The BBC’s immigration scare story

[Dedworth]

The BBC’s enthusiasm for anything that might undermine the Government’s immigration policy was demonstrated yet again by the excitable tone of last night’s Newsnight report (above). The thrust of the item was that a key element of the government’s case for restricting immigration had been undermined by a report written by Home Office officials but allegedly supressed by Number 10.

As usual, the context was entirely absent. The original report quoted by the Home Secretary was by the Migration Advisory Committee who have a very high reputation in these matters. They were the first to put a number on the extent of displacement but, like all other researchers, they faced a fundamental difficulty in getting results that are statistically significant given that new immigrants are a small part of our workforce. Evidence to the House of Lords report on the economics of migration pointed out (pdf, para 83) that the absence of statistically significant evidence was not evidence that the effect was small. It simply meant that there was too much “noise” in the system to estimate the effects accurately.

More generally, Newsnight rather implied that this new report undermined the government’s case for restricting immigration. In fact, this is only one aspect of a much wider case concerning the impact of mass immigration on public services, housing and transport- not to speak of the social impact. The best thing the government can now do is publish the report so that the public can see its limited scope.

By this morning, the BBC was waking up literally and metaphorically. The tone of the Today programme was considerably more measured. In substantive terms this is a storm in a teacup. In presentational terms it demonstrates the BBC’s habitual lack of impartiality on the subject of immigration. The public have made up their minds on immigration with over 70% supporting its reduction. The BBC only undermine their impartiality and authority by reporting of this kind.

Sir Andrew Green is founder and chairman of MigrationWatch

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...n-scare-story/

This is typical of the treasonous, institutionally leftist BBC.

BBC Radio Berkshire was gushing over it this morning

[grahamw48]

'This is typical of the treasonous, institutionally leftist BBC'.

Don't know why I bother listening to their propaganda anymore.

It seems half the people employed there are from 'minority' groups, so what can be expected ?

At least the pedo element is being exposed.

[Terpe]

The BBC News business division is said to be one of the world's biggest..(if not the biggest)

It's got this 'magnetic' attraction for being accused of political bias and defective reporting from right across the political and social spectrum.

Is it truly any worse or better than it's competitors ? I have no idea. Not really bothered. There's a hugh news resource available to those with a discerning mind.

News for the masses is just that. IMO

[Dedworth]

The BBC ......anything where they can do the Govt down and put a leftist spin on they will. On the flip side events damaging to the Labour party receive nil or minimal coverage eg the Harman/Dromey/Hewitt pedo scandal

Biased Broadcasting Corporation

[Terpe]

I disagree Terpe - anything where they can do the Govt down and put a leftist spin they will. On the flip side events damaging to the Labour party receive nil or minimal coverage eg the Harman/Dromey/Hewitt pedo scandal

Biased Broadcasting Corporation

What do you disagree with Dedworth

[Dedworth]

What do you disagree with Dedworth

Sorry Terpe misread your reply mine now edited

[Terpe]

Sorry Terpe misread your reply mine now edited

[Jamesey]

I find it very amusing that some accuse the BBC of bias, when getting their news from the Spectator or the Daily Mail!

The BBC is by far the trustworthy news organisation. The BBC is run for the benefit of it's users, not shareholders or some malevolent media mogul like Dacre or Murdoch.

[grahamw48]

Some of us don't read newsrags...at all, but do listen to and watch a cross section of news stations.

From some of the recent BBC shenanigans and payoffs, I'd say it was run for the benefit of the staff !

I wonder what the payoff for this one will be...courtesy of the licence-payers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26451155

[Terpe]

The finger can be pointed at virtually every large organisation whether news media, NHS, Government or the Justice Department. Yes even the Home office.
How about Banks, Energy Companies, Supermarkets, etc etc

It's the same the whole world over.

From my personal experience most of these high profile organisation are made up of good people. There'll always be rotten apples........and usually at the upper levels. Therein lies a problem.

I enjoy many news programmes on TV and the BBC are usually pretty good.
I listen to BBC local radio too. Great job from them.

Just the way I view it...(no pun intended)

[Dedworth]

Some of us don't read newsrags...at all, but do listen to and watch a cross section of news stations.

From some of the recent BBC shenanigans and payoffs, I'd say it was run for the benefit of the staff !

I wonder what the payoff for this one will be...courtesy of the licence-payers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26451155

16 years an overpaid trough feeder - a minimum of £1 million I'd expect

[Jamesey]

The finger can be pointed at virtually every large organisation whether news media, NHS, Government or the Justice Department. Yes even the Home office.
How about Banks, Energy Companies, Supermarkets, etc etc

It's the same the whole world over.

From my personal experience most of these high profile organisation are made up of good people. There'll always be rotten apples........and usually at the upper levels. Therein lies a problem.

