Gus O’Donnell given free and unchallenged time to scaremonger regarding supposed impossibility of negotiating exit; trade deals inside two years, as specified by Article 50. Regardless of idiocy of his position which effectively says there is no legal way of leaving the EU, the BBC SHOULD have an opposing voice – there was none. Just NR nodding along sagely.
Norman Smith Twitter. BBC Assistant Political Editor. Norman’s at it again! He’s issued 2 tweets about ex GCHQ chief Sir David Omand’s view that UK security would be damaged if we left the EU. What Norman hasn’t tweeted is ex MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove and David Davis’s comment refuting Omand’s view, which is based on the dubious assumption that co-operation between the UK and EU countries would cease on Brexit. Funny because these views all appeared on the BBC website, yet Norman has only tweeted the pro-EU source – twice!
I turned on the computer this morning and was shocked – in a good way – at the main headline on BBC Online; EU exit backed by 250 business leaders. That can’t be right, i thought; these are the kind of stories that get moved to minuscule columns on a superfluous part of the site. I rubbed my eyes and looked again – there could be no mistake, there it was in bold, headlining the website. So, like i said, a good shock – until i read the article and realised how much the BBC has done to discredit the Out campaigners. The article points out, as quickly as the 5th line into the story, that ‘Britain Stronger in Europe said Vote Leave could not find a business to officially back it, as those listed supported it in a “personal capacity”‘, before Joe Lynam, BBC’s Business correspondent offers us some of the strangest analysis i may have seen on a BBC news story. He points out that many on the list of 250 business leaders backing Brexit are ‘colourful names’ before stating that ‘there are no current FTSE 100 chief executives or chairmen and only 13 out of the 250 signatories are women.’ What the hell has that (13 from 250) got to do with anything? The BBC’s equality and diversity drive is an entirely different campaign so why mention it in this story? I’ve read plenty of stories on BBC Online where they state analysis of business leaders voting to remain. The stories are always positive and there is absolutely no text or quotes to discredit them . I watch and read the BBC in the hope that one day, they will follow their remit to impartiality. When i saw this headline, i was pleasantly pleased and hoped for a good article with many leaders stating their intentions and reasons for voting to leave. What i read was more BBC bias discrediting the leave campaign and a few lines from both the In and Out campaign making their cases. I’m fairly sure the Brexiteers aren’t given this much space on a remain article. I hope and pray every day that the BBC will adhere to the many complaints it receives on its bias and accord the license payers the respect they deserve by following its remit and reporting the news impartially. I guess this is what they call ‘the American dream.’ We might wish it but it’s never going to happen.
BBC didn’t waste anytime yesterday to capitalise upon the dreadful events in Brussels and are determined in their promotion of the idea that staying in the EU would be safer, whilst minimising the inadequacies of Belgian security. Continually during the BBC special broadcast the quotes running beneath the commentary were Hollandes, ‘It was Europe that was targeted.’ and ‘Must make sure our Unity is not affected.’ and Merkel’s, ‘Attacks directed at EU’. I hesitated to complain at the time but felt (and I’m sure I’m not alone) that the BBC was using this tragedy to point score in advance of the referendum in order to persuade us that leaving would be dangerous. So imagine my annoyance when I saw today on the BBC online live update ‘Right wing politicians score points’. Using the EUobserver as it’s source said that UKIP’s MIke Hookem had ‘… blamed the attacks on the EU’s freedom of movement laws and on Germany’s decision to welcome refugees.’ Whilst Mr. Hookem did mention Schengen in this context he didn’t mention Germany at all, he did speak of ‘… the EU’s open door migration policies that have allowed this situation to develop.’ which is not the same thing at all. Of course the BBC did not bother to mention that Mr Hookem had said first and foremost, ‘I’m appalled at the needless loss of life and injuries caused by these heartless attacks and my thoughts go out to all those affected.’ because, unsurprisingly, the EUobserver hadn’t bothered to quote Mike Hookem upon this point either. The EUobserver went to some pains to lump UKIP’s message in with Islamaphobic comments from Geert Wilder and Marine Le Pen and of course the BBC are simply lapping up that comparison. By using a secondary source the BBC can of course distance themselves from misrepresentation. I’m appalled that the BBC should attempt to accuse Brexiteers of point scoring upon this issue when they shamelessly used the image of a dead child last year to promote their own agenda regarding the migrant crisis which I found sick to say the least.
