Rod Liddle

Roger Mosey and the questions you don’t ask at the BBC

The bias was crystal clear when I was there. It’s got much worse since

27 June 2015

9:00 AM

27 June 2015

9:00 AM

There was a remarkable scene in one BBC Today programme morning meeting in about 1995, as all the producers gathered together to discuss what stories would be on the following day’s show.

The big story was the European Union; the splits occasioned by the EU within the Tory party and the battle, on the part of racist neanderthal xenophobes, to keep us out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, from which we had ignominiously exited three years before. The meeting cackled and hooted at the likes of Bill Cash and his assorted fascists on the Eurosceptic right. ‘They think the Germans are determined to dominate Europe!’ and ‘They’re just racists!’ and ‘They’re all old Monday Club little Englanders!’ How everyone laughed. And then a voice suddenly cut through this jubilant unanimity.

‘What if they’re right?’

Cue an immediate silence and deep mystification and astonishment. People looked at one another with incredulity, as if the Hindu smallpox deity Sitala had suddenly manifested herself in the greenroom. Right? Right not to join the single European currency? Right to fear that the EU was perhaps prone to stretching its remit a little here and there? Are you mad? The thought that Cash and co. might be right had simply not even occurred. It was absolutely clear — as a very senior BBC executive said to me a few years later, about the Eurosceptics: ‘You do realise, Rod, that these people are mad?’

Problem was, in this particular morning meeting, the voice of questioning dissent came from the programme’s then editor, Roger Mosey. So the producers suddenly had to entertain the possibility, for the first time, that there might be a shred, an iota, of substance in the Eurosceptic arguments.

You may have heard of Mosey as a consequence of a book he has written, which is now being serialised, about the BBC. The former head of sport and boss of Radio 5 Live confirmed in this memoir that the BBC had, over the years, shown a certain liberal bias. Not least on the subject of immigration. He recounted a story of the Ten O’Clock News broadcasting a package from an ‘ethnically diverse’ (i.e. monoculturally Muslim) part of Britain in which all the comments but one from the indigenous white folk were edited out because they were deemed ‘racist’: the one comment that remained expressed great satisfaction that these colourful and interesting people had so enriched all of our lives. It was not hugely representative of the real feelings in the community. It was, instead, a travesty.

The BBC has been biased on the issue of immigration for at least 20 years. When I was editor of Today (1997–2003) I commissioned an excellent reporter called Barnie Choudhury to examine the impact of Muslim immigration in parts of north-west England. Barnie, a brave and honest bloke from an ethnic minority (I don’t know which: I never asked), reported that there were ‘no-go zones’ for white people in some areas. Places the whites dare not venture, in case they were attacked. How he was vilified within the corporation for reporting truthfully! Shunned by some, excoriated by others. He no longer works for the BBC.

Since then the corporation has broadly stuck to the line that a) immigration is good, especially if it involves people who have a different skin tone and culture to our own and b) any whining whitey who objects is probably racist or needs re-educating, or both.

This is perhaps even more true of the BBC today than it was 20 years ago. The corporation’s coverage of the asylum seekers floating around in the Med has been un-ashamedly biased in favour of the policy of diverting as much manpower and money as possible to rescuing them, regardless of the wider consequences. It was biased and almost hilariously gullible about the Arab Spring uprisings which have brought so much more democracy and freedom to the world, inshallah. It is biased in its news reports of eastern European people coming here for work, regardless again of the consequences for indigenous people. It treats with hostility and contempt any individual or organisation who might dare to suggest that diversity is anything other than a bloody good thing. Its attacks on Ukip during the election campaign — no other party warranted such treatment, remember — were an utter disgrace and, I would suggest, in breach of its charter. There was not even a genuflection towards even-handedness. The line was simple: these bastards are racists, and we’re going to nail them.

Roger Mosey and John Humphrys were easily the best journalists I ever worked with at the BBC. Sharp, clever and questioning of everything, not inclined to swallow whole the dominant in-house paradigm. I do wonder if social class and geographical background have something to do with this. Both are from blue-collar backgrounds, much like Kevin Marsh, who was for a time an excellent editor of The World at One — which under his control forensically dissected New Labour policy, to the fury of Alastair Campbell. It is difficult, if you are Mosey and from Bradford, to see immigration as an untrammelled benefit to British society. I would suggest that if you are from Bradford you might be rather more inclined to see both sides of the equation. To see that there are, you know, downsides. And to grasp that the picture is not quite so simple as when it is viewed from an affluent London redoubt, from where most of his colleagues viewed it.

But perhaps that is to do Mosey a disservice; after all, I suspect that when it came to the European Union and that Today programme morning meeting, Roger was — however mildly — on the side of the federalists. It is just that the smug consensus grated a little, both intellectually and viscerally, which is how it should be for a journalist. If only the BBC had more people like that.


Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Innit Bruv

    For all its faults the BBC doesn’t , unlike Mr. Liddle and many of his colleagues, pander to the lowest common denominator.

    • Mr B J Mann

      But of course.

      The BBC only panders to the highest uncommon r!ght-on il-l!beral trendy-l3fty bl33d!n-heart progressive denominator!

    • Andrew Smith

      The whole idea of a democracy is that majority feelings be “respected” in some way. Call this the denominator if you will.

    • JOhn Mackie

      You have no idea how smug, self-satisfied and arrogant your comment is. And we all assume you are no member of something so revolting as the “lowest COMMON denominator”.

      My question is this. Why are you on this website when there is so much for you to smugly agree with over at the ?

      Come to see how the other half think, have you?

      • News

        I quite like the sound of this publication.

        Where can I buy this “Lowest Common Denominator” mag?

        I assume the title is abbreviated, with white lettering “LCD” on a red background

        I’m surprised nobody’s launched a mag called LCD yet. I wonder if I’ve got time…….

        • E.I.Cronin

          Heh. Its actually called VIZ, one of Britain’s greatest cultural achievements and which ranks only just below the Magna Carta in historical importance. VIZ offers far more acute psychological insight into the human condition than the Beeb too.

      • vieuxceps2

        Well spotted,.. “Innit bruv”, I’ve got my beady eye on you……

      • Innit Bruv

        Glad to see I got up your nose.
        No, I most certainly am not a member of the revolting lowest common denominator.
        I don’t read the Guardian.
        I see you have been studying the Innit Bruv “oeuvre”.
        Good man. Keep at it. Who knows, you might even learn something.

    • Torybushhug

      It certainly isn’t interested in the truth. Just to give a dimension to liberal piety, consider the main strap line at the top of LEFTFOOTFOWRAD – “evidence based political blogging”. The left has rather cleverly marketed itself as the guardians of evidence.

      Liberal lefties are the least grounded, least in touch class we have, utterly removed from genuine evidence and insight. This comes about due to the lefts complete reliance on naive equally remote academic study. For example those LSE immigration effects studied which only study easily ccesible employed migrants, and never gets anywhere near all those in the cash economy, or the lower incomes that result from hoarded of self employed trades competing with British trades.

    • Bert

      How patronising when us indigenous lowest common denominators pay for this travesty either by way of the compulsory licence fee or benefits for the imported peado death cult we are not allowed to criticise.
      Time for BBC to get broken up and sold off

      • Innit Bruv

        Your post proves my point. QED.
        Ps: there are plenty of “indigenous” paedos in the UK.

    • Sue Smith

      That’s because it IS the lowest common denominator itself.

      • Innit Bruv

        Hardly !! Some Speccie readers on the other hand……

    • vieuxceps2

      Does your TV work on steam?

  • Rik

    “If only the BBC had more people like that”
    Well the reason it doesn’t is simple. for 50 years over 90% of BBC recruitment advertising has been placed in the Guardian producing an ever further drift to the left.
    The result? a self satisfied, smug,self selecting leftard oligarchy.
    Time to be rid of them.

    • Shazza

      The BBC is a disgrace. They have played a major role in the transformation of a solvent, first world country into a near bankrupt, third world look alike state with their relentless pro EU/pro immigration/pro protected status for a certain ‘peaceful ideology’/relentless Tory bashing (eg. Marr’s attempted smearing of Cameron pre election), etc. etc. ad nauseam.

      Who will rid us of this sneering, Leftie Leviathan?

      • Sue Smith

        We have the same problem in Australia. Absolutely. They have no love for Australia and our core values and beliefs. In fact, they actively work against the Australian government, ergo the Australian society. It’s a hideous look.

        They are UTTERLY out of touch with the population. And these inner-urban sybarites with their smug moral vanity have been a feature of media organization for a while now. I worked in the media in the 1970’s and attended those kinds of dinner parties and, frankly, they made me physically ill. I craved dissent, honesty and fairness but it was NOWHERE to be found. Nothing has changed.

        • sarahsmith232

          Great post that, spot on.
          Loved the ‘smug moral vanity’. Absolutely SPOT ON.
          Don’t know about Oz but here, got to be – class snobs. They say America doesn’t have class, but they certainly do have the East/West coast snobbery about small town America. I’m gonna guess – same thing in Oz?
          I’m going with plain old snobbery as the explanation. It’s so ego pleasing for them. Describing themselves as members of an ‘elite’, seeing themselves as so really very much the superior of the masses. Course, they’re all so pig ignorant of the people they’re sneering of, have allowed themselves to believe in their idiot caricatures.
          Good luck with your quest luvie.

        • Gilbert White

          Sue , I agree and I have said before the way your media found common ground between the Indonesian maid and the Sydney hard drug smugglers shows your media to be literally the scum of the earth with a quiet contempt for the Australian people.