I enjoy many news programmes on TV and the BBC are usually pretty good.
I listen to BBC local radio too. Great job from them.

Just the way I view it...(no pun intended)

Good post.

I use the BBC website, radio and TV everyday and they produce top quality programmes. When I compare the licence fee and the huge amount I pay to Sky every month, the BBC offers much, much better value.

[Dedworth]

The finger can be pointed at virtually every large organisation whether news media, NHS, Government or the Justice Department. Yes even the Home office.
How about Banks, Energy Companies, Supermarkets, etc etc

It's the same the whole world over.

From my personal experience most of these high profile organisation are made up of good people. There'll always be rotten apples........and usually at the upper levels. Therein lies a problem.

I enjoy many news programmes on TV and the BBC are usually pretty good.
I listen to BBC local radio too. Great job from them.

Just the way I view it...(no pun intended)

Take out the state owned banks Energy Companies & Supermarkets are profit making commercial concerns "answerable" in a loose sense to shareholders. The BBC on the other hand recklessly continues to spend public money like it's going out of fashion -

FOI reveals BBC spends £2.5million on 4,000 iPhones, 400 iPads and 800 MacBooks for staff in just two years

http://foidirectory.co.uk/foi-reveal...ust-two-years/

£2.5 million is chicken feed of course when set against the obscene salaries and bonuses paid

[grahamw48]

Very nice. Wish I could afford even one of the above.

[Dedworth]

Very nice. Wish I could afford even one of the above.

That's what you need to run a "trustworthy news organisation"

[grahamw48]

Evidently only the best will do.

[gWaPito]

The BBC ......anything where they can do the Govt down and put a leftist spin on they will. On the flip side events damaging to the Labour party receive nil or minimal coverage eg the Harman/Dromey/Hewitt pedo scandal

Biased Broadcasting Corporation

Absolutely and unfortunately its the masses what put inept people in government. We all have a responsibility to be bothered

The Biased Broadcasting Corporation should be ashamed of themselves.

[gWaPito]

Evidently only the best will do.

All same brand. ..it's to make sure they don't trip over their numerous lies and deceptions.

If it weren't for my boys I wouldn't have a TV in the house. It doesn't go on when i'm alone here. ..utter garbage

[Dedworth]

Here we go the latest self opinionated, overpaid BBC trough feeder opens his big gob :-

'I could earn DOUBLE elsewhere': £320,000-a-year BBC TV chief defends huge pay packet as BBC Three, which he used to run, is sacrificed in latest budget cuts

• Danny Cohen, BBC director of television, defended his salary last night
• He told a charity fundraiser his services come at 'a significant discount'
• Comments came as plans were finalised to pull flagship youth channel off air

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2vC8NanwJ

Why doesn't he do the licence payer a favour and get a job at a commercial channel

[grahamw48]

Yeah, big of him working for such a pittance in the interests of 'public service'.

[Arthur Little]

BBC *Three ... is sacrificed in latest budget cuts

's no BIG loss, ... considering the utter crap > being habitually churned out on *there < !

[Dedworth]

Humphrys puts his hands up

The BBC has been “broadly liberal”, not balanced on issues such as Europe and immigration and “grotesquely over-managed”, its own presenter John Humphrys has said.

Humphrys said he had voted for “most political parties,” but admitted: “The BBC has tended over the years to be broadly liberal as opposed to broadly conservative for all sorts of perfectly understandable reasons.

“The sort of people we’ve recruited – the best and the brightest – tended to come from universities and backgrounds where they’re more likely to hold broadly liberal views than conservative.”

He said the corporation had made mistakes in the way it covered Europe and immigration but added that the BBC was now more balanced.

“We weren’t sufficiently sceptical – that’s the most accurate phrase – of the pro-European case. We bought into the European ideal,” he said.

“We weren’t sufficiently sceptical about the pro-immigration argument. We didn’t look at the potential negatives with sufficient rigour.

“I think we’re out of that now. I think we have changed.”

Humphrys said more needed to be done to cut down on excessive BBC management.

“There are too many of them. I think they think that. I think (director-general) Tony Hall thinks that – I don’t know, I haven’t asked him, but I think he thinks that,” he added.

“Over the years we’ve been grotesquely over-managed, there’s no question.

“They’re now getting a grip on it. A lot have gone. I think more need to go.”

Humphrys said further resources should be devoted to Radio 4 flagship show Today, the “most important BBC programme”, because “we’re as pared down as it’s possible to get” and that the programme needed to recruit more women presenters.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...bias-1-6489783

[grahamw48]

I quite like Mr.Humphreys.

[Terpe]

I'm very fond of Susanna Reid

Sadly she'll be leaving the Beeb to join the new ITV Breakfast 'Good Morning Britain'