Jane was a BBC London producer back then, tweeting things like "the brilliant John Pilger" and "Cannot believe Chomsky, Pilger, Assange are speaking in Trafalgar Sq and I'm too sodding hungover to go. From my sofa, I urge you all to GO".
Now a Senior Broadcast Journalist for the BBC, working on Panorama (among other things), she remains highly active on Twitter.
This is something she tweeted tonight:
#Panorama excl: HomeOffice researcher "booked on diversity course" after raising concerns about grooming in Rotherham pic.twitter.com/u0omcSLnwq
— Jane Bradley (@jane__bradley) September 1, 2014
Now if even Jane Bradley is now tweeting such things - and the BBC's Panorama is reporting such things - then there really is hope for the BBC. If not for the British Home Office.
And I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
If only Panorama had done a hard-hitting investigative report on this back in, say, 2005, and the entire BBC hadn't bludgeoned every critic with the "racist!" cudgel last year when it became apparent that there were a whole bunch of these gangs, I'd be somewhat optimistic. I'm not. I know they did that one Inside Out London installment about Mohammedan grooming gangs, but that was about how they abused Sikh girls. Safe ground, there, no fear of backlash from what Jack Straw called the "violent" English. Worth maybe half a point in the BBC's favor.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the two different QT episodes on this. The first one was two years ago, I think (YouTube video deleted. Imagine!), where the panel blamed the girls' parents and guardians, and society in general for creating these loose women and letting the run wild, until a sane audience member called them out. Then there was the episode where the execrable Steve Coogan sputtered and stammered about how various faiths had these problems, because he couldn't say "Islam". Instead he mentioned the Catholic Church, always a favorite BBC pantomime villain. None of the panelists dared utter the Religion of Peace, either. There was also the half-assed Big Questions episode where Nicky Campbell had a bunch of professionally moderate Mohammedans making all the right noises about how other Mohammedans need to do a better job policing their youths. Jeremy Vine also touched this issue on his radio show, but the NSPCC guy claimed it was all about "Asian" men. Not Muslim. Since the only other BBC investigation until then was about Asian men abusing Asian girls, it was BS. Protecting Islam was the goal there, all part of supporting the Labour policy which created this environment. The public wasn't worried about Sikhs, but the BBC cannot help themselves with the intellectual dishonesty. Taj Hargey called Vine out on it. Yet the white, English, NSPCC guy kept going on about how it wasn't a race or religion thing but the usual drivel about "male power" and control and all that. He had more opportunity to speak than Hargey did. Vine even made an Evan Davis-like disgusting attempt to twist a complaining caller's words into the "oh, they were preying on vulnerable, loose girls who were running around" narrative.
The BBC has a very, very disgusting track record when it comes to this issue, and this one Panorama edition won't even begin to balance that out. I don't see any evidence of repentance, either.
This is the "There, see, we've reported it," edition of Panorama.They're about as late to the party as it gets. Yes, I know these things aren't produced spontaneously and this will have been in the works for some time, but this should have been broadcast last year, or better still, three years ago. Combine this with the comparatively uncontroversial Inside Out episode about Asian-on-Asian rape, and it's a very poor effort. Bradley deserves a tiny bit of credit for tweeting that text image, but we know the BBC does the exact same thing to people expressing unapproved thoughts. Do you think that will change? The BBC bears a significant responsibility for both encouraging and enforcing the PC culture and turning complaints about these stories into thoughtcrime. Unless there is a big 'mea culpa', public apology, and deep soul-searching, they are hypocrites.
Sorry for the long rant, but we've got a similar problem in the US with critics of illegal immigration being called racist, and the forced narratives for ideological and political purposes.
The BBC is a big organisation with an obvious left-liberal bias.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a strand of secularism that can see the threat of Sharia to everything the BBC holds dear.
We should look to build a big broad coalition to defeat Sharia.
Maybe some of them can admit to themselves that they see a threat. But in order to build a broad coalition with them, the Beeboids would have to admit it openly, and to do so would be tantamount to acknowledging that someone on the Right was correct, and that their sacred cow of multiculturalism was wrong. Can you imagine any of them admitting that Tommy Robinson or Nick Griffin were right about something? Remember that the first people to call attention to this in a big way, aside from the Sikhs, were the BNP. Worse still, they would have to admit that the BBC got it wrong, and not in the way Nick Robinson dishonestly presented it in his charade of a documentary. It would force many of them to question the entire foundation of their personal belief system, and how they view themselves. Not going to happen any time soon.
DeletePerhaps if you convinced them that they'd be defeating Israel at the same time....