        • Jedburgh

          Emperors New clothes, the BBC and the lefties would be his advisors, it’s time to take the gloves off.

        • amphibious

          Possibly coz you are using the usual amerikan T Party monoglot glibness?

        • They basically behave like a cult. I work with loads of ‘Guardianista’ types (some are Aussies) and occasionally I openly disagree with the prevailing mantras and dogmas; though I can’t push it too far – I want to keep my job for one more year. In private, some of them break ranks a bit – if you stick to calm and well-supported discussion.

          What unites virtually all of these people is inability to think things through from first principles; the fact that almost all of them have been financially supported and emotionally pandered to most of their lives (by parents, teachers, partners, etc.) and wouldn’t last long if the shit really started hitting the fan; they consequently tend to be immature – and so overly-concerned with being nice/popular etc.; and are rarely highly intelligent. Any state employment, the media, teaching, even the Army now, are chock-full of people who have these impulses.

          In fact they are quite a large section of the population in most Western countries, and a very powerful one (really intelligent types continue to think freely, but speaking up too much is a career-wrecker).

          It’s nothing new for people to believe in dogmas, and to just unthinkingly swallow whatever views are held by those around them; plus are likely to lead to a kind of half-arsed success (OK jobs, being the same as your peers, etc.). It’s just unfortunate that we have a particularly deluded bunch controlling the show in the West; and that they seem to so dislike our indigenous culture and traditions. And it’s this culture that has in the last 50 years allowed the development of a class of people who have never had to take on tough responsibilites or make hard decisions; never had to hussle in life; rarely done any kind of hard manual work; never really questioned themselves; and been inculcated with a bunch of nicey-nicey ideas that anyone with a bit of nous would know had little grounding in reality.

      • greggf

        Indeed Shazza. BBC propaganda did for Mrs T and probably propelled Blairism into government where it persists.
        The chickens which the BBC had carefully excised from debate, and which “racist whitey” has been “whining” about for decades now, have come home to roost and are cra**ing all over our economy, culture, security, sovereignty, independence, freedom of speech, borders, cities etc.
        One can hope the persistent recession will clarify the voter’s mind of the BBC’s false prospective and vote to free Britain from its malign oligarchy.

        • GraveDave

          . BBC propaganda did for Mrs T and probably propelled Blairism into government where it persists.

          What an utter load of rubbish. The Tory backbenchers did for her. Nothing to do with the BBC or getting Blair in. Jeez. Not even an ardent Thatcherite can blame the beeb for that one. Get over yourself .

          • UKSteve

            Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean people don’t have a valid opinion.

            You tell people to ‘get over themselves’, but you know nothing of what they type. Hilariously ironic.

        • UKSteve

          You are quite correct. A careful study of BBC output at the time was subtly anti-Tory, as proven by Jane Garvey’s comment about champagne bottles the day after the general election in 1997.

          The BBC needs abolishing, or privatising.

          • Pacificweather

            Yet it edited the Orgreve tapes for Mrs T. There is no gratitude these days.

          • UKSteve

            Not for rubbish, there isn’t.

          • Pacificweather

            She would be sorry to hear you say that. She was most grateful to the BBC at the time.

          • vieuxceps2

            I was very grateful to Mrs Thatcher. I and a few million others…

          • Pacificweather

            Yes, they showed it at her funeral.

          • vieuxceps2

            Oh? Were you there then? I do rember some lefty fascists at Ludgate circus….

          • Pacificweather

            Watched it on the telly and drank her health with a fine malt whiskey. Tears were shed I can assure you; certainly after the first bottle. What were you doing with the lefty fascists? I thought you, of all people, would have been with the righty fascists. Ah, infiltrating; nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

          • richardofkent

            Don’t forget Jim Naughtie’s comment about when we win the election !

        • Neil Saunders

          Beware of the false antithesis.

          Blairism is just Thatcherism (in the economic sphere) + Political Correctness (in the sociocultural).

          • UKSteve


            Thatcher did a huge amount – at massive cost to the Treasury – for the unemployed in the early 1980’s, including me, due to the destroyed UK economy (thanks to KGB-controlled unions and incompetent managers). Which, of course, she rebuilt, giving us all the standard of living we have today.

            Blair and Thatcher were solar systems apart – by any metric.

          • Neil Saunders

            Your brain is still unemployed.

          • UKSteve

            Wow !! Just ‘Wow’!! That was so adult and sophisticated and witty, I’m left quoting Groucho Marx:

            “You have the brain of a 5-year old, and I’ll bet he was glad to get rid of it.”

          • Neil Saunders

            It wasn’t meant to be “adult and sophisticated and witty”, just true.

            By the way, Groucho Marx never said anything half as funny as your little vignette about Margaret Thatcher as the saviour of the economy and staunch defender of the jobless.

          • UKSteve

            It wasn’t meant to be an accurate description, just pure sarcasm. WHOOOOSH!

            Vignette? (look at you with your fancy words!) Which was factually accurate and fully supportable, even to the emphatically stupid. Some people are comfortable in their ignorance – you seem to luxuriate in it.

          • Neil Saunders

            Look at you with your faux-blokey prose-style, your Disqus profile set to “private” and your refusal to come out of hiding behind a monicker.

            Thatcher destroyed manufacturing industry (although I’ll admit it was already in decline) and put millions on the dole, and the full extent of her financial incompetence was largely concealed by the chance bonanza of North Sea Oil.

            Anybody interested in the real history of the British economy in the 70s and 80s could do worse than to start here:


          • UKSteve

            Look at you with your faux-blokey prose-style, your Disqus profile set to “private” and your refusal to come out of hiding behind a monicker.”

            My name is Stephen, and I live in Birmingham, now that I’m back in the UK. 50% of people I see on Disqus have a private profile. WTF is “faux-blokey”? I’ll bet your holding on to your comfort blanket and sucking your thumb, now.

            “Thatcher destroyed manufacturing industry (although I’ll admit it was already in decline)….”

            The staggering level of pig-ignorance on Disqus leaves me reeling and faint. I keep seeing this, and I guess now, we’ll see “We wuz robbed; 4 million votes and 1 MP” for decades to come as well. It is the curse of the uninformed and brainless to also be tedious.

            As I’ve said dozens of times before, I went into manufacturing industry in 1975, and was told buy the guys in it “You must be mad, we’re f**ed!” That was four years before Thatcher got to no. 10.

            See this; plus greedy idiots wanting more jobs than there actually were, and higher pay than the economy could stand.

            You quote that? They couldn’t do any worse than read that- it’s a generalised summary of 40 years – and with no date or attribution. It’s primary school stuff. FFS – it quotes Thatcher as a “lawyer” – she was a chemical engineer (and a good one, it seems.) Try reading some political biographies of the time; this review of Charles Moore’s biography should tell you something:


            She was nowhere near as despised as the BBC make out. We all have our own views, but I came from a very large extended family (mostly socialists), and virtually all of them worked, directly or indirectly, in the auto industries. It was destroyed by Heath / Wilson / Callaghan governments, the miners striking (3-day week, anyone?), and KGB-controlled unions. My family was absolutely disgusted with Labour by 1979 – no wonder she achieved a landslide. She should be sainted.

          • Neil Saunders

            Reading is obviously a problem for you, Stephen, as is keeping your temper when people dare to disagree with you. I’ll admit that the article I linked to was badly formatted (although not by me), but its authorship is not in doubt – Robin Ramsay (editor of Lobster Magazine).

            I remain puzzled by your misplaced admiration for Thatcher (BTW, she also read for the Bar), who was no friend of ordinary British people (even if many of her detractors – e.g. the “alternative” comedians of the 80s and their followers – are also detestable).

          • UKSteve

            And childishness is clearly a problem for you Neil as, at one point, I was reading 3 books a week.

            I don’t care if people disagree with me – another really silly comment – it’s when they open up their own “class rage” / ignorance when I write something, and immediately start with insults and pure invective. Here you started with:

            “Reading is obviously a problem for you, Stephen, as is keeping your temper when people dare to disagree with you.”

            No rebuttal of my personal experiences and recollections as regaled, especially for you here. I can only tell you what I saw and experienced. Robin Ramsay? – a complete nobody. Format means nothing – content means everything (to me).

            The last Labour govt. got rid of even half-day training courses for long term (6 months+) unemployed; Thatcher instituted (in 1981) 16 and 20 week training courses that paid 50% more than dole. They were amazing (Google TOPS and YOPS courses).

            I’ll repeat, she took a bankrupt country, govt. in debt to the IMF courtesy of Healey, we had no means of income, and she transformed the economy, to the standard of living we all have today. But this is getting really tedious now.

            That must be 3 times now for you. I honour your right to be stupid – if you want – but if no amount of repeated explanation can make you see why I see her the way I do, maybe you should go and do something else because this is getting really tedious.

          • Neil Saunders

            Thank you once again for another pompous hissy-fit, and of course thank you so much for your candid admission that your are “Stephen” of “Birmingham”, which helpfully narrows you down to any of several hundred thousand people (assuming that your disclosures are true).

            Your contributions read, by the way, not as those of someone who entered the manufacturing sector in the mid-70s, but of a 23-year-old PPE graduate who has been tasked by George Osborne’s department (and/or MI5) to carry out low-level “search-and-destroy” missions against commenting UKIPpers and other perceived threats on forums such as this. However, you could just be a freelance fool, operating on a pro malo basis, who simply likes – metaphorically speaking – the sound of your own voice.

