GREAT NEWS FOR FANS OF THE BLATANTLY BIAS COMPANY BBC 2 immigration the truth!!

teamhurtmore – Member
So SD, what was the program actually like? Is it worth watching? What was the truth about immigration or did the BBC not deliver on the promise of the program? Did the program give different sides of the immigration debate? Would you recommend replaying it for students at school?

Sorry for the questions, but it seems an important topic so hope it got a decent airing. Did it?
Obviously it was biased but less so than normal. When you have all the Labour big wigs admitting they had cocked it up. Better still the programme fully supported my view that mass immigration has kept wages down if not reduced them particularly for the working class. The whole basis of the decision to allow mass immigration, when the rest of Europe wouldn’t was exactly that. As I stated in that other thread! Where it was implied that I was racist for saying so. Back later battery dieing!

Sorry, to be clear was it biased in favour or anti immigration? Given your second sentance was it biased against Labour? Did Theresa May join Jack Straw in admitting mistakes? Apart from the negative impact on wages did it present any positives of immigration? Who’s private decisions did it pick on – did they come from both parties?

Again sorry for the questions, but deciding whether to watch it on Iplayer.

I feel it was fairly well balanced, they admitted they miscalculated by a factor of 10 the amount of expected immigration. Interviews with the public ranging from getting people to say that they were willing to pay more taxes to cut immigration, to interviewing slovaks and poles who lived here. He also quized teresa may on the fact indians applying to british universities had dropped hugely.

The next big issue on media bias
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/12/13/peppa-pig-under-fire-piers-weighs
http://www.mamamia.com.au/rogue/abc-left-wing-bias-peppa-pig/

Today however, Mummy Pig, Daddy Pig, Peppa and her brother George stand abashed. Revealed for what they truly are: A family of communist, gay rights-loving, monarchy bashing, anti-family, anti-free-market, piggies.

A fairly decent program and remarkably unbiased given that it was presented by the well known tory trotskyite Nick Robinson

.teamhurtmore – Member
Sorry, to be clear was it biased in favour or anti immigration? Given your second sentance was it biased against Labour? Did Theresa May join Jack Straw in admitting mistakes? Apart from the negative impact on wages did it present any positives of immigration? Who’s private decisions did it pick on – did they come from both parties?

Again sorry for the questions, but deciding whether to watch it on Iplayer. I have a suspicion you are being sarcastic teamhurtmore! Of course the BBC are biased they are not capable of anything else. Again as they and there journalist have admitted. In one town they found people who were against greater immigration but the journalist then stated the majority were happy. Later they had to admit that every survey said the public were against it. Don’t think I said anything about them biased against Labour. Only that Labour admitted they had cocked it up.

gordimhor – Member well known tory trotskyite Nick Robinson

Now that definitely meets the definition of an Oxymoron!!

mikewsmith – Member
Remember Murdoch backed Labour for at least 10 years.

Yes, he backs the side that can return the most (and is more likly to win), currently the bet would be with Cameron to help dismantle the BBC and strengthen Sky’s position. When the hell has Sky/Murdoch tried to dismantle the BBC and what a pathetic belief that New Labour would ever contemplate conspiring with Murdoch to bring down the BBC. I hope your not a nine eleven conspiracy nut.???

I was referring to Robinsons time as President of the Conservative Party youth wing ….and yet he still managed to get a top job at

the BBC that backs New/Old or anything vaguely Socialist!

Immigration is the entire basis of the society we live in, our diets, technology and the wealth of the western world… if it hadn’t been for the murderous European Immigrants colonizing the Americas, Africa and Asia, we wouldn’t have the modern technological means to bitch about other people doing the same global migration as has happened since history began.

At least the filthy foreign modern immigrants mentioned aren’t murderous and hunting us for sport, or selling us into slavery.

Guess they do work harder than a lot of the whinging indigenous lummoxes though, hence the insecurity 😉

Don’t get me started on those bloody Canada Geese; migratory bastids!!

Now that definitely meets the definition of an Oxymoron

so an oxy ahead of you then and he also has irony and knowledge that wooshed right over your head.
Wise troll now there is an oxymoron for you sadly boring troll is not one nor obvious troll 😥

.teamhurtmore – Member Apart from the negative impact on wages

Apart from the negative impact wages! as if that was of minor importance? Let me give you an example of the negative impact on wages. My mother needs home help to visit 4 times a day. I have spoken to at least 20 of them. they are payed £7 an hour but have to pay all there own transport costs petrol, insurance (extra because of milage) maintain the car and get paid nothing between jobs. Most work 12 hours 6 days a week just to get a decent wage if that. So the negative impact on wages appears to be no minor thing to them. They also say they have a very high divorce rate. The firms get away with it by making them self employed.

Junkyard – lazarus
Now that definitely meets the definition of an Oxymoron

so an oxy ahead of you then and he also has irony and knowledge that wooshed right over your head.
Wise troll now there is an oxymoron for you sadly boring troll is not one nor obvious troll . Ever thought that I was being ironic? By the way only trolls and cowards insult people via the internet.

