It was plain to see for many of us that the men who harassed a group of Jewish teenagers out celebrating Channuka in London’s Oxford Street were Muslims. As I said in my previous article on this issue, it’s unlikely in the extreme that these men were Hindus, Sikhs or even mentally unbalanced Methodists. None of these groups have a record of hating Jews because they are Jews but too many, not all I need to say but too many, of the followers of Islam do have that record and we can find in Islamic writings the religious and theological justification for their being that way.
This is an incident that should have been reported fairly and accurately, pointing out quite clearly and plainly who the victims and who the aggressors were. After all even when perusing both the original video and the video that was released later of the incident (which is embedded below) it was very obvious that it was the Muslim men who were the aggressors.
However that is not how the BBC initially saw it. The BBC made the false claim, later retracted by them, that the Jews on the bus had shouted ‘Islamophobic’ words at the Muslims giving the impression to the reader that the Jews had in some way ‘asked for it’.
Unfortunately for the BBC their lie and their blatant and dishonest attempt to paint this as an ‘Islamophobic’ incident was uncovered quite swiftly. Audio and language experts looked carefully at the part of the video where the alleged anti Muslim words were spoken and came to the conclusion that the BBC had lied about the claim that the Jews had been at fault here. After being caught out lying the BBC amended the report and removed the dishonest claim.
The Jewish Chronicle said:
The BBC has changed an article on its website suggesting that the Jewish victims of the now-viral Oxford Street antisemitism incident used anti-Muslim racial slurs.
The original piece stated that “some racial slurs can be heard from inside the bus.”
When approached for comment on this by the JC, a spokesman from the BBC said that the article had been amended to reflect the fact that only one slur could be heard in the clip, but insisted that the phrase “dirty muslims” in English could be heard two seconds into the video.
The JC added that they contacted an audio professional who found nothing. The JC said:
A sound and audio professional contacted by the JC said he was unable to distinguish the alleged slur saying: “I think even a audio forensic specialist would struggle to get something useful [from the clip] ”]
Sounds like the BBC is bang to rights here. The BBC made a dishonest claim and their claim has been shown and proven to be dishonest.
This video has even been examined by those with extensive knowledge of the Hebrew language to check whether anything concerning could have been said in Hebrew but nothing was found.
If, as is highly likely, that the BBC only has the footage that everyone else has of this incident then what we have is a situation where the BBC has blatantly lied. Why they did this is somewhat of a mystery but could well be down to internal BBC attitudes of Islamophilia and a corresponding desire not to report on the Islamic community or aspects of it honestly if being honest with the reporting puts that community in a somewhat bad light.
This dishonest reporting by the BBC should be a wake up call for Britain’s Jews about the nature of the BBC, just as other incidents of piss poor or completely bent reporting by the BBC, such as during the Brexit debate and process, has been a wake up call for the general population. Dissatisfaction with the BBC and having its dishonesty and bias revealed has been a major factor in my view of the rise of the De-fund The BBC movement. Maybe, after this incident where the BBC has engaged in blatant dishonesty over an incident of Jew hate, Britain’s Jews should consider joining that movement to de-fund this inherently bent organisation and make it subject to the necessary correction of market forces.
Additional footage of the Oxford Street incident
I am disgusted but not surprised. Having followed the climate change debate for many years and seeing how the BBC constantly lies about that, this is the kind of thing that I have come to expect.
Agree with you on the BBC and the climate reporting issue, then there’s the Brexit reporting issue as well. The idea that there should be two sides in a debate is alien to the modern BBC. I also agree that this is the sort of dishonesty that we’ve come to expect from the BBC but I’m surprised that their lie was so blatant and so swiftly and completely exposed.
This is what any thinking person has come to expect from the BBC today, the sooner the license fee is abolished and this self serving woke organisation is cut away from the wallet of the public the better. Sadly as I said before Jews are just ordinary folks and like most of us can be abused with impunity by the UKs protected species.