            Thatcher’s real legacy (enthusiastically continued by Blair and Brown) finds its perfect expression in all the disastrous privatisations that have handed British public assets into the hands of mostly foreign private owners, and not the long- (and justly-) forgotten TOPS and YOPS schemes of over 30 years ago.

          • UKSteve

            OK – I got to “Birmingham” and saw what was coming, decided you are definitely a weapons-grade mor0n, I was born in 1958.

            Now that you definitely look and must feel a useless individual, why don’t you go and finish your Lego fire station. And preferably, donate your PC to charity; it’s not doing anyone any good.

            Typical pig-ignorant and stupid Leftist, a cancer in this country’s tissue.

          • Neil Saunders

            Oh, so you were born in 1958. That really helps to narrow things down even more, doesn’t it?

            What were the three books that you read every day, “Stephen of Birmingham”? “Spot the Dog”, “Noddy in Toyland” and a colouring book?

            You obviously didn’t learn to read Robin Ramsay’s name right at the top of the “unattibuted” article I linked to, nor did your extensive literary studies equip you to pursue a simple link on the page taking you the the title page of the online publication, complete with name, date and issue-number.

          • UKSteve

            Quite brain-damaged. Sad.

          • Neil Saunders

            The point is, “Stephen of Birmingham, born 1958”, you have failed to identify yourself adequately and can only resort to cheap, nasty insults in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from your appalling lack of candour.

          • Cogra Bro

            I don’t care what Mrs Thatcher did. The BBC had no right to have an opinion one way or the other.

          • UKSteve

            As charmingly innocent and naive as your post is, you would s**t yourself if you saw what they got up to with EU coverage. It pales in comparison.

        • Pacificweather

          The BBC put Mrs T in government and it was the traitors in her party did for her. The BBC even edited the Orgreve tapes to give her better coverage of the miners’ strike. The BBC just gave us a Tory government again this year yet still some people moan. There is no gratitude to the BBC these days for the support it gives the party ;-(

          • Dominic Stockford

            The BBC never reported Scargill’s true aims. They still won’t admit them.

      • GraveDave

        You got Cameron and you’re still moaning. Why dont you write and ask him when he’s going to shut the BBC down?

      • Mary Ann

        What a load of codswallop.

        • UKSteve

          ….you write.

          Yes, many people would agree (with the extended sentence).

        • Ridcully

          What a devastating riposte.

      • Neil Saunders

        The BBC IS a disgrace. So, however, is Cameron, who’s fully signed up to all the things you rightly excoriate, as are most of his useless party.

        • Shazza

          What do you suggest? The BBC made sure that UKIP whilst being not quite a busted flush, made sure they almost are.

          • Neil Saunders

            Yes they did. I suggest nothing, other than that the UK is unfixably broken, the BBC itself quite beyond reform, and that nothing short of a nationalist revolution will prevent its present slide into the Third World. Cameron is no saviour.

      • Pacificweather

        The electorate. It just gave itself a Tory government. They must have found the BBC’s coverage very satisfactory. Yet there is no pleasing some folks.

        • Caractacus

          Most Tories learned long ago to simply ignore anything the BBC says.

          • Pacificweather

            Yet still they can’t stop moaning about it like a bunch of fish wives in the market. Not enough to do I guess.

          • Alexsandr

            The bbc can exist. Fine. Just dont adk me to pay for it if I dont watch it.

          • Pacificweather

            I don’t believe there is nothing on the BBC to which you don’t watch or listen. If you don’t want to pay for it just watch it on iPlayer but at least be honest and say you do use the BBC output from time to time even if it’s only for F1.

          • Alexsandr

            We have actively discussed just using iplayer and may do that.
            but i watch Dave (Half BBC by the way) so would still need a licence.

          • Pacificweather

            Fair’s fair, Dave is BBC content so a payment is justified. It is worth paying the fee so my grandaughter has the option of watching CBBC instead of Pop. However, since I bought a TV with a recorder my BBC viewing has fallen from 95% to 80%. I feel guilty if I watch commercial television without watching the ads so I run through them at high speed, rather than skipping them, to salve my conscience. What I can never understand is why someone would pay to watch advertising but millions do.

          • Caractacus

            I’m sure you moan about things you are forced to pay for that have no relevance to you.

          • Pacificweather

            Never. I prefer not being sick to paying for the NHS and I preferred to educate other people’s children so they are useful and civilised little monsters. OK, I do moan that the taxpayer is subsidising employers to the tune of £13.7 billion annually to keep 3.2 million in full time work but as I no longer pay tax that is a completely unjustified moan which I perform on your behalf.

        • richardofkent

          No, most people that I know can see the evidence before their own eyes and it is contrary to the “BBC narrative”.

          • Pacificweather

            So if the “narrative” is ignored what’s your problem? We all know it was the Sun wot won it. A narrative that is never ignored.

      • sebastian2

        Parts of the BBC are good. The rest IS a disgrace – partial, smug, biased, self-indulgent.

        I could live with that. What I can’t live with is having to pay for it.

      • Foxy Loxy

        How was Marr trying to ‘smear’ Cameron?

  • FedUpIndian

    The BBC is like the tenured faculty of the humanities departments of modern universities – they believe the common man owes them a living for the privilege of being urinated upon by a superior class of people like themselves.

    • Sue Smith

      I swear to God, this could have come out of my own brain!! Absolutely agree.

    • 1664averygoodyear

      Very true. I watched with amazement as Evan Davis covered the Bruce/Caitlin Jender-Bender story.

      Newsnight invited to ‘debate’ the issue, one ‘trans activist’, and, to give the opposing viewpoint, they were debating with…another ‘trans activist’.

      Essentially the discussion just consisted of the three of them disagreeing slightly as to the degree of just how fuckcking brilliant it was that a demented 60 year old was paying to have his bits lobbed off. Evan genuinely looked like he was so overcome with glee that he might fall off his chair.

      Quite how they manage to get away with this sort of behaviour I really do not know.

      • JOhn Mackie

        The whole ridiculous point is that HE hasn’t had any bits lobbed off. NONE. Check the wiki.

        The whole thing is a self-promoting money-making stunt that trades off his links to the equally ridiculous Kardashian phenomenon.

        Only in America could people buy into the story with such fervour. It’s (cultural marxist) political show biz.

        I give it a few years and HE will revert to being a man in ANOTHER money-making stunt, having highlighted how unfair society is to women… etc.

        From the wiki…

        “While she has undergone some cosmetic surgery, she has not undergone sex reassignment surgery or ruled it out; she stated that, for her, life as a woman is primarily a matter of mental state and lifestyle

        • Damaris Tighe

          Obviously from the Rachel Dalezel school of genetics: ‘I am what I wish to be’.

        • marc biff

          She is a he what ever way you look at it.

      • Icebow

        Evan Davis makes me think of Hannibal Lector recovering from anorexia.

      • Suzy61

        Ah, Evan Davis, the ‘man’ who sobs (by his own admission) each time he passes by the unfortunate souls massing at the jungle in Calais…

        …on his way to his holiday Gite in France.

        Poor soul must find it very difficult to live with himself.

  • Dan O’Connor

    This is how the BBC work ;

    Poll shows that 51 % of native British are in favour of some immigration

    BBC ” The people have spoken ”

    Poll shows that 89 % of native British want a stop to all mass immigration

    BBC ” We must not pander to the mob “

    • Sue Smith

      Yeah, it must feel good going to bed every night knowing that you’re superior to the riff raff out there in the suburbs. You know, that same riff raff that ring radio “shock jocks” – the same ones who feel disenfranchised by the educated elite who “know better”, regard them as ‘red necks’ and generally hold them in contempt.

      I’ve got 3 university degrees and people at the BBC and other educated idiots make me feel ashamed to have been through the university system.

      You know what; that ‘riff raff’ pay taxes to put their (elites) children through university education and they would fight for their freedoms in a war if push came to shove.

    • Cogra Bro

      Who are this ‘we’ who must not pander to the great majority?

    • Cogra Bro

      Yes and ‘we ‘ are the ones to judge. So ‘we’ think.

  • will91

    Just think back to the coverage of the Arab Spring…

    All those useless bloody reporters frothing at the mouth in the hope of being present at their very own 1989 moment. Hysterically childish in their view of big bad Assad and the peace-loving rebels.

  • Sue Smith

    What remains enigmatic to me is why the BBC and other ‘mainstream’ media organizations would rather trash their own societies in support of minorities and Muslims – all the while caring nothing about whether this inflames extremists more – than take a rounded approach more in sync with the general community. Smacks of treason to me.

    • will91

      It is treason. No question.

      • Icebow

        Cultural treason, i.e. cultural Marxism (‘political correctness’) in action.

        • vieuxceps2

          Don’t put up with PC wordage,rage against it,decry it , bury it.It is intended to stifle your thoughts, don’t let it!

          • Icebow

            I always try to comply with such urgings. Remember always to use quotation marks with ‘PC’, unless you wish to imply a legitimacy.

          • vieuxceps2

            I will decide how I write,not you.

          • Icebow

            You are free to ignore good advice.

          • vieuxceps2

            Or any other sort…..

    • will91

      The BBC has intellectually lobotomised most of the British population.

      Destroying our critical faculties and ability to call out issues like extremism and immigration.

      Making any discussion utterly beyond the pale, turning people into obedient, nervous little drones.

      • Sue Smith

        And, of course, all this is propagated in the Humanities faculties of universities, and the Media Studies courses. It is sickening politburo propaganda which really ought to be illegal (the reason being that the taxpayer is funding this subversion).