I was loathe to comment on BBC pro EU bias yesterday out of respect – it would not have been right for me to expose the BBC’s partiality to all things EU on a day when another terrorist atrocity tore into Brussels heart and affected so many innocent people. I have been incensed, though, by a comment posted on the live feed section of the BBC. ‘Right wing parties…..score points.’ I’d be interested to know how many times the BBC (and other forms of left wing media) have used migrant deaths (in particular, that of the young boy on the beach in Greece) to further their own agenda of promoting the freedom of movement in Europe. Many comments i have read, purporting to be from right wing parties, have been taken out of context by a bias BBC which is keen to further its remain agenda while pillorying the apparent right for comments that have been purposely altered to make them sound worse. It’s shameful.
Pro-EU bias in reporting the Brussels atrocities. R4 Today interviewed Lord Hill, EU Commissioner. He was allowed to imply that leaving the EU would not improve UK safety, and referred to being out of Schengen, and the “home grown” bombers of 7/7 in London. His comments went unchallenged, nor was a counter view from the Leave campaign invited. Such balance might well have demolished these red herrings, pointing out that Schengen is merely a 3-year delay before the current mass influx of migrants get their EU passports allowing passage to the UK, and that European Human Rights law has stopped us from deporting terrorists who roam free to incite UK nationals to commit Brussels-type atrocities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35855869 Big headline “EU referendum: CBI warns of UK exit ‘serious shock’” the CBI are EU funded so this a one sided survey that can not be trusted , yet the BBC love to quote them as often as possible ,2nd feature in less than a week by CBI
Whenever Louise Bours (UKIP) was answering a question from the audience David Dimbleby either closed her down before she got her point across; or he said “I want to move on but I’ll come back to it later.” Of course he never did; but this is a ploy that is used by the BBC so that Leave the EU people can’t register their arguments for leaving/justify their points. The ploy is used time and time again.
I’ve just sent this in an email to the BBC, newswatch, have your say and complaints I figured you folks may be interested as well Hi BBC, in the last week, 12/3/2016-19/3/2016, you carried a story on your web pages which was about pressure on wages and lowering standards of living. I have searched your pages and it appears to have vanished This is not the first time things like this happen You may be trying not to be biased about the EU but you seem to be doing a very good job of hiding any stories that may lend support to the leave campaign You ‘lost’ the 2 stories you had on high immigration negatively impacting the wages of the lowest paid, there was one from the BoE you carried last July, and a follow up about Mark Carney in December Both of these stories have disappeared, your versions can not even be found with hours of internet searching BBC, I will be passing this email on the the ombudsman You clearly are showing bias against the leave campaign by hiding stories you think strengthen their case This is unacceptable BBC and I really hope you are dragged over the coals for this You disrespect every person in this country D Rice
BBC political editor/commentator, sometime after news at 6am, forcefully and definitely expressed (what must be only his own (BBC) opinion) that Iain Duncan Smith had resigned mainly to further the Brexit cause, not on moral grounds, ie not over the Osborne budget benefit cuts. Unbelievable bias! This after the very prominent airing of the biased CBI opinion about grave Brexit dangers. BBC has sunk to being an EU propaganda machine, with a mere fig leaf of Brexit opinion, meagrely included – never made prominent. This is appalling and they should be made to stop influencing, rather than informing, the public.
In the latter segment of the programme (when it moves to the relevant regional viewing) they did short interviews with three people on the streets of Grimsby. Two were for ‘Remain’ and one was for ‘Out’ of the EU. Clear bias. They should have shown tow and two. But instead they tried to give the impression that more people are for ‘Remain’.
BBC online news ran a top billing news story regarding Ian Duncan Smith which at its best used a sensationalist headline, to smear. Followed in the story was nothing but a very opinionated and unsubstantiated claims. But written in a colourful way designed to cause impact. The story also gained #1 position in the “BBC’s Most popular news stories”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35854735
Mr Roger Helmer was answering a question from a member of the audience about the EU and in particular about the effect of Turkish visa-free travel to the UK and the effect it would have on the UK. Mr Dimbleby had already handed the question to Mr Helmer for him to answer; but beforeMr Helmer could outline his answer Mr Dimbleby (in the middle of Mr Helmer’s answer) pointed to another audience member and asked what was their question. This was deliberate stifling of the Leave EU argument.
The US elections, specifically Trump, you’d expect to have nothing to do with our EU referendum. But the BBC still manages to insert subtle fear tactics in other unrelated stories as well. In a story about Trump included on top 10 global risks by the EIU, “He [TRUMP] is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European”. It also includes a video which mentions our EU situation twice, one stating “And more dangerous than…. The UK leaving the EU”, and the other again making use of the word dangerous. The word dangerous is not mentioned on the EIU site, in fact EU exit is the only “risk” that is given a “low impact” but the BBC manage to attribute fear to an exit none the less. Very subtle BBC but we know what you’re doing.
