CALLERS FLOOD BBC WITH COMPLAINTS OVER MIGRANT CRISIS BIAS

[Teddy Bear]

I'm hoping that more and more people of this country, affected by the likelihood of more migrants masquerading as refugees flooding this country, will be waking up to the BBC agenda promoting this, and seek redress. Especially given the blatant arrogance displayed by the BBC as illustrated here.
'Redress' is coming - that's for sure.

LISTEN: CALLERS FLOOD THE BBC WITH COMPLAINTS OVER MIGRANT CRISIS BIAS

by BREITBART LONDON

A compilation of disturbing evidence of BBC bias surrounding the migrant crisis has been uploaded to YouTube, and appears to show radio host Stephen Nolan at odds with much of his listenership.

Although crudely cut, the clip (below) doesn’t just show the BBC’s tactic of demonising and baiting listeners who don’t subscribe to its “open borders/let all the migrants in” narrative, it also reveals that the publicly funded broadcaster is willing to silence, or cut off callers that it doesn’t want – in Nolan’s words – “taking up the airwaves”.

Nolan – a presenter on BBC 5 Live and BBC Northern Ireland – can be heard ignoring the clearly agitated callers’ requests for balance in their coverage, with multiple people telling him that they are sick of being made to feel perpetually guilty about the migrant crisis.

Despite the fact that 75 per cent of those coming to Europe from Syria are fighting age Muslim men, Nolan refuses to accept that we might not know who we as European nations are welcoming to the continent with open arms, instead seeking to emotionally blackmail his listeners with endless talk about “the children” who only make up around 10-15 per cent of Syrian migrants.

Towards the end of the clip, Nolan is asked to apologise by a number of callers, to a caller from the day before who they claim had been “slandered”. Nolan refuses, and says that those who wish to complain about his coverage should complain to the BBC directly rather than calling into his radio programme.

Breitbart London understands that a number of people have since complained about Nolan’s performance on the BBC Radio 5 Live station, citing the Stephan Nolan shows of the 5th or 6th of September. The incidents occurred around 20 minutes into the programme.

Specifically, complaints have been made about the treatment of “John from Swansea” who Nolan took to task on air.

LISTEN TO THE CLIP:

[Teddy Bear]

Raheem Kassam has written a brilliant letter published on Breitbart to Nolan about the debacle above.

DEAR BBC’S STEPHEN NOLAN, WHY DON’T YOU PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN (EGO) SIZE?

by RAHEEM KASSAM

Dear Stephen Nolan,

I see that you recently took a barrage of phone calls, and have experienced quite a lot of Twitter confrontation over your comments to your callers on your BBC radio show. I must say, I sought out and listened to your show having not been a listener before, and was equally incensed not just by how you treat your listeners, but by your lack of objectivity, and with the clearly emotional, sub-factual way you presented the migrant crisis on a publicly-funded channel.

You also didn’t seem to like it when people called in to complain about this, telling them to complain to the BBC instead of calling in to your show to address you directly. Not only is that cowardly, but you and I both know that complaints to the BBC, unless they’re about Jeremy Clarkson, tend to fall on deaf ears.

I can see why you did what you did. You obviously have your own biases, which I’m not against in journalism, so long as they’re declared, and not funded by the threat of prison for those who don’t pay the licence that keeps you on air. Unfortuantely, you fall foul of at least one of these two criteria.

And I’m sure you don’t care what my criteria for responsible public broadcasting is, but I reckon I speak for quite a lot of people when I say this. People who will be opening letters from the BBC demanding payment for TV channels they don’t watch, or worse, radio programmes they listen to, call in to, and are abused on.

Your caller John from Swansea for instance, was obviously upset by the way you were treating him, as were several follow up callers. While it is a credit to you that you held your nerve and didn’t shout back, I’m afraid you were still both incredibly patronising, and played fast and loose with the facts about the migrant crisis live on air. You constantly mentioned children, when the UN itself claims that there are a maximum of 15 per cent children involved, and just 13 per cent women.

I shouldn’t have to point to these statistics, but since no major broadcaster seems to have covered them, I’d like to bring to your attention the polling numbers behind the migrant crisis. I’ve covered them in more detail here, but 50 per cent of Britons polled by YouGov just over a week ago said they wanted no Syrian families accepted into Britain.

