What the BBC Calls 'Impartiality' on Donald Trump

[Teddy Bear]

Any Republican president candidate will get pulverised by the BBC, we see it time and time again. Most especially when that candidate is as outspoken and as right wing as Donald Trump. Intelligence and concern for ones society are never points which will sway the BBC from their own agenda, which has nothing to do with fulfilling the remit of their charter.

Donald Trump represents the views of millions of Americans. Does the BBC not realise this?
Rod Liddle

If you saw the BBC Ten O’Clock News last night you will have witnessed Nick Bryant’s dispassionate, even-handed treatment of Republican candidate Donald Trump. Trump had called for an end to Muslim immigration into the United States. Bryant’s face was puffed up with outrage; he almost spat out the words of the story and ended by saying that ‘this is the gutter’.

It does not matter how often they are told, it does not matter how many complaints they receive: the BBC continues to pursue its own political agenda at every possible opportunity. If it addressed this problem it might find that fewer people wished to see the licence fee abolished. But fat chance. For Bryant, Trump is not a politician representing the views of millions and millions of Americans, he is simply vile and wrong. There is no discussion about this point, no room for doubt and therefore no requirement for balance. I guarantee that exactly the same utter certitude will adorn the BBC’s coverage of all things to do with the Front National in France. It will focus almost exclusively upon the necessity to stop the FN (including interviews with cowering, terrified, Muslims), because the BBC cannot bring itself to believe that anyone civilised would view Le Pen’s lot with anything other than outrage and disgust. Despite the fact that, very clearly once again, millions and millions of French people think they’ve got a rather good point.

The mindset was at work recently in a piece by Reeta Chakrabarti (and which I mentioned here) about people protesting outside abortion clinics: no room for discussion, horrible and bad and there’s an end to it. They cannot bring themselves to believe that when other people disagree with them on issues like these they are anything other than pig ignorant or simply evil. It is, when you think about it, an astonishing arrogance.

Incidentally, I’m no great fan of Trump and I have one or two reservations about the FN. I’m tempted to protest outside abortion clinics mind, if only to annoy Reeta Chakrabarti.

[steevo]

Liddle seems like the kind of guy I could sit with. I'm also no big fan of Trump but it's blatantly obvious he's struck a chord with many Americans including myself. People know an awful lot from the gut and as crude as he can be (at times) can still relate. It's like a phenomenon because he's come at the right time. The veneer of political correctness is breaking down and people are starting to speak out, especially the right. It's interesting if not a little unnerving to watch but one thing is clear, the Left's hypocrisy is more exposed than ever and they know it even though they do nothing but double down (they have NO conscience). It seems there is no impartiality with anyone at least over the Internet. No romanticized noble intent of objectivity separating oneself from ones feelings. People are calling it as it is right or wrong.

The BBC are not unlike our media. They're outrageous. Unabashed raw deceit and propaganda. Just last night while I was scanning our cable TV channels I stopped at one for a few seconds where a newscaster was saying Trump will put us in greater danger causing ISIS to want to attack us even more. In other words trying to set up the narrative if we get attacked again it won't be because of any weakness on the part of Obama, Trump and his supporters will be to blame.

As an aside, for the first time in years I find myself on occasion trolling what I call Breitbat-Trumpsters. I don't like their thin-skinned intolerant childlike fanaticism. I even have less respect for Breitbart than pre-Trump days. But I don't mind the man Donald Trump that much even though I prefer others over him.

[Teddy Bear]

Dec 9, 2015 7:49:39 GMT steevo said:

...where a newscaster was saying Trump will put us in greater danger causing ISIS to want to attack us even more.

This one statement highlights the dim and dhimmi approach taken by so much of the media and why our world is now in the state it is. Unless these Islamists, those generating the psychopathic hordes that are willing to give their lives to a crazy premise, fear the reaction by the West they will continue to expand. Our left wing morons think we have to appease them, and they have really just opened the gates of Troy.

I notice the majority of Breitbart London articles concern what Muslims have been up to here and around the world or how the left wing mentality has reacted to it. Given the mostly silence from our media on the subject I welcome this exposure.

Trump is a highly successful business and clearly is capable of independent thought, unlike the left wing lemmings. I cannot fault the reasons for logic, at least he is dealing with real facts and not the bullshit fed to the public by the likes of the BBC.

[steevo]

Our media coordinate, we've already suspected for many years but finally found that out with the JournOlist. Their editorial staffs get the word out. Narratives are set. The dominant perception from leftist propaganda. What I think they may want to do is demonize Trump and the American right. Blame his 'prejudiced rhetoric' and the ill will of his followers for terrorism. This has been tried in the past. It's a strategy, not fear. An effective strategy but I'll qualify it as what happens here.

I also like Breitbart and am glad they're in business. But I don't like articles that dismiss significant facts (and there are big ones) to bolster their man and agenda. I'm disappointed. And I don't like followers of a man who claim to be the 'true' conservatives, intolerant of any and all who merely question and have doubts claiming we're all "left-wingers" and "Hillary-lovers" etc. These remind me of former Ron Paul supporters and I suspect many are just that.

[Teddy Bear]

Here's a very good example of the above.