Peter Mandelson was interviewed by Mark Mardell about a pro-EU speech he had given that morning. Apart from repeating many of the discredited and disporoved facts about the EU/UK relationship, Mandelson made many references to Britain’s ‘privileged’ access ot the EU single market. At no point did Mark Mardell challenge what exactly was meant by ‘privileged’ access, and even I, as a layman, would have linked this to the 55 million pounds per day that the UK pays to be part of the EU! Many other countries in the world have access to the single market so this is hardly privileged!. Mandelson was given a free and easy ride throughout the interview with only one or two weak and half-hearted interventions by Mardell.
Guardian EU Referendum debate. BBC bias by omission. No mention on the BBC website, or programmes, nor on the Twitter accounts of BBC News Presenters nor Political Editor Nick Robinson or Assistant, Norman Smith. Though Norman did manage to Tweet a series of exclusively pro-EU messages, and in large letters for effect! Perhaps this was because the Guardian’s own polling recorded a thumping victory for Brexit? More BBC bias by omission. They seem to be getting worse!
The BBC touted the ‘big’ headline: Out vote ‘could weaken Nato’, says US general, as if this were a really important and significant intervention. In the news item there was hardly anything said to balance this, even though the statement is completely groundless. There was a very brief and unconvincing mention of the pro-Brexit opinion of the matter, but then the final words were again supporting remain. Usually a political or controversial news item finishes with a countering view (especially, it seems, if the item is not in line with a view in favour with the BBC), but in this case the pro-EU view was prominently promoted at the start and then reinforced at the end.
BBC website has a prominent headline of “Out vote could harm nato – US general”. The text then summarises an interview by Radio 4 Today with US General Hodges. To be fair, he does imply a concern about the impact of EU-UK discord on the ability of NATO to function at maximum effectiveness. However, he does not go as far as to say the UK leaving the EU could harm NATO. Worse, on the same website article, there is no mention at all of the later interview by Today of Richard Kemp, ex UK commander in Afghanistan. Perhaps this is because Mr Kemp clearly stated that there was no such issue, and that the UK leaving the EU could actually be beneficial? Yet more pro-EU “bias by omission” from the BBC.
There’s a story on Victoria Derbyshire (which i am still watching in disbelief) on truckers who are going to the Court of Appeal because of the large and unfair fines they are getting due to illegal migrants hitching to the UK in their vehicles. The Belgium driver being interviewed is obviously upset at the lack of assistance drivers are receiving in combating this issue and the BBC have, in their studio, an illegal migrant/a refugee, who was helped in Calais by a smuggler to make the trip to the UK in one of these haulage trucks. Rather than highlight his mass illegality in entering the country and the problems he has created for a driver who probably received one of the heavy fines issued, Ms Derbyshire highlights the dangerous journey he took and how he felt when undertaking the journey. There’s no way that anyone entering illegally should be sitting in the BBC studios helping them propagate their very partial pro EU bias. Once again, i am appalled by their lack of judgement.
For months the BBC have been following a Syrian family en route to Germany. Why are they not, instead or as well, following one of the less-than-law-abiding young, single males who are arriving in Germany in large numbers? Could it be that they are seeking to influence the public opinion of the type of migrants who are arriving?
Norman Smith BBC News Assistant Political Editor. Twitter. Mr Smith is supposed to be impartial, but just look at his Tweets. A series of pro-EU Tweets, several in extra large letters to emphasise their impact. Such as Mr Carney’s assertions about positive EU influence and George Osborne’s comments about the effects of Brexit. Yet, Tweets with a pro-Brexit message are few, and none are in large letters. Worse, Norman exercises the well used BBC practice of “bias by omission”. He’s failed to make any Tweet about the most senior Tory MEP, Mr Kamal, defecting to Brexit on Friday. Nor the sharp setback suffered by Angela Merkel in Sunday’s elections to an anti-EU Party. Presenters such as Mr Smith do no favours to the BBC’s credibility as an impartial source of news.