        Just yesterday my grandson brought home a ‘colouring in’ exercise for aboriginal week here in Australia. He is 6 y/o and the cartoon was of aboriginal activists hanging out of the windows of a bus, all waving placards, “Aboriginal Rights”, “land rights”, etc. and “Aboriginal Bus” written on the side. There was no sign of the Australian flag. My son is going to the state primary school in question when school resumes and DEMANDING an explanation. This crap is going on EVERYWHERE in our state schools system, and it goes unchallenged or unbalanced by another narrative.

        We have decided to keep a little folder of what the grandkids bring home from school which we regard as propaganda and we’re going to do something about it!!!

        Whatever happened to the narrative of:
        1. Personal responsibility and social reciprocity;
        2. Community
        3. Religion
        4. Marriage (cough!)
        5. The virtues and dignity of hard work and enterprise
        6. Having a go
        7. National sovereignty
        8. Manners and respect???

        Well, you get the drift.

        • The Bogle

          And perhaps, as I spotted in Echuca, his school has been built over what was once Aborigine land and there is a sticker on the front door asking visitors to respect that fact.

        • mohdanga

          Sue, when I visited my friend in Sydney a few years ago his partner said that everyday the students in her daughter’s class had to recite a poem/narration thanking the Aborigines for their contribution to Australia…to which my response was (with raised eyebrows and a smirk) ‘what contribution’? Without dreaded whitey there would be no Australia, no ‘land rights’, no massive royalties paid to Aborigines so that they can do nothing (except drink, do drugs and then blame whitey for their ills). Kind of hard to make money from ‘land rights’ when your supposed advanced culture would have no clue as to how to build the machines to get the minerals to generate the wealth which you now demand. If Australia had never been settled it would have the level of advancement that the tribesmen of Papua New Guinea have…of course, the lefties would then be saying how whities in the rest of the world have an obligation to help them!!
          The irony is that these same lefties, which talk ad nauseam about ‘native rights’, seem to have forgotten this concept when it comes to the mass 3rd world immigration overrunning the West. But then it’s ‘enrichment’ and ‘vibrancy’.
          Same nonsense here is Canada with natives always bemoaning how whites don’t give them enough. The natives wandered around the North American continent for a couple of thousand years (apparently) yet in all that time created no infrastructure or lasting inventions of any use. Which is why they use guns, snowmobiles, cars, SUVs, all terrain vehicles, houses, appliances, satellite dishes, computers, etc, all invented by, you guessed it.

          • Pacificweather

            The Japanese?

      • Sue Smith

        It reminds me of the Hitler youth and all the images of them out doing drill, in unison and supposedly “good for them”. Be very afraid.

      • vieuxceps2

        Not me . I’m no nervous little drone.Time we all stood up and b*ll*cked the B**st**ds.

      • Mary Ann

        You mean you prefer the Murdoch press the Hate Mail and the Express.

        • Shazza

          I can choose to buy them – I have to pay for the BBC.

          Amazing how Labour loved Murdoch/The Sun until they withdrew their support for Labour.

          Amazing how the BBC/Tom Watson covered Hackgate relentlessly 24/7 but strangely silent on Trinity Mirror hacking….makes you wonder if there was some sort of agenda…..

      • UKSteve

        Not me they haven’t, but I agree.

    • global city

      Inernationalist bedrock..woolly thinking morphed into emotion…… not hating your own society or appreciating the superior aspects of the ‘other’ is ‘tribal’ and ‘xenophobic’!

      Once locked into that idiot position everything to do with your own people becomes a toxic, negative issue.

    • TrueNorthFree

      They will continue to trash indigenous white populations until tour people stand up and say “Hell NO”! Most whites are still very asleep due to decades of multi-cult brainwashing.

    • Tellytubby

      Its called cultural marxism. There is actually a logic behind it as well. The belief basically is that people are all equal. The human being is the important thing. Social structures and privilege are barriers to the fundamental equality between all peoples being realized. So take away our privilege (i.e. us being lucky to be born British) and you take away our resistance to their ideals.

      This requires the disestablishment of “conservative values” – in the same way that Blair’s government sought to water-down the conservative nature of white Britain by diluting it with as many immigrants as possible (who would the theory went be perpetually grateful to Labour and so vote for them for ever). Thus do we see a promotion of things which are incompatible with the core beliefs of conservatism – church, family and state.

      Combine this with the fact that they are (perhaps subconsciously in some cases – consciously in others) ashamed of their class, skin colour and nations history and you get to what they are doing.

      • Pacificweather

        Have I misunderstood you? Cultural Marxism is the belief that all people are equal. Is that not the Christianity of the core beliefs of conservatism – church, family and state?

  • MikeF

    You were presumably at the meeting Rod – what did you say? How did you react to the vilification of a journalist you had commissioned to produce a report? I suspect you didn’t do as much as you now wish you had.

  • BillRees

    The BBC should be funded by subscription, so that we all have the opportunity to pay for its services or not.

    It would then have to earn its living and take account of what its audience’s views are.

    Some people say that it would go relentlessly down market if it did that, but it already has done that. In my view making the BBC a subscription service would liberate it from the attitudes that Rod has outlined in his article.

    • Sue Smith

      It should be trashed completely, except for the classical music side of it on Radio 3. PayTV does a far better job, cheaper.

  • cd

    Just stop paying your fecking license then. I’ve decided to ditch the beeb in the next year or so.

    • William_Brown

      Why wait?

      • Mary Ann

        Likes his drama without Ads.

  • Callan

    The BBC should be renamed the Anti British Broadcasting Corporation. The contempt for the indigenous population pours out of every newscast and programme. It still infuriates me to remember one Ms. Badawi reporting on BBC news some months ago. “Those islands which the British call The Falklands but which Argentina KNOWS as the Malvinas”. The constant references to the British Navy or British Marines are a few of many examples of studied insolence towards the United Kingdom, its history, traditions and indigenous population. And of course they are obliged now because of recent events to report on the paedophiles of Rotherham. As for the racial background of those paedophiles? We will hear nothing of that, just as we will never hear the description “illegal immigrants”.

    • Sue Smith

      It’s frightening, isn’t it? Dr. Goebbels would feel proud of them for their control and propaganda.

      • Shazza

        This morning on the 5.30 Radio 2 news an interview was aired in which one of the survivors of the Boston bombing claimed that the bomber was sincere in his apology to his victims. No doubt that this victim believed him. There was no attempt to air a contrasting view.

        If you read the coverage of this killer’s remorse to his victims in the rest of the media, it is patently obvious that by a large majority they all felt his ‘apology’ was grossly insincere.

        Yet the BBC felt the need in some way, to once again distort and control the accepted narrative of their pet ideology.

        • Sue Smith

          Yep, even if it wasn’t actually intended this way the BBC has ‘form’ and our default is to automatically be suspicious.

          That Boston bomber will be getting a hiding in jail; that’s gotta be better than any capital punishment.

          And his ‘apology’ reminds me of a famous line from the film, “Gone With the Wind”.

          Rhett to Scarlett: “You remind me of the thief; he’s not sorry he stole the money but he’s very very sorry he’s going to jail”.

        • E.I.Cronin

          I’m starting to hate the word Narrative. When Reality punctures Progressive Ideology, they bring in ”Narrative” to re-touch the collective hallucination. Our version of the BBC just may have taken its Islamist Sympathy a little too far in the last few days – am hopeful any remaining Liberals with guts left will go after their budget with a knife, but am doubtful. Lacking the fortitude they should deliver the BBC and ABC up to the public. Be deeply satisfying to cross that ‘Privatise’ box wouldnt it?!

        • Damaris Tighe

          If you read the text it was one long rant about allah & mo: adding insult to injury, I would have thought.

          • Shazza

            I did. You are 100% correct.

        • mohdanga

          CTV (Canada) referred to him as a ‘gunman’ in their story, conveniently forgetting the part about Islam and terrorism. Pathetic.
          Oh, and they love describing the tsunami from North Africa overrunning southern Italy as ‘migrants’ in order to give them legitimacy.

          • richardofkent

            Here in the UK Cameron is discussing the attacks in Kuwait, France and Tunisia. His first comment is that it is nothing to do with Islam. I weep at the pusillanimity of our Prime Minister. His first thoughts are that amid the carnage, death and destruction he must not offend anyone.

          • mohdanga

            Obama, Cameron, etc, no matter what political party, all kowtow to the same nonsensical line. When that white guy shot those 9 blacks last week in South Carolina dummy Obama wasted no time saying how it was racist, how racism is in the US’s DNA (ie. whitey), had the Dept of Justice investigating it as a ‘hate crime’ 3 seconds after finding out….all on the basis of no evidence. When Nadal Hasan killed 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood after screaming ‘Allah Akbar’, after being tracked by intelligence services having contact with known terrorists, after admitting at his trial that he was a terrorist and supported Al Qaida, Obama called it ‘workplace violence’. He is a very dangerous man.

    • Shazza

      Likewise their use of the word ‘militant’ to describe the bloodthirsty barbarians of ISIS; illegal immigrants are referred to as ‘migrants’ – the deliberate misuse of terms to once again control and promote their accepted narrative.

      I actually wrote to my MP regarding their use of ‘militant’ – I had a reply and he assured me that he had forwarded my concern to the BBC.

      Fat lot of good that did.

      • GraveDave

        Ffs, you won. You got Cameron. And you’re still moaning.