I appreciate as a journalist and commentator that one of your instincts when you hear something you disagree with (you at the BBC call it ‘prejudice’ I believe) is to challenge and defeat it. But that’s not your job. At least I don’t think it is. Nor do I think it should be. Sure, you’re supposed to ask questions, to probe, and to discuss. But you’re not supposed to pillory your listeners, especially when their views reflect the plurality of British public opinion. You’re supposed to reflect, not try to set the agenda.

So I’ll say this: while your callers may not be the best equipped to tackle your own biases live on air, with many of them (rightly) outraged about the mainstream media coverage of the issue… I am. (I am both, by the way).

So how about you talk to your producers about hosting a live, hour-long debate replete with callers on your radio show. You versus me, with a neutral moderator between us. You can shed your BBC title for the day, and sit there as yourself. You can even donate your salary for that day to a charity that helps the migrants. I’ll match what you give, as long as the charity isn’t lobbying to increase the numbers that Britain and other European countries “should” take. I believe Save The Children have committed to spending donations in Syrian refugee camps.

So how about it Stephen? You name the time, you name the place. Me vs. you on the migrant crisis? After all, isn’t it about time you picked on someone with an ego the size of your own?

Kind regards,


Raheem Kassam

Editor-in-Chief

Breitbart London

[thehighlandrebel]

Cutting and cropping the bits they don't want you to see.

[Teddy Bear]

Well spotted THR
I see the person responsible for posting this video on You Tube added the following

Published on Sep 11, 2015

Why are mainstream media outlets like CNN and BBC only broadcasting footage which shows the migrants in a positive light?

infowars.com

Why indeed?

[Teddy Bear]

Another attack on Nolan's phone-in covered by Breitbart. This time from another radio talk show host - Jon Gaunt.

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words, you can see from a photo of Nolan just how compassionate and caring a character he appears to you.

JON GAUNT: BBC’S STEPHEN NOLAN IS A ‘FAT BOY, POMPOUS PR*CK’


by BREITBART LONDON

Following the deluge of complaints received by the BBC’s Stephen Nolan over his clearly biased coverage of the European migrant crisis, the publicly-funded broadcaster refused to debate Breitbart London‘s Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam, and has now incurred the wrath of the infamous radio personality Jon Gaunt.

Gaunt, who is launching his new radio station in just a few weeks’ time, took to his podcast yesterday to slam Nolan as a “fatboy” and a “pompous prick”, dedicated an entire 54-minute long podcast to the issue.

He replayed clips from Nolan’s BBC Radio 5 Live show, where the presenter abused callers over their belief that Britain shouldn’t allow unlimited numbers of migrants into the United Kingdom. Polling from YouGov suggests that this stance chimes with the plurality of British public opinion on the crisis, but Nolan used his BBC-funded platform to attack that mindset, accusing callers of being heartless for their stance.

Gaunt’s approach to the issue was simple: Nolan shouldn’t be sacked for his bias, but the BBC should perhaps consider scrapping “phone-ins” where the host of the show is required to play devil’s advocate against the caller. Nolan, though taking up the opposition to the caller in the debate, furiously defended his own statements the day after, proving that he wasn’t simply trying to spur debate on the issue, but rather, to shut it down.

“Four major polls in this country say the British public do not want these migrants,” said Gaunt. “They consider them to be economic migrants on the whole, not refugees”.

He continued, “He’s lying, Nolan is lying. The BBC is lying. And they are taking the British public for mugs.”

You can listen to the full podcast here below, or go to Jon Gaunt’s website to listen:

Gaunt was formerly a radio host for a number of “mainstream” outlets before being “exiled” for his forthright views.

[Teddy Bear]

A related article to the way the BBC present this 'refugee' crisis.

MIGRATION CRISIS: WE’RE BEING CONNED BY THE BBC AND DAVID CAMERON
by VICTORIA AYLING

The government does not know how many migrants are coming to our shores. A Labour MP wants to see our beloved country ‘saturated‘ with migrants and her leadership wants open borders. As for the soppy Lib/Dems they just go with whatever sounds good for the media, and currently they’re jumping on the sob stories.