Syed Kamall, Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, joined the Leave campaign. I read it in the Evening Standard on my way home from work. It was also reported in most of the major newspapers. BBC Online obviously considered it a non-story, despite the fact that it was considered to be a major blow to David Cameron. They, instead, tagged it on the end of the more extensively covered sentiments of Chuka Umunna and Tony Blair. The key issue that led to Mr Kamall’s decision was discrimination against non-EU citizens in immigration policy. Indeed, many people are concerned by the sinister mistreatment of non-EU citizens in this country, from unequal pay in the labour market to forced separation from family. The British people are often asking for facts before they cast their vote and the BBC are meant to present us with facts, however, since the revelations of BBC inaction against Jimmy Savile, I begin to wonder if the culture of ‘cover up’ is their modus operandi. When Kirsty Wark interviewed Will Self and Munira Mirza on Newsnight on the same day, the topic of discrimination was brought to an abrupt close as if this was an inconvenient truth that needed to be buried (not entirely in the spirit of investigative journalism). It made me wonder about 1930s Germany. Did people just turn a blind eye to discriminatory laws against a minority group or did the propaganda machine ensure that they were simply not told? Fortress Europe and the vicious discrimination against non-EU citizens is a serious ethical issue. Australia had an immigration policy from 1901 to 1973 that stopped non-Europeans from coming to live in Australia. It was called the White Australia Policy. Today, Australians look back in shame, yet we adopt a similar policy. It may not be exactly the same in theory, but in practice we have an immigration policy that favours people from a largely white continent. As a Labour voter, I know there is a strong left wing case for leaving the EU. There is a social and moral conversation that is just as important as the economic one that the BBC completely ignores. Will continued membership prevent rail renationalisation? How safe is the NHS from TTIP? What is the effect of the CAP on developing countries? On this last question, maybe things have improved since the reform of the CAP, but how would anyone know? None of us are being given the facts. Apologies for the lengthy rant. Maybe I have been too hard on the BBC. The omission of the Syed Kamall story may not be entirely their fault. Maybe they just didn’t know who he was? After all, he is a member of the European Parliament.
Bbc radio and TV programmes include and publicise pro EU news and facts but little pro Brexit news and facts, or when they do mention Brexit such views are generally ridiculed. Comedy shows are especially insulting of anyone with a pro Brexit opinion. Yet pro EU comments on most programmes, even when untrue, are seldom corrected. With a UK public mostly forced to pay for the bbc by license fee, this bias is not good enough. May I suggest that a more balanced coverage of the EU debate can be had, by including the on line news site www.breitbart.com/london/ in your viewing. I include this suggestion as many phoning into phone in programmes or attending TV programmes such as Question Time, for instance, have asked where they can get information from both sides. Breitbart London has recently been publicising facts and events more likely to encourage pro Brexit views, which are often ignored by other news channels and sources. Including Breitbart London in ones browsing and news input will provide a better balance, they even include news and articles on matters which seem to be or are censored and ignored by mainland European countries such as Sweden, France and Germany. (Just to make clear! I have nothing to do with this news source or reason to promote it, other than I was starting to despair of all theone sided debates, until I found a link to it by chance towards the end of last year…).
In ‘Shall I Say or Shall I go’ section a Welsh woman explained how produce for her business from The Canaries took months longer to arrive than that from the EU and that she could not be sure of prices due to currency fluctuations and more… She was given a long part of the section but, of course, The Canaries are a part of the EU and the euro, it is the euro that fluctuates against sterling…
Report discussing the upcoming German Elections, the reporter describes the leader of the Eurosceptic AfD as having “called for border guards to shoot migrants”, in fact, she said no such thing. What she said was more to the effect of “border guards should be allowed to use force to defend the borders”. The wording used by the BBC is blatantly politically biased against this party in a way that I think justifies reporting here.
This complaint refers to the panel that in my opinion is not balanced. The EU debate is very serious, and I expect to hear from four panalists only in order that we hear more questions and answers. Two pro-eu and two brexit is what we need. STRICT times for answers MUST be equal as much as can be. At present times are unequal. During these eu discussions, the Chair is is not challenging the panel to admit that ALL so called ‘eu money’ coming into the UK, is in FACT UK money coming back. It is unfair the BBC effectively assist the ‘remain’ campaign by not highlighting the obvious. so the younger generations are effectively ‘brainwashed’. I would also like to see Question Time extended to two hours in order for the truth to properly come out. The BBC should also point out they actually receive some eu funding, which is on top of the licence fee. The BBC is, by definition, biased at the outset. Politicians on the panel tend to use the airtime for their own self serving ambitions. Politicians who have the courage to support brexit are often cut short, or not allowed to correct incorrect statements from audience members. The BBC were covering Cameron’s pro-eu stance long before he allowed his party to support pro-brexit. This was not reflected by the BBC. All other broadcasters are not funded by the licence fee, and they do well, or they go bust. The BBC should support themselves and the licence fee should be phased out for good.