        • Shazza

          Hello…..Cameron did not open the floodgates post 1997 with the BBC cheering him on,
          Cameron did not invite large swathes of third world followers of a certain ideology who have no intention of integrating with the host culture with the BBC cheering him on,
          Cameron never signed the Lisbon Treaty giving away our sovereignty, with the BBC cheering him on,
          Etc. etc. ad nauseam.

          Cameron inherited the stable after Labour let the horse bolt.

          Whatever Cameron does to attempt to undo the damage that Labour inflicted during their Reign of Terror 1997- 2010 the BBC criticise.

          Typical coverage goes like this, ‘ The PM will today lay out plans to get more people into work/off benefits/cut immigration, etc.’ and the BBC unfailingly follows with ‘…Labour however,……’

          When the Party of Mass Destruction were in power, the BBC never said ‘……….but the Conservatives however,…’

          • Mary Ann

            Cameron has done nothing to stop them. Leaving the EU will only cut White Christian migration, we shall probably end up importing more blacks and Muslims to do the work.

          • Shazza

            Sadly I have to agree with you. However, he would run the gauntlet should he discriminate in any way – same as when going through airport security, for example, elderly white people are searched whilst burka clad females are waved through. I say this as having witnessed it.

            Can you imagine how the BBC would go into overdrive if there were to be any hint of ‘racism’ about the Government – Theresa May even cut down on stop and search in an effort to appear more even handed.

            Even if Cameron were to turn the tide on immigration it is far too late. All that would happen would be to delay the inevitable result by a decade or two.

          • mohdanga

            Why don’t politicians just have the courage to do what is right (stop illegal and legal immigration from the 3rd world) rather than worry about the BBC? They have a 5 year mandate, if the electorate is as apoplectic as the media is about this ‘racism’ they can vote them out!

          • Callan

            To do the work???

          • GraveDave

            Yeah, I know Shazza it’s all Labour’s fault.Though it was your party that introduced commonwealth immigration and took the first steps in gagging people from talking about its failings.

      • vieuxceps2

        It seems we share the same MP. What all you lot too?

      • Ridcully

        At least they’re not calling them “asylum seekers” any more. Maybe it’s finally dawned on them that no-one’s buying that one.

    • Tomahawk

      they refer to them as ‘Asian men’. Suitably abstract as it could include the Chinese.

      • Gilbert White

        More specifically South Asian Men!

  • Gilbert White

    Is there a top twenty of questions that cannot be asked on Question Time?

    • Tomahawk

      I’ve stopped watching it unless there is someone particularly interesting by which I mean a Rod Liddle, Douglas Murray, David Starkey etc.

      • Isaac Bickerstaff

        I rather like watching if Peter Hitchens is on. You can almost hear the sharp intake of breath every time he opens his mouth and exposes the audience to a conservative moral opinion.

  • Nosis

    The BBC has become Pravda, even as the ideological dream lies dead and stinking like a corpse in the studio they spray the perfume of their illusions through the airwaves. Onward comrades!

    • GraveDave

      Yeah right. The BBC would allow a report like this would it?

      Western Race Hatred Laws: Keep the Caucasians Down …

      No , it’s ironic actually ; – ) › Opinion › Columnists

      10 Dec 2009 – In America, anti white violence is exploding, an average of 12 people …specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check.

      Throughout the totalitarian West, the Marxist internationalist elites, while busily flooding their countries with tens of millions of third worlders, have introduced specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check.

      These measures have come in the form of Hate Crimes Laws. The laws state that a crime is not just a crime if we can find a deeper motive, such as hate of a specific race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Thus the Lords of Humanity have given themselves the power of God to know what is inside the hearts of men.

      In practical terms, what this means is 1. A murder is not just a murder if hate is involved. Say again? This means certain lives are worth more than others, a protected class, another insult to Christ and justice. 2. If the local jury trial is considered to lenient, then those globalist elites of the West can try the person again for “hate” or rather in actuality for the same crime, twice. Again, an insult to justice that Western serfs bow, grin and bare.

      But this gets worse, since in practice, the elites decide who is a racist and who is not, they use these laws sparingly to keep the native population down, shackled and paranoid of the knock on the door.

      In America, anti white violence is exploding, an average of 12 people per day are killed by their illegals and three times more whites and Asians are killed by blacks than vice versa. The same can be found in England. The head of the Justice Department, Hader, even stated that he approved the double standard used on whites. He did this in front of a parliamentary committee, with no real out cry by the totalitarians. As if any should be expected.

      When five blacks kidnapped a white couple, raped and murdered the man, than kept the woman for further rapes and poured bleach down her throat to kill her, there was no hate crime, even though those five became the idols of black racist groups in American. When blacks in Los Angeles target Koreans for robbery and murder, also nothing. Nor when Mexican gangs ethnically cleanse one street after another. When Islamic Pakistanis in England beat an Anglican priest almost to death, in front of his church and screamed how they were going burn down the church, or when other Islamics poured acid in the face of a raped school girl, nothing happened. No hate crimes. When Islamic Turks murdered the white, Christian boyfriend of a Turkish girl, in Germany, not a hate crime. When Arabs and Pakistanis in Athens attack and burn Greek Orthodox businesses, not a hate crime. When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant, not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, beat and abused, well, most definitely that is a hate crime…the film, not the wife beating, that’s just quaint multiculturalism, supported by the Western femiNazis, who have a secret lusting for this type of treatment.

      Luckily, in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia and all none EU, none West Christian nations, this idiocy does not exist. Murder is murder, regardless of what is felt by the killer and defense of the local culture is paramount.

      Westerners, truly I believe, you deserve this, since the vast majority of you take it and swallow it, like the good little castrated serfs you are. Enjoy your extinction, as you loaf around on your Chinese couches.

      Stanislav Mishin

      – See more at:

      • Nosis

        Even Pravda have started telling the truth. BBC is like the old Pravda from before the collapse.

    • E.I.Cronin

      Da! Da! ”Life has become more joyous comrades!” Its becoming eerily similar isn’t it? I think a Speccie article commented that anyone who uses the Nazi slur immediately forfeits any credibility in debate… but watching the Socialists abrograte the world of facts and events with such brazen effrontery does mimic Stalinism.

      • Mary Ann

        So it’s OK to call the left Stalinists but not OK to call the right Nazis, sounds like a balanced debate, just suit the Murdoch press and the wail.

        • E.I.Cronin

          Well actually considering the Left is openly associating with and advocating a religous ideology whose scriptures contain more Anti-Semitism than Mein Kampf (Bill Warner did the number crunching on the Political Islam site) I actually think it deserves BOTH comparisons!! Or am I being a little too harsh? It was more that the Nazi slur was used so prodigously and indiscriminately its the same as those other now meaningless terms Racist and Facist.

          • Mary Ann

            WTF are you talking about, I’m a leftie and I will have you know that I follow no religious ideology, I have no problems with religious people as long as they don’t think that as they go to church, synagogue, temple, mosque or whatever once a week they can behave as they like for the rest of the time. And as for Cameron being a Christian, he needs to think about the teachings of Jesus.

          • E.I.Cronin

            The Left has been promoting and championing Islam for decades. There’s a powerful accord between the two ideologies. Jean Amery noted it in the 60’s. Melanie Phillips articulates it brilliantly. Thanks to a decade of indiscriminate immigration facilitated by Hawke and Keating (though initiated by a Conservative Govt) Australia had 10 synagogues firebombed as early as the 90’s.

          • Shazza

            Geert Wilders cannot understand why Mein Kamp is banned in The Netherlands and not the islamic instruction manual as there are more calls to violence against the Jews and ‘infidels’ in the latter than there are in the former.

          • E.I.Cronin

            Its beyond mad isn’t it!

        • E.I.Cronin

          Ps now Mary are you Murdochophobic? Treatment is available right here at The Spectator. But out of respect to your tender sensibilities I will limit any future citations about Jew-Hating Lefties to the Fairfax Press or The Guardian, those zealous sentinels ‘who keep watch at the boundaries of correctness’. God knows there’s a wealth of material there which deserves a swastika on it.

        • Shazza

          Hello …..Nazi stands for National Socialism.

          This is another successful distortion of the truth, Nazism is Left wing as are those other successful ideologies, Communism, Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism that brought such prosperity, joy, happiness, health, wealth, longevity to their citizens.

          BTW Dan Hannan wrote a most informative article regarding the Left’s revisionism of Nazism. Google it.

  • Perseus Slade

    Okay, but what’s to be done about it then?
    It’s very doubtful that Cameron & Co will do anything.
    The state broadcaster needs to stand for British interests.
    Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?

    • William_Brown

      Don’t pay the licence fee – simples.

      • vieuxceps2

        Good idea.Plus, stop watching their news programmes. No loss anyway, they’re no bloody good.

  • Blazeaway

    It isn’t only immigration, Rod.

    The BBC seems to report uncritically the claims of the public health (anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, anti-sugar etc) lobby.

    They seem to suspend any sense whatsoever of journalistic scepticism.

    The question is why?

    We now know of 28gate – how the BBC rolled over to become a propagandist organisation for ‘climate change’. They agreed an editorial line which was then forced upon all departments within the BBC.

    Has a similar process taken place with tobacco? Alcohol? Sugar, Salt? Fat?

    It’s no good writing to them to ask because you just get a brush-off that doesn’t even begin to engage with the charge.

    • GraveDave

      The BBC seems to report uncritically the claims of the public health (anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, anti-sugar etc) lobby.

      They seem to suspend any sense whatsoeve

      Sadly so does the Right. Other than that you do get the odd breath of fresh air.

