are very real issues. If Sir Robbie’s conservative politics are an issue, why not the pronounced Left-wing views of other members? There is no sign of internal recognition that there is an urgent need for the Corporation to tackle its own failings. The Government does not seem to grasp the issue either. Instead, there is an apparently united front, and an understanding that the organisation must be shielded from criticism. Perversely, it is precisely this resistance to criticism, and not the barbs of critics, that is most likely to damage the broadcaster in the long run."
Leo Kearse - on YouTube & touring on X - "The BBC edited an article to remove the fact that a paedophile was a drag queen and a Pride organiser. They doctor their news reporting to hide facts about crimes that contradict their woke ideology"
Simon Houlding 🇬🇧🏴🇷🇺🇮🇱 on X - "What makes me laugh is the people defending the BBC ohh it’s only a mistake, are the very people that try and get GB news shut down every five minutes for the slightest mistake or even no mistakes, just for having the wrong opinion."
Rafe Heydel-Mankoo on X - "Is it too much to ask the national broadcaster to present a BALANCED doc. on the British Empire? In other words, one NOT presented by race activist David Olusoga. Michael Prescott's BBC dossier revealed that leading historians wrote to the BBC in 2022 criticizing the broadcaster for choosing unqualified, fringe or biased figures to present history documentaries. The BBC were completely dismissive. Case in point: David Olusoga is not an expert on the Empire and he only has a BA in history. Why couldn't they have asked a legitimate, recognised expert? BBC's "Empire" was another wasted opportunity to genuinely educate people about the complexities of the British Empire. Both the negatives AND the positives. Advancing his victimhood agenda, all we saw was a relentless tale of woe. No mention of the brutal lives in many of these lands prior to the arrival of the British, nor of the abhorrent cultural practices the British tried to stamp out (human sacrifice, head hunting, FGM, slavery etc. etc.). No mention of the increase in life expectancy and the huge population growth in India, Africa etc. due to the introduction of science, medicine, clean water, sanitation, food storage etc. No mention of the huge leap forward provided to these peoples through the introduction of democracy, the rule of law, the civil service, the police, the military, universities, hospitals, electricity etc. Instead, we were treated to meaningless interviews with young people. What possible value is there in listening to young people's views on the British Empire other than to advance an anti-British agenda. Today's youth know next to nothing about the British Empire other than the biased history with which they've been indoctrinated at school - and in agenda-driven documentaries like this. If anyone wants a decent history of the end of the British Empire - one that does not shy away from pointing out Britain's failures - I do recommend the BBC's 1980s epic series "End of Empire". If only we had such quality programming today."
The BBC's relentless war on Britain's past has reached another horrible stage - "Professor Lawrence Goldman, an historian and emeritus fellow at St Peter’s College, has rightly claimed that the series presents a pessimistic view of the British Empire. Goldman, the former director of the Institute of Historical Research (IHR), also suggested that Olusoga “isn’t interested in much beyond victimhood”. As well as sharing advances in science, medicine, education, and transportation, Britain exported to some of its colonies parliamentary democracy based on the Westminster model of government and sophisticated systems of civil administration – providing a framework for good governance and policy implementation. Britain also played an integral part in the abolition of sadistic indigenous practices such as sati in India – the custom of burning or burying alive Hindu widows following the death of their husbands (which was viewed by its advocates as the ideal embodiment of womanly devotion). Prominent opposition to sati came in the shape of British Christian evangelist William Carey and Hindu social reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy, with the British governor-general of India, Lord William Bentinck, declaring the practice punishable by the criminal courts. Rejecting a petition by 800 orthodox Hindus who demanded the withdrawal of the ban, the Privy Council upheld it. As Policy Exchange’s History Matters project has documented, Britain’s rich tradition of humanitarianism and moral sacrifice is all too often trivialised, if not utterly ignored, by those who appear obsessed with caricaturing the nation as a historic force of wickedness. This good work includes the pioneering role played by Britain in suppressing the Atlantic slave trade – especially by the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron, which carried out its missions under incredibly challenging conditions. The BBC, repeatedly, has been directly responsible for disrespecting the majority of Britons who quite rightly believe, that throughout history, Britain has been a force for good in the world. It is time that was put to an end – British citizens deserve a national public broadcaster which provides a much fairer and honest account of their national history."
BBC ‘targeting Reform councillors’ - "Reform UK has accused the BBC of targeting its councillors since the local elections in May. An analysis by Nigel Farage’s party claimed that the BBC reported on 95 per cent of Reform councillors who had resigned, defected or been suspended or expelled. Reform said that this compared with just over 15 per cent of Labour and Conservative councillors who had lost their party whip since May 1... The BBC has been forced to apologise to Mr Farage twice in recent years, first in 2023 for its coverage of the debanking row and then again last year over an impartiality breach. In July 2023, Simon Jack, the BBC’s business editor, made an apology after a story published by the corporation suggested Mr Farage had his Coutts account shut for “falling below” the private bank’s wealth limit. Mr Farage later acquired a dossier indicating his account was shut by Coutts, owned by NatWest Group, because it had found his public statements did “not align” with its values. During last year’s general election, the BBC apologised to the Reform leader once more after journalist Geeta Guru-Murthy accused him of using “customary inflammatory language” at a press conference."