Well done for playing the I was joking defence I am sure that will be seen as just as genuine and sincere as your other posts.

Junkyard – lazarus
Well done for playing the I was joking defence I am sure that will be seen as just as genuine and sincere as your other posts

Your under the opinion that I value your view of me..why? And the two exclamation marks imply I was joking!!! PS was that you on the news tonight hiding your face going into court?

mikewsmith – Member
Remember Murdoch backed Labour for at least 10 years.
Yes, he backs the side that can return the most (and is more likly to win), currently the bet would be with Cameron to help dismantle the BBC and strengthen Sky’s position.

When the hell has Sky/Murdoch tried to dismantle the BBC and what a pathetic belief that New Labour would ever contemplate conspiring with Murdoch to bring down the BBC. I hope your not a nine eleven conspiracy nut.???[/quote]
First a comprehension lesson. I said backs the side that wins, and currently would like to dismantle the BBC with the help of the tories. Not Labour.
From Back in 09

News Corporation’s James Murdoch has said that a “dominant” BBC threatens independent journalism in the UK.
The chairman of the media giant in Europe, which owns the Times and Sun, also blamed the UK government for regulating the media “with relish”.
“The expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision,” he told the Edinburgh Television Festival.
The scope of the BBC’s activities and ambitions was “chilling”, he added.

Frankly if you can’t see what one of the largest global media organisations want with politicians then your not seeing the bias (and thats excluding looking after your ex-wife)
The Murdoch media group has something to sell (it’s favour) and all it wants in return is???

It’s also a little rich of anyone British to lecture anyone on the immigration and going to another country and not integrating and just expecting it to be like Britain…

Who’s doing that? ❓

Since when are exclamation marks an automatic indication that one is joking?

SD your illustration in relation to home help may well have more to do with lack of a minimum wage poor employment rights and the use of outsourcing in social and health services than immigration.

The mere fact that an organisation staffed by educated people with access to information and the time and experience to consider it does not reflect your world view does not of itself make that organisation biased.

I have a suspicion you are being sarcastic teamhurtmore! Of course the BBC are biased they are not capable of anything else.

Not at all, just trying to be clear. Several posters have said that it was balanced and you have given examples of balance too. So simple question how was it biased – for or against immigration, for or against any particular party?

Again as they and there journalist have admitted. In one town they found people who were against greater immigration but the journalist then stated the majority were happy.

May be they were happy?

Later they had to admit that every survey said the public were against it.

So pretty balanced then….this is the message you keep giving me. Arguments for and against. I had better watch it then.

Don’t think I said anything about them biased against Labour. Only that Labour admitted they had cocked it up.

My impression was that you felt they (the Beeb) were pro-labour and yet there seems to be little pro-labour comments so far – mainly as you say, they cocked it up. Sounds as if the message was anti-labour if anything, They didn’t cap to all by having Balls or Cooper sounding contrite did they?

Thanks for the insight re wages although I am not sure how the low pay for home medical staff’ (I know I have been there this year) relates directly to immigration but as an economist I can understand the impact of increased supply of labour. But I thought they had the economist Portes on this program (according to the blurb) he’s normally fairly open about the pros and cons (yes the impact on wages) and has written extensively on the subject including;

But, more broadly, immigration is mostly a red herring when it comes to concerns about the UK labour market. Youth unemployment was stubbornly high even before the recession and labour market prospects for young people without skills and qualifications are likely to remain bleak even in recovery. There’s plenty to be worried about. But not one credible economic analysis suggests migration from the EU has had a negative impact on the employment or unemployment rates of native Britons. Indeed, youth unemployment actually rose faster during the recession in areas that experienced lower immigration rates.

And while the evidence is mixed on wages, with some evidence of downward pressure for the lower paid, the impacts are very small compared to more important factors such as technological change and the minimum wage. Claiming that keeping out Romanians and Bulgarians (or other immigrants) would do anything significant to improve the life chances of young Brits isn’t just wrong, it’s delusional and a distraction from policies that might make a real difference.

What about wider economic impacts? Some have argued that immigration has little impact on per capita GDP. But this ignores much of the recent economic research on this topic, which suggests that immigrants can boost innovation and raise productivity; and that, perhaps as a consequence, countries more open to immigration, like countries more open to trade, seem to have higher productivity growth.

crankboy – Member
SD your illustration in relation to home help may well have more to do with lack of a minimum wage poor employment rights and the use of outsourcing in social and health services than immigration.

^^^ agree, it sounds to me like they would be better served by the NHS rather than having the worked farmed out to the lowest bidder

The firms get away with it by making them self employed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25453776

I think the BBC agrees with your opinions on home help, and therefore renders all of your arguments invalid.

perhaps you should stick to ITV and Breeze FM.

Junkyard – lazarus
Well done for playing the I was joking defence I am sure that will be seen as just as genuine and sincere as your other posts

Your under the opinion that I value your view of me..why? And the two exclamation marks imply I was joking!!! PS was that you on the news tonight hiding your face going into court?

