BBC In Racism Denial

The BBC has always struggled with impartiality when it comes to causes it supports e.g. 'Illegal immigrants' are always described as 'migrants' (as though they have valid visa's) ....

The BBC Version Of Impartiality Sometimes Comes Unstuck

 ......  while the large numbers of Muslim mostly Pakistani descent men arrested for group organised sex crimes against young non Asian girls (a scandal that few in the establishment want to discuss), are invariably described as 'South Asians' (much to the ire of the Hindus and Buddhists etc from South Asia who are rarely if ever involved in this crime). 

It just seems to many of us to be part of the DNA of the BBC these days, to support certain causes, often not supported by the majority, and thus impartiality is at best a struggle, and at worst not adhered to. For instance it was pretty obvious that the BBC was pro-remain in the great Brexit debate, and indeed they still run Brexit stories even though we left the EU. 

Similarly, they have recently run a yet another story about the Falklands, detailing them as the 'Malvinas' and how Argentinians still grieve from their loss to imperialistic Britain and its colonists, after we, at great cost in lives, defeated their military fascist invasion/occupation force in the 1980's ... this despite the facts that

1. The BBC themselves are still reporting that the Argentinians are still arresting and imprisoning retired military officials for for crimes against humanity during the country's military dictatorships in 1976-83 ... crimes they undoubtedly would have committed against the British islanders (they put some in internment 'camps' when they invaded).
   
2. Argentina never colonised the Falklands (nor did Spain), which in fact were a French / British dispute (both had small island settlements around he same time), which Britain had won by the time the Spanish colonists of the future Argentina had 'inherited' the long defunct French claim to the islands. So Argentina and its Spanish predecessors never had a colony on the Falklands .... it was the French. But hey ho, why would the BBC let historic facts interfere with another attack on Britain.
   

So its natural that as Palestinians are always treated as the victims, and Israeli's the aggressors, so thus by extension, Jews are the aggressors and Muslims are the victims in any clashes between the groups in the UK. So when a group of Jewish teenagers were on a bus celebrating Hanukkah in central London, that was attacked by a group of men spitting and shouting antisemitic slogans, and giving Nazi salutes blame was partially apportioned to the Jewish occupants of the bus. As the men giving the Nazi salutes were clearly Muslim, Pakistani descent males, the BBC reported that the Muslims had possibly reacted to taunts allegedly emanating from the buses occupants. 

They simply took the words of the Muslim attackers that the Jewish teens and had issued “racial slurs about Muslims”, while disregarding the evidence that no such thing had occurred. Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned the attack on the Jews as disturbing racism that wouldn't be tolerated. The fact is that a number of investigations, not least by the police have found that the Muslims had apparently attacked the bus unprovoked, in what was a clearly racist incident (a foretaste of things to come?). 

The BBC refused to retract or properly correct the story by removing reports of racial slurs issued by the Jewish teens, and indeed continued to claim that the videos (on the links in this post) clearly include a slur in English ... a claim strongly denied by Jewish groups and those on the bus.

Peaceful Jewish Protest Outside The BBC

So protests outside the BBC ensued, with the crowd chanting 'BBC News where's the proof!' and waving placards (these protests were reported by UK press, but oddly not by the BBC as far as I can see). Rabbi YY Rubenstein resigned from the BBC, but still no apology from the organisation ...... the BBC don't represent me or many others outside of metropolitan areas these days. 

They have even been accused of "groupthink," representing only one socio/political group and thought pattern, and if that's true, then they are probably unredeemable now, and therefore not representing those who don't belong to that group, so the licence fee should be scrapped. Even under threat of losing the licence fee after 2027 (if the Conservatives are in power then), Amol Rajan, the BBC Media Editor thinks that this is an existential threat, as the BBC is under relentless financial and creative pressure from streaming giants such as Apple and Amazon (and Sky), but concludes that its future depends above all, on whether it can persuade young people to pay for it.

He's wrong, it has already lost the young viewers to subscription packages for better content from elsewhere, so its future depends on whether they can persuade the middle aged and older residents to pay for its content .... which their woke, left-wing, PC, stance on most subjects, makes it look very unlikely. 

I and many others, think we should consider whether, after 100 years as a tax funded body, its now time that we should let the BBC sink or swim on its merits as a broadcaster, and not as a highly subsidised campaigner for views that a majority of Britons possibly don't subscribe to.