      The big fat myths of our ‘obesity epidemic’ » The Spectator…/the-big-fat-myths-of-our-obesity-epide…

      6 Jun 2015 – Much of the fear about obesity rests on the belief that it is a spirallingepidemic. Properly defined, an epidemic is a temporary outbreak of …

    • vieuxceps2

      I think we should include homosexuality in the “protected species “list of the BBC.

  • rationality

    I went to a Guardian event a couple of weeks ago discussing migration and the chair asked the audience if they thought that there were too many of these ‘migrants’ coming over. I was the only one in that room to put my hand up in an audience of 100 people. I said I just could not believe how out of touch they were and that no one in that room had concerns with this. It was fascinating but very disturbing.

    Why is this happening? Well its partly lefty groupthink but it has to be about EU funding. Why is the Economist so pro-immigration? The journalism is excellent but now its pro immigration stance looks so out of touch. That and other similar media has influenced so much for the past few years it is only now that the scales are coming off from our eyes and we realise that we have been conned big time. These media lies have brainwashed us all into thinking its a good thing. Immigration is of no benefit whatsoever and its all about the EU, its client governments enablers and the funded pliant media. We need a revolution 1989 style away from this Soviet nightmare but the 1968 traitors and enablers need to be tried and punished accordingly.

    • Dan O’Connor

      ” Why is the economist so pro-mass immigration ”

      I always by instinct now, try to check out the tribal background of the ethnic group that owns , runs or writes for any media organisation when they support ideas and polices that vilifiy and weaken their White majority host nations economically , culturally , politically , and especially demographically .

      The reason is that there is one particular very ethnocentrically conscious, powerfull, well organised ,wealthy and rival historical group that may not feel it is in their group interests to remain a 2 % minority , in a 95 % White majority society .

      I haven’t checked out the Economist yet

      • Mow_the_Grass

        Some say that they are responsible for global warming and that they can change the flow direction of the ocean currents.
        Others say that they control Hollywood/the media/the banks and that they are definitely behind global warming.
        Talk on the street is that they earn 10% for every bagel and lox sold as well as pastrami and rye sandwiches anywhere in the world.
        Some even whisper that they brought down the Twin Towers and that ISIS is actually the IDF.
        And a few still blame the whole Jesus thing on them.

        • Dan O’Connor

          Some clever sounding tribal little sophists try to shut down any scrutiny of the a repetivie patten of behavious from a particular group by shutting down the rational centres of the Western mind by creating a counter intuitive disconnect , by constanty peddling the meme that if one particular group does not control everything , that this means they don’t control anything , and that if they are not 100% the cause of a problem, that they are no problem at all-

          They have managed to create an atmosphere of fear ,shame and intimination around them to prevent anyone mention of them in anything less than glowing praise and admiration , a form of ” mental abnormality ”

          And you know this

        • GraveDave

          You’ve got to admit, they doseem quite prominent among the ‘anti-white’ kind of anti racist movements that have abounded since these movements began. Especially the SPLC, who itself has been criticized for not having any minorities at the top (meaning black lawyers )after forty odd years.

          And what was it David Ike said – like being savaged by a dead sheep

        • vieuxceps2

          Ah-ha! I’ve solved your riddle-you mean the Jews. Why not say so? You ironic old tease!

          • Damaris Tighe

            Why didn’t Dan O’Connor say so?

      • Sue Smith

        There are many people who believe BUSINESS itself is pushing the immigration barrow because – think of it – it means MORE BUSINESS.

        That’s just one line of thought on it.

        • Dan O’Connor

          For sure our problem are not mono-causal.
          But just because a group does not control everything , it does not mean they don’t control anything . or that we always have parallel group interests.
          When 2% pf the US population are paying 65 % of the Democrat’s donations and 35 % of the Republican’s donations, and are over represented in comparison to their numbers by a factor of 15X in our instutions , it is quite sensible to keep and eye on the historical record of the kinds of political polices ,media reporting guide lines social polices and intellectual movments they appear to be disproportionately in favour of

      • GraveDave

        ” Why is the economist so pro-mass immigration ”

        And the Telegraph -especially the Telegraph,

        • Mary Ann

          Because immigration is good for the economy.

          • The_greyhound

            No evidence for that. The costs of immigration are enormous. Somalis, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis all cost the country immense sums, and create vast and intractable social problems. The left loves them because they vote Labour, and doesn’t care about the damage they do to indigenous communities – see Rod’s excellent recent article on Dewsbury, Savile Town etc.

            Britain would be a better place if no mass immigration had happened – society would be more cohesive, and we wouldn’t have any of the ugly social problems these people brought with them.

          • mohdanga

            Evidence please.

          • Mr B J Mann

            The evidence is in the claims of the open borders supporters.

            They insist that tax-paying immigrants pay as much in tax as benefits claiming immigrants claim in benefits.

            ie the tax paying immigrants don’t pay their fair share of all the other state expenditure, including the benefits claimed by the non immigrants.

            And they don’t pay the non taxpaying immigrants share of government expenditure.

            It’s not complicated is it?

            Unless you’ve read what you want to read into the propaganda and swallowed it hook line and sinker!

          • GraveDave

            Not all of it Mary.

      • vieuxceps2

        Do you mean the Jews? Bettter to say so I think.The time for good manners is past.We are in danger.

      • TrueNorthFree

        I have started to do the same. I now automatically check the tribal background of those international globalists, politicians and academics who are pushing devastatingly anti-white policies and they are almost always members of that very tiny but incredibly influential and powerful group. Once you become awake to that reality, it is shocking.

    • GraveDave

      went to a Guardian event a couple of weeks ago discussing migration and the chair asked the audience if they thought that there were too many of these ‘migrants’ coming over. I was the only one in that room to put my hand up in an audience of 100 people. I said I just could not believe how out of touch they were and that no one in that room had concerns with this. It was fascinating but very disturbing.

      Doesnt seem that way when you read the actual spreadsheet though. Because whenever immigration comes up (as it often does in the Guardian) at least a third of its posters (and no, these arent necessarily all right wing or UKIP supporters either ) will speak up. Unless this is because they’re posting from behind a key board and an anonymous screen-name.

      Now is the time to slow down immigration | Paul Collier . › Opinion › Immigration and asylum

      4 Nov 2014 – Paul Collier: The right’s reaction to public concern has been dysfunctional – but we must take time to ease tensions and take stock of social …

      • rationality

        Its more like 90% of the comments that are anti mass immigration. I see the Guardian comments as the barometer of people’s values and the wheels are well and truly coming off the progressive agenda. But these people are informed and its our non news reading friends and citizens that arent quite as clued up. Check the comments and the most upticked will usually be the best riposte to whatever outrage or nonsense is presented in the article. Comments attacking ‘kippers’ are usually derided. The atmosphere has changed so much over the past year. Its encouraging.

        • GraveDave

          It’s the same with race issues. Be it white on black/black on white. It would seem there has been a bit of a sea change over there.

          • rationality

            Although its been happening for a while now. I do think that the game changer was Rotherham and the rise of Isis. We are seeing almost unanimity opposing the Guardian’s view. No one is buying that nonsense any more (with the exception of gay marriage. Too many people aren’t seeing the agenda there)

            Even today on the Guardian there are two articles about ‘equality’ for women. And yes we roll our eyes but the comments are 99% against as we all know by now that is contradictory fascism.

            So why do they print such articles? I think the answer is in the size of the website. There are articles on everything and the non political stuff is consistently excellent. Yet there’s no subscription and very few ads. We know it loses money but no website has that content and traffic (except the Mail) and such little recoup. I assert that the Guardian is funded by the EU and is their very own Pravda. I have an EU report that backs this up.

      • Mary Ann

        You have a problem with people who don’t have a problem with migration.

        • The_greyhound

          He may have a problem with the pro-immigration lobby simply because they can’t produce a rational justification for their stance, and because they hypocritically ignore the fact that the huge disbenefits of immigration fall on the white working class, and not on smug selfish old women with villas in Tuscany.

        • GraveDave

          Not quite sure what you’re getting at. I’m simply disputing that the Guardian (or its readership) is afraid to discuss immigration.

    • vieuxceps2

      How about a revolution 1789 style? With marxoids in place of the Aristos?

      • rationality

        We do not need a reign of terror. 1989 was bloodless and the Europeans have suffered enough. Sure 1789 style retribution for the Marxists. The punishment in common law for treachery will not be prison. Have they thought about Ceauscescu?

        • gélert

          I prefer the Mussolini treatment 😉

  • Garnet Thesiger

    The snake-pit of pinko lefties that inhabit the “Today” programme need dealing with pronto. However I do believe that the schoolboy crush they had on Nicola Sturgeon and her ungodly cohort played right into the Tories hands – by terrifying the sane amongst us to get out and vote Tory to avoid an Ed – Nicola love fest..

  • Blazeaway

    You’re a good journalist, Rod. You are sceptical of all claims.
    Do you think the BBC would appoint someone like you these days?

  • maraismarais

    It will never change only for the worse . Rod’s article last week about how the police stood aside to allow Muslims to chase the indigenous population out of Savile Town,
    Douglas Murray’s article this week about Anjem Choudary , a qualified solicitor who lives on benefits , effectively funded by our state to undermine it .