Thanks for the insight re wages although I am not sure how the low pay for home medical staff’ (I know I have been there this year) relates directly to immigration but as an economist I can understand the impact of increased supply of labour. But I thought they had the economist Portes on this program (according to the blurb) he’s normally fairly open about the pros and cons (yes the impact on wages) and has written extensively on the subject including;

[/url]

hmmm… SD-253 – seems unconvincing – no evidence for bias, no evidence for your assertions, just a dislike of opinions different from yours? I’d say THM is usually one of the more centre-right posters around here, and yet he doesn’t seem to agree?

So what actually is your point, other than a little light, poorly thought-out, stirring?

Centre-right, moi? 😉 According to that poll a while back I was a left of centre libertarian!!!! Either that or a swivel eyed RW loon!!!!! 😉 This political stuff gets so confusing.

I am still waiting to see what, if any, left wing bias there was in the program. I will try and watch later today to find out. As you say, stoats brother, little evidence so far it seems.

(There is one rather large giveaway, but not spotted yet. I will see if that is the case – but relates to a bit of a ding-dong between two rival economists, so a bit dry for most peoples taste ! )

sd-253 are you Paul Dacre ?

warning very long essay!

Your under the opinion that I value your view of me..why?

there is nothing , of you, i value 😉

And the two exclamation marks imply I was joking!!!

of course it does – its not like we have standard emoticons that are used to show humour on the internet now is it and everyone knows what !! means – as i said i am sure this will be believed 🙄

was that you on the news tonight hiding your face going into court?

wow you are insistent on a reaction arent you …how tragic.
which are you?

By the way only trolls and cowards insult people via the internet

SD-253 – Member

And the two exclamation marks imply I was joking!!!

Do these three exclamation marks imply that you’re joking here as well?

Traditionally, multiple exclamation marks don’t imply anything other than that the person typing is an 8 year old child, semi-illiterate, or a zoomer.

SD-253, you deserve a knighthood for services to (unintentional) comedy.

Northwind – Member
Do these three exclamation marks imply that you’re joking here as well?

Good question, but I feel that was an unintended paradox. All Cretans are liers said the Cretan……

I am assuming by the lack of response that sd now feels that the program was not biased. Not often that someone changes their views in STW!! (Opps, giving my age away) Good to know that the Beeb is getting better then.

I am doing my best to reply to you teamhurtmore but I struggled on 7″ tablet and lost the whole reply twice on my little used laptop. So will have to reply in sections

teamhurtmore – Member

I have a suspicion you are being sarcastic teamhurtmore! Of course the BBC are biased they are not capable of anything else.

Not at all, just trying to be clear. Several posters have said that it was balanced and you have given examples of balance too. So simple question how was it biased – for or against immigration, for or against any particular party? As stated enough times now the BBC has admitted to bias in favor of immigrants and the left. Have you problem excepting this?

Again as they and there journalist have admitted. In one town they found people who were against greater immigration but the journalist then stated the majority were happy.

May be they were happy?
May be they should have gone with the survey in the first place, Instead of making it up?

Later they had to admit that every survey said the public was against it.

So pretty balanced then….this is the message you keep giving me. Arguments for and against. I had better watch it then.
Again why say, “journalist stated the majority were happy.” Well the obvious reason is to give those who want to believe it something to hold onto!

the BBC has admitted to bias in favor of immigrants and the left.

No exclamation marks so they actually mean this !! [ the universal sign for humour now!!]

Everyone knows my grammar limitations so I will work up to using three , once of course we have been told what it means !!

As stated enough times now the BBC has admitted to bias in favor of immigrants and the left. Have you problem excepting this?

You can state it as often as you want but it doesn’t make it true.

No problem accepting it if it is true. I shall see later. My problem is that you have given evidence to the contrary including the Program indicating (presumably from the recent social attitudes survey) that (1) the majority of people are concerned about immigration and (2) that even those for immigration are concerned about the rate. So despite you opinion about LT bias, it doesn’t (so far) seem to be the case here.

Maybe the journo was merely reflecting the majority of those he surveyed before complementing that with the results of the other survey? It’s quite an accusation to say that they just made it up.

I would hope that the program concluded that there are pros and cons to immigration and that we have not had sufficient debate about either. Again, I shall see….

My impression was that you felt they (the Beeb) were pro-labour and yet there seems to be little pro-labour comments so far – mainly as you say, they cocked it up. Sounds as if the message was anti-labour if anything, They didn’t cap to all by having Balls or Cooper sounding contrite did they?

Good idea to give Labour a chance at a little contriteness before the next election..sorry we made a mistake vote for us it wont happen again!

Bollocks my laptop is playing up. I have had a word with computer expert he said swithch it off and on again will try it!

You can state it as often as you want but it doesn’t make it true.

Serious?

And the two exclamation marks imply I was joking!!!

I’ll buy you an interrobang for your birthday 🙂