Martine Croxall interview of Professor Richard Whitman following Boris Johnson speech in Kent, calling for a Brexit agreement with the EU on the lines of Canadian terms. Prof Whitman was described as representing a non-partisan organisation. What was not explained was that he is an ardent pro-EU supporter. For example, his presentation to the IIEA on 20 October 2015, extolling the virtues of EU membership with regard to Foreign and Security matters. Prof Whitman was then invited to analyse the problems with a Canadian-style agreement, as if Mr Johnson had proposed a verbatim deal. He had not. He had merely suggested something akin to the Canadian format. It was therefore a wholly misleading discussion about Brexit terms which were not being proposed with someone who is pro-EU, yet implied to be neutral. Nor was anyone from the Brexit campaigns invited to offer a balanced debate. Another example of pro-EU misinformation from the BBC
During Sunday Politics on the 7th of Feb, Andrew Neil was interviewing Peter Bone re the launch of the GO campaign when something quite incongruous was shown. The substance of this segment ran thus: Andrew Neil suddenly took a detour from the subject at hand and complimenting Mr. Bone upon his tie, proceeded to show a picture of Philip Hollobone wearing a union flag jacket, saying, ‘This picture has more than just a tie on…one of your colleagues, launching the campaign with the union jack jacket. People might remember the John Redwood leadership campaign and would wonder if politicians want to be seen on the same platform as that? Peter Bone (attempting to get back on track), said ‘People are going out across the country, campaigning to come out of the EU. Andrew Neil (cutting in): ‘Not looking like that!?’ In a few minutes the BBC had managed to malign John Redwood (who has been critical of the Corporation), Phillip Hollobone (Who, no doubt they disapprove of for other reasons, is also critical of the BBC), patriotism, the national flag and Brexit. This could be construed as rather clever of the Beeb but I prefer the words snide, insidious and sneering. By showing the union flag jacket the BBC of course hoped to conjure images of flag waving EDL, BNP, Britain first and/or NF skinheads. It was a knee Jerk Emily Thornberry reaction to a display of patriotism and was designed to smear the GO campaign and by extension Brexit campaigners as a whole. The BBC, in reaction to my complaint, attempted to tell me that, ‘Andrew noted the GO branded tie Mr Bone was wearing, and questioned whether politics and fashion really mixed. ‘ Which is laughable, they further went on to say that, ‘ It also reflected on the role personalities have in a campaign, rather than policies. There was no suggestion that the flag itself was inappropriate – but simply that some voters might not be impressed by the public image of certain personalities (for a number of reasons – as John Redwood’s leadership campaign was name-checked as a precedent). Whilst I can certainly concede that the BBC would be anxious to draw attention to the more controversial figures in the GO camp it is also certain, since Phillip Hollobone was not mentioned by name, that this was not the intention of this snippet. And unless the BBC have taken to calling fellow human beings (even if they disapprove of them) ‘THAT’ I can only conclude It was the jacket which was under scrutiny and was intended to perpetuate an idea that patriotism is a sole prerogative of the far right. It might seem a small thing to some people but I genuinely believe many undecided voters will have watched this item and been deterred from supporting Brexit for fear of being associated with extreme views. I have elevated my complaint and await a response with not much optimism.
Today’s lunchtime news led with a major speech by Boris Johnson for the Leave campaign but the additional comment provided by the political correspondent (on Boris’ motivation for supporting the leave campaign) was so slanted that it detracted from the main message of the speech. I haven’t seen the BBC treat the PM’s speeches for the Remain campaign in the same way leading to the conclusion that their coverage is biased.
Two pro EU stories in the headlines. One repeating claims that David Cameron thinks people who want to leave EU think job losses are a price worth paying and another about a letter signed by Stephen Hawking saying science in Britain would suffer if we left the EU. All delivered in school maamish tones designed to make us believe we are hearing the pure unadulterated truth. No mention of main anti EU news story of the day, that EU intelligence agencies are not putting names of European jihadi returnees on databases for intelligence sharing, which refutes the pro EU claim that we are more secure as EU members.
Vicky Young referring to Chris Grayling saying he was “very rude” about Remain/Cameron. “Very Rude” is subjective. It was not rude from my perspective.
Coverage of the appearance of Mark Carney in front of a Select Committee and his pro-EU stance/letter was totally unquestioning with no attempt to show any research or counter arguments from other organisations who have questioned his assumptions or mentioning the fact that the former BoE governor Mervyn King has yet to be convinced either way. The follow-up piece concerned Boris Johnson and the ‘edict’ issued by one of his officials around supporting the Mayor’s stance on the EU. There was no mention of the fact that this request ONLY concerned official business and NOT personal views. He was doorstepped as he got off a bicycle about this non-issue, and the fact that he paraphrased a quote from Monty Python in response was used by Norman Smith to imply that he lacked credibility and depth on serious issues like the referendum compared to ‘Remain’ supporters like Mark Carney. In addition Norman Smith commented out of context on Johnson’s performance on the Andrew Marr show without any context or balance.