Trump made a statement that certain Muslim areas in London and elsewhere were 'no-go' areas for non-Muslims.
Immediately the BBC and the London Mayor, among others, 'scoffed' at this.
Breitbart has now been in touch with a policeman who confirms Trump's statement. Just look at Google Earth street level pictures of Whitechapel in London and see how comfortable you'd feel walking through eating a bacon sandwich.

EXCLUSIVE: London Cop Confirms Donald Trump UK Radicalisation Claims – BBC, Cameron, Boris Johnson Sneer
uk radicalisationGetty
by RAHEEM KASSAM

A London police officer has confirmed to Breitbart London that Britain’s coppers are more alert and vigilant because of what he calls “Islamification” in the UK’s capital city, confirming in part U.S. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s claims that London police are more afraid for their lives in areas prone to radicalisation.

Mr. Trump’s comments were derided by the “impartial” British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as well as London’s part-time mayor Boris Johnson, and Prime Minister David Cameron. He said in a speech this week that parts of London are “so radicalised the police are afraid for their lives”.

But a Metropolitan Police source has spoken out against the claims made by the British political establishment, telling Breitbart London that “Islamification” is not new, and that it is not just London that has a problem.

A Downing Street spokesman said the British PM “completely disagree[d]” with Mr Trump and thinks “his views are wrong” while Mr. Cameron’s old school friend Mr. Johnson joined in the fray, quipping: “…the only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump”.

But a Metropolitan Police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Breitbart London: “Islamification has and is occurring. Muslim areas are not new.”

The officer, who has most of his experience in West London and across various police constabularies, added: “When I was a teenage lad in Burnley there were no go white areas. This IS the case still nationally… including London where you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts when you are working”.

Another serving police officer confirmed the restrictions. He told LBC radio police weren’t scared, but admitted bosses had told officers to avoid wearing uniforms in certain places in the capital. He said:

“There has been a time when it’s been advised not to wear half-blues or uniform to and from work.

“It’s like damage limitation. You try to do the most you can to prevent anything bad from happening.

“All intelligence is around you and you do the best with that to essentially stay safe. And if that means taking measures to not identify yourself off-duty too much then so be it.

“It’s covering your backs. It’s a common sense approach.”

The comments run contrary to the officer’s bosses from the Metropolitan Police, which is not supposed to take political stances, but issued a statement that said:

“We would not normally dignify such comments with a response, however, on this occasion we think it’s important to state to Londoners that Mr Trump could not be more wrong.

“Any candidate for the presidential election in the United States of America is welcome to receive a briefing from the Met police on the reality of policing London.”

There is a difference of views between police leadership, who want to appear in control, and beat officers who experience the day to day of policing in Britain.

In January 2014, Tom Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary told the Times newspaper: “There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all… I am reluctant to name the communities in question but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves. There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own . . . They just have their own form of community justice.”

But he was careful to state: “It’s not that the police are afraid to go into these areas or don’t want to go into those areas, but if the police don’t get calls for help then of course they won’t know what’s going on.”

His comments may be perceived as “public relations” on behalf of the police leadership. Breitbart London understands that while police don’t “refuse” to go into areas, they are increasingly concerned about entering some areas – a trend that is reflected across the European continent.

One close-protection security expert told Breitbart London earlier today: “You have to be more vigilant in some areas than others due to demographics and radicalisation. Absolutely, without question. Anybody that states otherwise would be burying their head in the sand and ignoring the reality”.

In London, Breitbart London exclusively reported on security in the Muslim-dominated borough of Tower Hamlets. In the months that followed, the “elected” Mayor Lutfur Rahman was found guilty of corruption, bribery, and exercising “undue spiritual influence” over voters.

[steevo]

Well if you're referring to it being a good example of what the newscaster here was doing then I disagree. Our left-wing media know, if another act of terror occurs here their agenda will have problems. Since they really can't get away attributing all this to lack of gun laws and they don't want Islam blamed because that means anti-liberty Muslim values will come into question vs our own, and they don't want Barack Obama blamed for obvious reasons... they'll try the ultimate perversion and blame the Republican front-runner and those evil right-wing Americans. Now if you don't see this or grasp how it can be then so be it. I have no intention to dissuade your conviction it's all because of left-wing dhimmitude.

As far the stories you posted in response, I have no problem interpreting them as the authors have. That's Britain okay? I would add though 'fear' on the part of your police, I suspect, has a little more to do with being called racist, Islamophobic etc. by, your die-hard leftist media and pandering politicians. But that's my opinion.

[Teddy Bear]

Steevo, what I wrote at 9.50pm yesterday was a follow on from my 7.59pm post. I didn't see your 9.03pm post until today as I hadn't refreshed my browser prior to writing
Since it appears you thought I was referring to your 9.03pm post when I wrote I don't know much that will affect your reply above.

Regarding dhimmitude, I've no doubt that this is a major factor affecting their output. They are spineless cowards and we can see their hypocrisy time and time again. They are only 'fearless' when they are attacking a 'safe target'. At least one they believe is safe, albeit for the time being.

As to them changing their current propaganda if more terror attacks occur, I'd have to see it to believe it.

[steevo]

I appreciate the clarification