These sob stories from the European Union (EU)-loving media, particularly the BBC, are designed to ensure any concerns raised about allowing these migrants coming here result in cries of racism. This is despite the whole debate being about the numbers involved, not where people come from.

I have carefully avoided calling the influx ‘refugees’ because as anyone with half a brain knows that most are economic migrants. This has been proved time and again as they pick and choose a place to settle, benefit havens being the priority rather than safe havens.

I don’t blame the migrants for trying as lets face it, who would not be tempted by the guarantee of free homes, schools, health and cash. The system and the establishment are at fault as they allow this and therefore are actually encouraging people to risk life and limb on the boats to get here. Also it is these economic migrants, aided and abetted by the EU and the Conservative and Labour parties here, causing hardship to genuine refugees and to our own hard-pressed tax payer. If they were filtered out from the word go, then the genuine refugees would have access to the help they need quickly.

I am a Lincolnshire County Councillor. We recently held a vote on our policy regarding the migrants. Labour put a motion forward which in effect ensured that anyone voting against it was to be derided as a heartless monster, with the favourite mantra of racism thrown in. There was an amendment put by our UKIP group and when the vote was taken, the Labour motion was rejected and the result was that help should be given to genuine refugees.

We were assured that only 200 Syrian migrants were allocated to Lincolnshire, but the actual numbers could not be confirmed. Why? Because every migrant allowed to settle here can bring their extended families. We also know that many are not from Syria, but have passed themselves off as Syrians, even to the extent of buying bogus passports.

“Call me Dave” [Cameron], keeps allowing more and more to come here. First it was none, then 2,000, then 4,000, now 20,000 and no doubt to appease Chancellor Merkel, he will agree to more. This is on top of the 330,000 net migration figure the government allowed in last year.

At the Council, I voted to only allow genuine refugees here, but was still uncomfortable with the fact that I feel we are being conned as the checks are not adequate. Being descended from Huguenot refugees, I really do think it is important that those who are genuinely persecuted do get help.

The trouble is due to the screaming headlines with children and babies shoved in front of the BBC cameras, we are being conned. Most of the migrants are young men, not helpless families.

Are we importing death? It is said that some of the migrants may be ISIS terrorists. Why are we importing economic migrants who fill homes which our own people on housing lists need? These young men should be sorting their own countries out. Besides, if there is genuine persecution, surely they would take their families with them and not leave them to their fate?

I am concerned that we cannot keep going like this. The EU is very much to blame as Mrs Merkel invites hundreds of thousands over to settle, without a thought for the implications for our own people.

Successive governments here, Labour and Conservative, have aided and abetted the influx whilst talking tough on numbers at election time. Just what will our country be like in 20 years time?

How will we survive with limited space, resources and infrastructure?

The only party leader to speak sense on this issue is Nigel Farage, but as we know the electorate were spun again by Lib/Lab/Con ensuring UKIP got just one seat despite getting four million votes.

Charity begins at home and our own are using food banks and are on housing lists.

There are many other safe countries around to take genuine refugees yet still the government invite them here. The only way to stop this is to get back control of our borders by leaving the EU. And as the Prime Minister and his cronies cannot be relied upon to carry out a NO result getting us out of the EU, then in 2020 the voters will have only one choice. Nigel Farage and UKIP.

[djfearross]

Why does he start by questioning the person on his religion? "Are you a Christian?". And then, when he says "No", he doesn't question him on his atheism. Strange.
www.newsletter.co.uk/news/stephen-nolan-apologises-for-airing-religious-views-1-6717482

Found this on YouTube which is quite interesting, sorry if you've seen it before.

[Teddy Bear]

Hi DJ, good to see you

I should mention that the story you link to is unrelated to the subject of this thread.
I have to say in relation to that article that for a BBC presenter to admit to a particular view, like being an atheist in this instance, is more honest than pretending to be neutral or impartial, as they usually do. As least the listener can balance themselves the views expressed.

Just imagine if the BBC revealed the true political ratio of their Question Time or Any Questions audience, which is what they would do if they were really trying to be fair and impartial.

Good video clip you've posted. I also found another with the actual programme where Nolan was haranguing the callers with his completely biased presenting.