The show showed a mixture of clips with as they put it the rise of far right parties of which they showed Nigel Farage along side the French far right party and Donald Trump.Owen Bennett a labour journalist was asked to assess these parties. The Beeb is inciting hatred towards UKIP and giving the wrong impression of the party.
Tony Blair interview. TB was allowed to make a series of unfounded pro-EU propaganda statements, which Nick Robinson failed to challenge. Indeed, the interview was conducted in Chummy Tone, a far cry from the frosty and aggressive tones adopted by BBC interviewers of Brexit campaigners. Blair was allowed to refer to being pro-Europe, not pro-EU. Nor was he asked to provide any evidence to back up his assertions and scaremongering. Mr Robinson didn’t challenge TB with one single fact, beyond a brief reference to the euro, which was glossed over in true BBC style. The interview was allowed to conclude with Blair making an unchallenged assertion that British people’s interests would be damaged fundamentally. Ironic indeed on a day when the boss of the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund (Norway – £600bn) confirmed investment in the UK would not change, and might even increase, upon Brexit. Sadly, Nick was too star struck to ask Tone about it!
The interview with Tony Blair this morning was virtually free from interruption or challenge from the interviewer, unlike the treatment usually reserved for pro Brexit guests who are constantly harangued. The BBC should not be trying to influence the outcome of the EU referendum to it’s own advantage, your duty is to educate and inform, not manipulate.
Sarah Montague interview with Sun Editor, Tony Gallagher. At the start of the interview, Ms Montague refers Mr Gallagher to the Editors Code which prescribes that Headlines should be supported by text. Later on, Ms Montague makes the sweeping statement that “plenty of people who were disparaging about the EU 5 years ago are now supporters of a vote for the UK to stay in”. This statement is unsupported by any evidence, nor did Sarah acknowledge there may be similar, or even more, numbers who felt the reverse, and now want out. By stating “plenty” Ms Montague implied a substantial body of pro-EU changed opinions, for which there is no evidence. This is yet another example of the BBC’s subliminal pro-EU bias. By ignoring the possibility of a similar, or greater, number of anti-EU changed opinions, Sarah was indulging in yet another example of BBC bias by omission.
BBC World Service news report on the early results of the EU/Turkey immigration crisis meeting. This is a typical form of more subtle BBC propaganda. The presenter went out of his way to make the point that the term “irregular immigration” or “irregular immigrant” was a new one to him and to the listeners. Untrue. Frontex have been using these terms for at least 3 years. Why does this matter? Because the BBC has deliberately omitted to report on Frontex and its activities in anything more than the most cursory and obscure way imaginable. To admit that the term “irregular immigrant” was familiar would be to beg the observation from the listener “not to me it isn’t” and then the question “if it’s familiar to you and not me, what else haven’t you been telling me about the issue?”.
Jeremy Vine discusses whether the Queen would want the UK to stay in/out of the EU. In the light of the sun’s newspaper front cover, “Queen backs Brexit” Jeremy Vine speaks to Richard Fitzwilliams who biasedly quoted on whether the queen would wish to say or leave the EU, quote “if you seized my hand and forced it, it would go down to stay in” … The conversation was full of bias with Vine gloating Fitzwilliams into agreeing that the queen would choose to stay in the EU on three or more occasions.. Further, they talked about secret codes? saying that these may mean that they are codes to stay in. I have included a link to the radio programme the interview with Vine and Fitzwilliams starts at 1 hr 39mins 9 seconds http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071sbks#play
Sir Edward Davey was asked by Mishal Husain for his thoughts regarding the story in the Sun concerning Her Majestys comments on the EU. He said “If we pull out of the EU we will destroy our country because Scotland will go independant, the Peace Process in Northern Ireland will be under real pressure and we won’t have something called the United Kingdom or Great Britain any more. I doubt the Queen wants that”. He was then thanked by Ms Husain. Why was he allowed to make such a statement and not challenged to provide evidence for his claims.
The item referred to the Queens complaint regarding ‘The Sun’ article stating the Queen supported ‘Brexit’. We were informed that the Queen always remains non-political but then showed the Queen, talking in June last year, where she spoke about ‘the dangers of a divided Europe’.
BBC EU Referendum Reality Check: Do we get £1,200 back for every £120 we put into the EU? A question asked at today’s PMQs. The answer from the BBC in their Reality Check series? Totally unsubstantiated from both the BBC and CBI link(where does the figure of £3000 per household come from?) Failed to question the CBI’s lack of impartiality as it is a know fact that they receive EU funding. Thought the whole point of a reality check was to present the facts from both sides!!