I used to believe that there was stuff that could be salvaged from the BBC and it become a repository of the best of Britain’s culture and art. I’ve moved away from that position somewhat as I believe that the BBC is thoroughly rotten through and through. I’ve no objection to the BBC being a woke-tarded entity but I do object at it having to be paid for by everyone including those who disagree with the BBC’s line on various matters. The BBC should become a subscription service then those who want this drek can pay for it.
Are we sure this is what we want? The BBC license fee is about 40p per day, and a possibililty to tune into so many interesting programmes, radio as well as TV.
I personally believe our nation would be poorer if we ditched the BBC and left it all up to private operators. The argument to make it a subscription service is compelling but we would then have to compare the costs, for instance an annual Sky subscription is more expensive than our existing licence fee.
Also, there are groups calling for the reform of the BBC without actually abolishing it, an issue is that although it’s supposed to be independent its senior board members are appointed by the government.
I’d also argue that the BBC needs to hold its own as we now have news sources such as RT heavily backed by the Russian government.
The situation is complex, but I’m urging some critical thinking before joining the ‘Defund the BBC’ campaign.
There might be interesting programmes on the BBC but if they all come from the same central viewpoint that of the middle class Left then what’s the point? I’d be much more favourable to the BBC if it had much more viewpoint diversity than it has at present. The problem is that the BBC cannot see that allowing viewpoint diversity doesn’t always lead to bad things, a case in point is allowing Nick Griffin onto Question Time. A lot of people kicked up a fuss about this but allowing Griffin allowed him to shoot himself and his thoroughly Mosleyite party in the foot. I believe that people would respect the BBC more if it did not censor countering views on subjects like migration, multiculturalism, religious extremism, climate, social policy, transgenderism and other contentious subjects. But many can see that the BBC does censor opposing viewpoints on these issues.
A little history lesson. The BBC model was expressly set up in the 1920’s to avoid the free for all on the airwaves that was occurring in the USA at that time. It could be argued and it is an argument that I have some sympathy with is that was the better decision for that time but by the 1930’s audiences were wanting something more and turned to overseas stations like Radio Luxemburg for what they saw was better more appropriate entertainment. The licence fee from the period from the twenties to I would say the mid 1970s did produce a one of a kind broadcaster that took the sort of risks that a commercial broadcaster might have been loathe to do. I doubt that we would have got Monty Python or the Hitchhiker’s Guide series on TV and Radio from a commercial broadcaster. Also BBC technical training was second to none, it really was the best in the world. However none of this applies any longer. The BBC has long lost its technical edge and ‘BBC trained’ does not carry with it the cachet it once did.
Whilst the licence fee is indeed less than a Sky subscription with the current system you have to pay for the Sky package AND the licence fee even if you have no intention of consuming the BBC’s product. Why not have a level playing field and have the BBC as a subscription service? The tech is here to allow them to do this. Putting the BBC on some form of subscription may be the best way to make it more responsive to its audience and more representative of those outside of the Metro-Left bubble.
Reform would be a great idea but I can’t see reform on the horizon. I’d like to see the BBC be a publicly accessible and cheap to access repository of the best of Britain’s art, culture and documentaries both past and present but I can’t see anyone or any political party standing up and demanding that. The problem as I see it is that there is such a lot of rot in the BBC structure and its institutional attitudes that it might be impossible to clear out the rot to let reform start.
There’s a whole generation of media consumers who view the BBC as just as bent and biased as outlets like RT, just bent in a different way.
As for the Defund the BBC campaign this came about because of desperation. People have been continually fobbed off with talk by politicians about reform of the BBC, reform that never seems to arrive. Defunding the BBC by mass licence fee refusal and thereby putting the BBC under financial pressure might be the only truly effective way of getting the BBC to listen to the audiences that they’ve either abandoned or snobbishly smeared over the years.