    • vieuxceps2

      Yes, Rotherham et al, et al, et……

  • Dan O’Connor

    Bascially the BBC is tyannised and policed by a cult of university Frankfurt School indoctrinated and cloned middle / upper class radical chick snobs who believe that any White person who does collaborate gleefully in transforming every White country and every neighbourhood into a future third world conflict prone, crime ridden, welfare bankrupted, balkanised, authoritarian police state, white minoritised slum…

    ” a White working class, White van man , bigotted, uneducated , stupid , hate mongering , mentally unhinged , red neck, skinhead, tatooed , swaszitka waying , knuckle-dragging , genocidal , thug –who are bedevilled with irrational fears, , because they have been whiipped up into a frenzy of hatred by some
    ” far right wing ” demogogues , who have taken advantage of a down turn in the economy . ”

    Only they, the Bourgeoise Bohemian Left, have purity of motive.
    They spend their time living in middle upper class safe ghettoes as far away from
    ” diversity ” and ” cultural enrichment ” as they can get and having designer cutlery dinner parties where they swoon over ” exoctic and colourfull ” non-White third world cultures and religions they know eff all about

    They compete with each other as to who is the most culturally sophisticated, inellectually enlightened , and modern and ” anti-racist ” by seeing who can collectively offend, insult, vilify , hate, despise, sitgmatise, criminalise , and de-humanise their own nation , ethnicty , culture, civiliation and race the most .

    They are guided by an almost masonic standard kit of a secular theological cannon of agreed upon edicts ., which they enforce with religious zealotry .

    ” Christians bad , white working class bad , conservatives bad, , White nationalism bad the Western civiliation bad, all White people bad ”

    ” Muslims good, Blacks good , working class non-Whites good , non-White nationalism good, any non-White civilization good , all non-Whites good ”

    Their world view, for its continued existence, relies upon being able to earn enough to keep as much distance as possible from the consequences the rest of us must suffer so they can festishise the odious, smug , ego glow of moral suprremacy they whallow in .

    • vieuxceps2

      Well worth an uptick Dan, but bear in mind Kipling’s “The lesson of their race which is to put away all emotion and entrap the alien at the proper time”.Softlee softlee catchee monkey.

  • sarahsmith232

    Brilliant Liddle.
    If only we could become a grown up, real democracy with an actual free media, instead of infantilised, nanny knows best, heavily ‘regulated’ one this BBC bias wouldn’t be able to make it out the first gate.
    If we lived in a society with a free media they’d be taken apart for this. Their bias would be exposed, the lying politicians (on both sides) would be exposed, the truth about the effects of immigration would be out there etc.
    Alistair Campbell’s way of remedying Labour’s economic credibility problem shows the effects of living in a society with an un-free media – use taxpayers money to set up an ‘independent’ commission that would, surprise surprise, find that only the backward, uneducated Daily Mail reading sheep believe that there was ever anything wrong with Labour’s taxing and spending pre the crash. Economic credibility restored.
    This is how they spent 13yrs ‘managing public opinion’. Taxpayer funded propaganda designed to render all dissent the product of ignorant, fearful, irrational backwardness. With our ‘national’ state broadcaster only too happy to prop this up.
    There really is no justifiable reason why we are still not living in a country with a free media.

  • beelzebub

    Their morality is of the ‘soft-hearted’ kind, not the ‘hard-minded’. Basically, it’s about ‘being nice’, and tends towards self-denigration. It’s not grown up. It’s impossible to be compassionate without discrimination. They keep trying the same thing, even though they can see it will lead to disaster. They are afraid of the big picture and the logical and truly compassionate conclusions.

    • beelzebub

      Soft-hearted/soft-minded vs. soft-hearted/hard-minded, now I think about it.

      • Muttley

        But we now have a new term for this perceived “niceness” or “soft-heartedness,” which is “virtue signalling.” This is a major advance when it comes to talking and thinking about left wing rhetoric which aspires to sound “nice” and seize the moral high ground, but which is so invidious and toxic to both those it claims to want to help and to society as a whole.

        • beelzebub

          Yes, lefty rhetoric is passed its sell-by-date.

        • David

          It’s a great phrase, and it’s a shame it didn’t come along earlier. I used to call it grandstanding, but that wasn’t quite the right description – only partly so. Virtue signalling cuts to the chase, it is what it is, and it is the left’s most siren song. They all do it to one another, almost like a call-and-response pop song…

  • ablanche

    The problem surely is the sheer scale of the BBC’s News and Current Affairs operation. It is so big and such a player in “setting the agenda” that it is no longer a news disseminating organisation but a political force in its own right. It is the exercise of political power that Rod is describing above and NOT journalism (pace Trotsky).

    This has unsurprisingly gone to the head of the journalists involved. Leading not only to obvious left-wing agit prop types like Jon Donnison and the egregious Mark Easton posting absurd and provocative nonsense that is nothing to do with their ostensible remit; but even sensible types like Nick Robinson hysterically over-reacting to an obvious joke made by a mere Prime Minister that seems to challenge their uncontestable power.

    Until the scale it back and concentrate on making other types of programmes that are not also poisoned by their news agendas they will continue to be bewildered by the allegations made against them and they will not notice that people just don’t listen any longer because they don’t trust them, and what used to be a great cultural institution will be thrown to the wall not by vengeful “right wingers” but by the public.

  • lakelander

    Anyone in doubt of the BBC’s bias regarding immigration should watch any piece from their Home Affairs Editor, Mark Easton. His complacent, self-satisfied neglect of indigenous Britons’ concerns on the subject is staggering. He should be fired.

  • jim

    Nothing here we didn’t already know but it’s still needs to be said.In fact Rod is probably understating the case.There is no choice now.The BBC cannot be reformed It must be scrapped.I haven’t bought a license in years. Do not subsidise this outrage. Starve ’em or kill ’em.

    • Mc

      In the theoretical world of the BBC being starved by people no longer paying their license (legitimately or not), the government will be happy to fund them out of general taxation. The reason is that the BBC and governments have exactly the same mindset: it’s other people’s money they’re spending via a guaranteed income stream. And governments know that most UK people think the BBC should be kept alive via some form of compulsion.

      • jim

        A compulsory gogglebox?!!! What’s the compulsion? Jail?Torture?Wouldn’t it be a lot easier for the BBC to just peddle it’s PC bromides via a subscription service?

  • Clive

    I agree completely with Rod Liddle’s view on BBC bias.

    What would be interesting would be his view on how to eliminate it. I do not mean this in a challenging way, I really mean it as a question. It is a question to the man who recruited Andrew Gilligan into the Today program to ‘go after the government’. That went well.

    It’s difficult to rid people of their prejudices – Left or Right or Up or Down or whatever. I used to belong to the Liberal Party (before it became the damned LibDems). I have voted Labour and Tory and now I am a member of UKIP. I unquestionably have prejudices and make assumptions all the time.

    For instance, I believe that a large part of the BBC’s news problem is publicsectoritis. If you have a putatively infinite budget, you see everything about controlling money as mean-minded. Reality is even more difficult to get at if you are paid a high salary – so you don’t see why everyone shouldn’t have what you have. Of course it helps if you live in an area untouched by any of the problems you are reporting on as well. I don’t know if that’s true but it is how I view BBC News.

    So given that this average BBC reporter or ‘journalist’ – like Norman Smith – has his prejudices – what does he do ? Concentrate on the matter at hand and take pains to keep his opinion out of it ? Do you think that can happen ?

    It leaves me thinking the only solution is to sell off BBC News and Current Affairs – possibly to Murdoch, whoever has the money. It sounds awful because I have no time for the man but at least then you know where the bias is coming from, for the most part. Other news outlets could point it out – I daresay some would make a religion of it.

    Comically, I see many Left wing views in Murdoch papers so maybe BBC News could carry on much as now (as MBC News)

    • Mary Ann

      Great Britain ruled by an Aussie, you have got to be joking, haven’t you?

      • Clive

        It already is to a large degree. You can also watch Russia Today for light entertainment.

        The BBC pretends to impartiality, Murdoch does not.

    • gélert

      Sky News is little different from the Beeb nowadays.

      • Mc

        Which is fine, because people have the choice as to whether they wish to buy a Sky subscription. The beauty of that model is that if they never subscribe or terminate their subscription to Sky, they won’t have Sky staff banging on their door or sending them threatening letters demanding payment and proof that they’re not watching Sky.

        • David

          3000 people got criminal records last year for not paying the TV tax – an outrageous number. One is too many. With Sky, you just cancel your subscription; sadly the Beeb won’t let you.

      • Clive

        I wouldn’t know, I never watch it.

        The problem with the BBC is fake impartiality.

        Sky News has no such pretension.

  • Gilbert White

    There is a very real but subtle difference between the way the World Service and Radio 4 treats the same news item. There is a doctorate here for someone!

  • gélert

    The Toronto-centric CBC is exactly the same. Their French language service, Radio Canada, has long been a hothouse of Quebec independence. Fortunately, not many Canadians listen or watch the CBC.

  • Isage000

    The ecofreak/climate-change/renewable apostolate have been steadily ramping up their press release propaganda campaign ahead of the UN climate summit in Paris late this year. And of course the BBC are providing them open season to promote it. Every morning on the Today programme some advocate is given a free pass to promote his story, with little or no challenge. Drip-feed pieces are slipped into news bulletins on the topic.

    Expect more choreographed bias on it on Questiontime tonight. Amber Rudd is on -she is planning to sign us up to a global commitment at the Paris summit. UKIP’s Suzanne Evans is on the panel, she may challenge the green dogma but its not her forte. They will try and frame UKIP’s sensible energy policy as evil.