Nicky Campbell interviewed Peter Fahy, retired Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police this morning. It was barely an interview, more a platform for Peter Fahy to make as many unsubstantiated pro-EU statements (particularly regarding security) as possible. None of which were challenged by the interviewer, and no opposing voice or point of view was presented. Indeed, after several minutes, when Mr Fahy appeared to be flagging, the Mr Campbell had to provide a prompt to help Mr Fahy link ‘an imminent ISIS attack’ to ‘leaving the EU’. And quite what expertise an ex-Chief of Police has regarding ‘Climate change’ or ‘the situation in the middle east’, never mind the ‘positive effect of the EU’ on these things, remains a mystery. It was never questioned. Basically, a 5 minute, unchallenged pro-EU advert.
BBC News at 10 second item attempt to smear and ridicule Boris Johnson over his anti-EU stance with accusations of hypocrisy and snearing suggestions that he should not be taken seriously. Kuesnsberg joined in!
This webpage http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35425735 about Sweden saying it would deport 80,000 of its recent arrivals was on the site early in the morning. It was very popular, and featured mid-list in the Most Popular sidebar the BBC runs. About 10am the story was opened to comments. The comments were mostly negative with respect to migration. About 11am the story suddenly vanished from the home page. Usually stories slowly move down the list until they drop off the bottom. This didn’t, it vanished. I looked in the Europe section, it wasn’t there either. The only way I could find it was by clicking More at the top of the website, then Have Your Say, then scrolling down. The story had been buried. It survived a few more minutes in the most-popular sidebar, but then, with no direct link to it from any of the main pages, fell out. I was shocked to see the BBC behave this way, and I filed a formal complaint with the BBC through their system. I agree with you though that filing complaints about the BBC with the BBC is not a reasonable process. One additional point : the top rated comment there, “Hey liberals! Thanks for ruining Europe” was deleted by the moderators at about the time of the burying. Looking now (8 March) it has been reinstated.
The main headline news item was about BOE Governor Mark Carney’s comments about Brexit (on BBC News all day I believe). The item was heavily slanted to give the impression that he was anti-Brexit. Although this was slightly mitigated by further comment the main BBC thrust was still very much anti-Brexit. A following headline news item attempted to ridicule Boris Johnson – I doubt if this kind of event would have made the news at all if it hadn’t exactly fitted BBC’s anti-Brexit agenda. There was no pro-Brexit reporting at all – both items mentioned were Brexit negative. In general all news items are carefully selected to bolster EU where possible. News that supports Brexit is omitted, buried or played down. I notice this from listening to Today and R4 news every day, and comparing this with what I see in the papers and News websites. The same subtle selection and omission, promotion and suppression, evident in other areas, notably Israel and Palestine, Iran and Saudi Arabia – completely incompatible with a tax-funded ‘impartial’ BBC.
“…all in all it appeared that the Gov of the Bank of England seems to support staying in the EU…” egregious editorial sign off following interview section with Mark Carney. Thanks, BBC, for making the news for us.
Scrolling at the bottom of the screen were the words “EU vital for business and jobs”. There was no reference to this in any of the news items that morning so they cannot claim they were quoting anyone. I made a screen print and complained to the BBC but received a standard reply denying bias and insisting they are impartial.
Stephen Nolan implies that caller ‘Nicholas in Norwich’ is blaming immigrants for the strain on the UK’s infrastructure and environment when, in fact, Nicholas is commenting on his concerns over population levels and the negative impact that losing green areas in the UK is not good for anyone. Nicholas made a valid common-sense comment which was clearly not anti-immigration, yet Stephen Nolan decides to steer the rhetoric towards an issue of xenophobia. A YouTube clip can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2WGfIJo-Vc
At the end of Newsnight the presenter has a ‘quick look at the mornings papers’ BBC showed the Telegraph from page and the headline read ‘Sturgen’s council tax raid’ The headline in England and Wales was ‘Wages to rise if we quit the eu’ Clearly BBC deliberately decided to run with the Scottish version rather than Lord Rose agreement that wages will rise if we quit eu!! I took a photo of the paper on Newsnight on my phone and I have a picture of the England and Wales edition I can send you!!
Repeat from 7 Sept. 2015. There is a scene (@13:34) where they visit a whelk fisherman in Whitstable where the late Sir Terry Wogan drops in a little EU propaganda. FISHERMAN: “All the little ones have to go back in the sea, these days. They have to be a certain size.” WOGAN: “Does the EU tell you to put the smaller ones back? Is that it?” FISHERMAN: “Yes, we have to put them back, otherwise you get a heavy fine.” WOGAN: “You’ve been saved, little whelks. You owe your lives to the European Community.” It’s a very, very minor thing, of course, but it is all part of the Drip, Drip, Drip that occurs when they don’t even realize what they’re doing. It’s reflexive.