  • justsomeone

    Didn’t Orwell write that English left-wing ‘intellectuals’ loathe England and its people’s values?
    The thing is that the BBC isn’t a private company entitled to its bias. The government should force the BBC to also hire people who aren’t left-wing lunatics in order to maintain a balance and to offer unbiased reporting. The fringes can’t be represented but 80% of the public should be. When BBC staff are all – or almost entirely – left wing and very left wing then there’s an unacceptable bias taking place both in its hiring methods and in its reporting.

  • Liberanos

    Before we condemn the BBC too loudly for its lily-livered cowardice and bias, perhaps the Spectator’s moderators should be asked to remove their burkas.

    • Freddythreepwood

      Does the Spectator have moderators? Or is it Discus?

  • The_greyhound

    Here’s a little gem from the inane Guardian about its Beeboid chums squandering money to EXCLUDE British people from its lavishly paid, but unproductive workforce.

    These nutters are on about chucking away £100,000,000 (for which they have absolutely no mandate from the license tax payer) to indulge themselves in more of their sick identity politics.

    Time to cut this useless third rate bunch of parasites loose to actually earn their livings.

    • Robert_Eve

      Sod diversity.

  • John Andrews

    BBC staff must be relieved of their obligation to appear ‘impartial’ and ‘balanced’. Instead, they must be required to tell the truth about their opinions. Instead of ‘our listeners want to know’ they should ask what they want to know. Balance can be achieved only by having openly ‘left-leaning’ and ‘right-leaning’ commentators. BBC staff must be told to ‘come out’ as human beings – so that we can count them.

    • hippiepooter

      I’m 51. Old enough to remember a BBC that made one proud to be British as a bastion of integrity. We’re so shot through as a society now I don’t think we can ever recover that. It was a light that shone brightly while it lasted though.

  • The Bogle

    To judge from what Rod Liddell writes, I am left with the impression that there is something Orwellian (Ministry of Truth) about how the allegedly impartial BBC presents facts or a version thereof. I am also reminded of the saying “He that is not for us is against us,” and that there would appear to be no middle way.

    • Dan O’Connor

      Here is another expression ;

      ” Any ideas that are not explicty for your own people, work against your own people over time . ”

      There is no a middle way
      Any human society where its people are not devoted to preserving its culture, language, historical capital and bilological continuity , in a very ethnically competitive and unforving world , has a one way express ticket to the Darwinian dusting bin of history

  • Pacificweather

    “Kevin Marsh, who was for a time an excellent editor of The World at One — which under his control forensically dissected New Labour policy, to the fury of Alastair Campbell.”

    Rod’s evidence of left wing bias at the BBC. I think he has been taking journalistic lessons from Boris Johnson.

  • jpt4w

    ‘regardless again of the consequences for indigenous people’, ah yes, ‘the indigenous people’ – those that the BBC etc say do not exist – nation of immigrants, mongrel nation etc etc. We are the only country in the world that does not apparently have indigenous people…

  • VictorMC

    F*ck the BBC. Sell it off piecemeal. Double the budget of the World Service ONLY.

  • The Bogle

    To Lord Reith’s remit of “to entertain, inform and educate”, the BBC has added “to indoctrinate”. We know what and how you should be thinking.

  • Partner

    Well said.

  • Mara

    Same can be said of Danmarks Radio here in Denmark. DRs journalists are all lefties and all their families work their too…Ordinary people would not stand a chance. Most importand criteria: A great advantage if you are a communist or former communist and now just a lefty. The recent election was a scandal of dimensions when the journalists gave the now former prime minister Helle Thorning Schmidt (Labour) ) every possible advantage during debates and not one critical question ever while the leader of the Liberals was constantly attacked, interruptet and was not given time to anwer questions properly.
    They did not even hide what their aim was, namely that HTS should win the election (they did not succeed however). People went really mad about this because it was so obvious.
    The trouble is that we pay about 250 Pounds per year to see this left propaganda rubbish every day. It is impossible to get out as you pay by just owning a computer enabling you to watch
    News which i would not call news as again it is clear how they try to brainwash people f.eks. regardimg immigration. We never get proper relieable figures (only if it suits their purpose) and a lot of lies or so called “experts” which express their personal opinion on a matter and guess whether it is from a left or right point of view. Of course they are very pro-EU also.
    Like the BBC journalists our journalists at the DR are highly (over)paid. I also watch the German ARD sometimes and it is getting more and more politically correct. F.eks. reporting
    negatively about Pegida and omitting reporting about lefty vandals destroyimg half of Leipzig. Lefty journalists have taken over brodcasting corporations (and in his country most newspapers also) in many countries. Best way to spread your propaganda i guess.

  • The scale of the outright propaganda and lies we are being fed is utterly shocking. It’s the same across the English speaking world and probably across Europe. I simply don’t understand how this has happened. Our entire political, media, academic and media elite are behaving in a manner that is at total variance with the interests and overwhelming concerns of the majority of the population. We have even lost the definition of what it is to be British. I can’t see that we could possibly be worse off is we had lost WW2. That wouldn’t have finished us as a nation. We would have come out of that nightmare at some point. This will though. There is no unmaking this rotten omelette. The opportunity to save us passed when Enoch Powell couldn’t usurp Heath, and Heath won the 1970 election. Thatcher never grasped the nettle whatever her private thoughts. The opportunity would have been after the ’81 the riots, but instead we got Scarman, Heseltine, the neutering of the police and rampant black crime (aka ‘diversity’). There are parts of this country that I feel no kinship and identity with. It’s heartbreaking

  • zoid

    the bbc is in need of a serious re-balance…

    i can’t watch its news coverage because i don’t trust it….i’m constantly wondering what the spin is and what other story has been missed to report on a shooting in the states for the umpteenth time or yet another story about evil tory cuts or yooof issues…

    and its entertainment shows are similarly raddled with progressive ‘messages’ to the point where most of its comedy is unwatchable.

    unfit for purpose.

  • John P Hughes

    Isn’t Channel 4 News worse? Jon Snow’s ‘opinion’ view during the events at Gaza a year ago was said to be something that no BBC TV journalist – news anchorman would have been permitted to record and broadcast. Cathy Newman is seemingly as biased as ever despite having become a laughed-at figure following the incident when she was ‘escorted from a mosque’.

  • andylowings

    Rod was Editor of the Today Programme for 6 years. I heard no whisper of the Rob Liddle, we read today, back then .

    • hippiepooter

      TODAY has been a rolling ‘vote Labour’ campaign for at least 20 years now. There’s no doubt that Mr Liddle’s mate John Humphrys is very capable, but he has a screaming left-wing bias. After 2 years of listening to him when he first started, I had to face up to the fact that his mission in life is to tweek things Labour’s way – often give them a good hard shove. It’s laughable that Rodney says he has no inkling of his politics. Nice that Rod is so upfront these days about the bentness of TODAY, but he’s still clinging to his Labour moorings when he clearly now doesn’t belong. Who’d a thunk about Roger Mosey. During the Iraq War he made TODAY an adjunct of the Baghdad Propaganda Ministry. Still, nice to hear he did try to cling to some vestige of self-respect. I’m sure he could go a lot further though in exposing the subversion of BBC journalism.

      • andylowings

        Well put Mr Pooter,
        I think it is a lesson I have learnt late in life to see how many people have developed a flexible approach to their own ethical stance. Shameless opportunism really.
        Rod seems to try to quiet his unease with a little humour for us all.

  • AdamHLargent

    22222Ultra Income source by spectator Find Here

  • The Masked Marvel

    Strange that none of the BBC defenders who sneer at and insult posters at the Biased-BBC blog never come here to tell Rod that he’s a liar and is just imagining things that aren’t there. It never ceases to be a mystery that none of them ever dares correct Rod but are perfectly happy to claim that there’s never any bias at the BBC.

  • UncleTits

    I spent three days in Bradford once and I seem to remember that all of the remaining natives I spoke to were overjoyed at the mass Islamic immigration and demographic expansion that had been foist upon them, by their altruistic betters, on behalf of whom they were bearing the sacrifice of feeling like outsiders in the town of their own ancestors.

    Tragically I live in a relatively racist part of the country where most people have the audacity to be English. Where I live just doesn’t share the same “strength” of “community” that only the unquestioned mass importation of alien cultures can deliver. From resentment-inducing litigations against white people to the specially imported crimes that go unpunished, it’s just not happening here and I miss all that “diversity”. Did I mention “restaurants”? Shucks, those Bradford folks have won the lottery of life!

  • BillBill

    In today’s Spiegle International:

    A typical Merkel triplet goes as follows: Europe contains just 7 percent of the global population and is responsible for just 25 percent of global economic output, but pays half of all global social welfare.

  • bionde

    When I worked for the BBC I used to take great delight in walking into the office and shouting”Anyone want tickets for the Hunt Ball?” The apoplexy of the spotty vegans was very satisfying.

  • Cogra Bro

    The BBC has been biased about immigration, not for two decades,but since Enoch Powell’s so called Rivers of Blood speech at least.

    I know that, because my politically naïf respect for the BBC died the day after the speech when I listened to ‘The World this Weekend’ programme on the wireless ( as it was then called) fronted by a man called William Hardcastle. This programme attacked Powell. ‘Attacked’ is the only word one can use. It says much for the impact this incident had on me that I can remember these details from getting on for half a century ago.

    I have noted the blatant bias in favour of immigration and multiculturalism, going hand in hand with a kind of routine disparagement of Britain and the British, subtle and not so subtle, ever since. As also the routine bland brush- offs of any and all complaints of bias.

    I have resented every last penny I have been required to pay to keep this organisation, which I have regarded as a political enemy, in continued existence ever since.