During an interview with Mr Boris Johnston MP on the EU Mr Marr interrupted and wouldn’t let him speak on a large number of occasions (I’m told over 50 times). Yet in an earlier interview with the German Finance Minister he was interviewed without any interruptions or challenges on significant issues like freedom of movement and access to the single market, especially as the UK runs an annual trade and services deficit with the EU, over £60 billion last year alone. Government figures show £27 billion with Germany alone. China, Japan, USA and most other trading Nations do not need freedom of movement or payments for a trade arrangement at £55 million a day for the privilege of a significant deficit! If tariffs were charged at WTO levels we would still benefit by at least 50% and more when tariffs were charged on EU imported goods! The EU’s 5 Presidents report and plans for a federal state were not covered by Mr Marr deliberately. He even overtly shook his hand at the end to show respect and support! He had a similar approach with recent interviews of Mr Duncan Smith and another patsy interview with the Prime Minister, whose recent paltry renegotiation is ridiculed by professionals.
The 3rd story was that the pound had dropped on the announcement that Boris Johnson was in favour of leaving EU. There was no mention of the fact that the FTSE100 rose by 1.5%.
The Mark Carney item about him being grilled by the select committe was focused on what he said about Brexit, in the select committe interview he did mention that there was also risks about staying in the EU but very little time was allocated to it or very little mention of it took place on in the BBC segment
TSC Hearing. BBC Parliament. Evidence by Dr Carney, BoE Governor. At 9:33, Dr Carney makes clear the BoE report, and his comments, should not be interpreted as making a recommendation for, or against, the EU. On the BBC website later the same day, Carney’s 9:33 comments are fairly reported, but are then followed by a paragraph which says “However, the BBC’s assistant political editor Norman Smith has said the governor had “come down with a resounding thump” in favour of remaining in the EU, pointing out that Mr Carney also praised the deal that David Cameron had struck with Europe to safeguard the City of London”. This is blatant pro-EU misinformation by the BBC. First, as the BBC website already said, Carney stated his comments were specifically not coming down on any side, so why include comments from a BBC reporter stating the complete opposite? Second, there were significant challenges to Carney’s evidence, surrounding the material lack of analysis of Remain downsides. These were glossed over. Third, as acknowledged by Deputy Governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, primarily under scrutiny from Andrew Tyrie, the reliability of the safeguard agreement is in question, being subject to discretion of EU officials and an ECJ judgement, neither of which can be guaranteed to be executed in favour of the UK. Sir Jon made it clear he agreed with this analysis. These three aspects were reported in a grossly misleading way, providing a materially distorted picture of the actual position, and suggesting a pro-EU bias at the BBC.
Every time I visit the BBC news website, and the main headline relates to the EU referendum, it is ALWAYS pro-EU. As someone who doesn’t know which option is best I (and I suspect many other browsers) are being moved to vote pro-EU albeit subliminally. Some of the large emboldened main headlines have been: Carney says EU has helped UK economy EU referendum: Hollande warns of ‘consequences’ for UK EU exit would risk jobs, says group of business bosses These words are in big font and the first you see on the page, and the words are always chosen to scare away a leave EU vote. I’ve not seen any to the contrary, i.e. to keep the balance. Even typing EU referendum into the BBC search box shows a wealth of pro-EU headlines. Please could you monitor this blatant propaganda. Suggest recording the main headline each day and you’ll see what I mean. It’s an important decision and the BBC are swaying us.
The constant badgering and interrupting of Boris Johnson by Andrew Marr during his interview was absolutely ridiculous. Boris wasn’t allowed to finish a sentence let alone make a point.
15 mins in. Article on eu. Mentioned that east mids received 300 million in 9 years. Nottm received 100m from Europe but total bias. Failed to mention what east mids has given in 9 yrs. all 1 sided
I have just seen the most biased piece of pro EU journalism from the BBC to date on the Andrew Marr show 6/3/16. Mr. Schnaubel of the EU was interviewed by Marr in hushed and fairly reverent tones allowing him to finish each and every point of negativity about Brexit. Marr even made a glowing remark about why Schnaubel was in a wheelchair which was totally irrelevant! When Marr then questioned Boris the interview was hostile, Marr constantly interrupted Boris when he tried to explain to the public what constituted the single market. I wanted to hear his points and because of Marrs interruptions I could not and neither could anyone watching! Marr then attempted to personalise his attack with a line of juvenile questions which Boris admirably try to fend off to get back to making his points. This was the most dreadful piece of pro EU journalism from the BBC I have seen so far and I think impartiality on the BBC is fast becoming a joke!