BBC bias over EU exit "risks British science" article

The BBC ran an article yesterday with the headline EU exit 'risks British science' in which the director of the EU-funded Francis Crick Institute claims that leaving the EU would be detrimental to the science industry. His claims are backed up by "Scientists for EU" - an organisation which the Leave Alliance have already taken to task over their dishonest political posturing.

Scientists for Britain, which advocates leaving the EU and opening up research programmes to the rest of the world, is given fairly equal coverage in the article arguing that the most successful scientific collaborations the UK takes part in have nothing to do with the EU and that the extra money we will save from not being in the EU can be put into research funding of our own.

So given the obvious lack of consensus - which the BBC actually reports - why does the headline read EU exit 'risks British science' rather than No consensus on impact of EU exit on British science? The BBC has already failed its impartiality test by giving prominence to pro-EU commentators on flagship programmes and allowing staff to call the EU "Europe" to confuse viewers, according to Tory MP, Andrew Bridgen. This biased headline is yet another example of the institutional bias in the EU-funded BBC.

What the EU's resolution against Russian was really about and why UKIP couldn't support it

The BBC is spinning UKIP voting against an EU resolution condemning "Russian human rights abuses" as UKIP joining forces with nationalist parties to try and defeat the motion.

Here's why UKIP (and presumably other eurosceptic parties) couldn't support the resolution:

• The resolution criticises Russia for trying to compete with the EU in Europe
• Requires EU member states to agree to leave all negotiations with Russia to the EU
• Calls for "deepening of EU integration"
• Calls for more common policy areas
• Calls for more decision making powers for the EU
• Calls for the creation of an EU Energy Union
• Calls for more EU energy legislation to increase "solidarity"
• Calls for an expansion of renewable energy production
• Calls for an EU counter-propaganda programme
• Calls on member states to take action against political parties with links to Russia
• Calls for more funding for EU-approved Russian dissidents
• Calls for a ban on political parties in the EU securing funding from outside the EU

The BBC don't mention any of these things of course.

Further complaint to BBC about Panorama bias

The BBC received over 800 complaints about bias related to the Panorama hatchet job on UKIP and Nigel Farage. Their response to those complaints is that they believe the programme was balanced and that they were just submitting UKIP to the same scrutiny other parties have been subjected to for the last two or three decades. So they'll be happy to provide evidence, right?

Like over 800 other people I complained about the BBC's hatchet job on UKIP and Nigel Farage. The programme was entirely one-sided and Farage's refusal to cooperate with a programme that he had warned months ago was a hatchet job clearly riled the producer and presenter. The programme was almost entirely critical and any positive comments about UKIP's performance were right at the start so the programme came across as "UKIP are getting popular but look at what they're really like ..."


The BBC's excuse is that they are putting UKIP under the same scrutiny as the LibLabCon parties or other parties of government. I don't believe this is the case and would like evidence. I would like details of similar BBC programming where one of those parties has been subjected to the same kind of negative reporting a month before a Westminster by-election and less than 8 months before a general election at which they are expected to make a breakthrough or significant gain.

Until the BBC provide the evidence or admit to their bias, I'm going to keep the complaint going.

BBC Panorama hatchet job on Farage and UKIP

The BBC finally aired the Panorama hatchet job last night that Nigel Farage has been warning us about for the last few weeks and what a disgraceful piece of politically-motivated gutter journalism it was too.

The BBC's charter says that the BBC must be impartial and balanced but this programme was anything but. The programme set out to attempt to discredit Nigel Farage and UKIP from the outset, dredging up disaffected former members, defectors and agitators to sling mud.

There was no balance to the programme, just a string of baseless accusations and innuendo. It was like watching a televised version of the anti-UKIP Junius blog and many of the slurs Darragh MacIntyre came out with appeared to be lifted directly from that website.

Panorama spent two years putting together their programme and many of UKIP's opponents were hoping that it would bring down Farage. What's actually happened is that the BBC have been widely criticised for their bias and a large number of complaints have been made. You can add your own complaint via the BBC Complaints website.

Anti-UKIP BBC editor relieved of election duties

Guido is reporting that BBC elections hack Jasmine Lawrence has been relieved of her duties for the elections this week.

BBC News Channel deputy editor Lawrence has been posting anti-UKIP comments on Twitter during the election period despite the obvious need to appear non-partisan, especially when the BBC have been slated for institutional left wing bias.

BBC promoting Greens in London

Last night the BBC ran a special edition of Newsnight in which they invited four candidates for London mayor.

The Tories and Labour were, of course represented, as the two biggest parties by far.  The Lib Dems were invited, not because they are going to win, but presumably because they're part of the coalition and of course their candidate is a gay ex-copper which ticks the diversity boxes.

So who was the fourth candidate invited on the programme?  Logic would tell you it would be the candidate for the party consistently polling in 4th place (sometimes 3rd) in London, the fourth largest party in the UK.  But logic doesn't apply in the BBC, just institutional bias and political agendas so naturally the BBC chose the Greens who fill the three main criteria for getting on a BBC election programme of being on the far left, environmentalists and not being UKIP.

So many times we see the BBC unduly influence elections by ignoring the UKIP candidate and promoting a no-hoper Green extremist for no other reason than because in the mind of your average BBC producer, that is how the world should be.  If you're not a europhile environmentalist then you're a far right extremist who must never be given the oxygen of publicity, regardless of what the electorate says.

We've seen this happen so many times in elections.  In Norwich, Glenn Tingle was polling well ahead of the Greens and his opponents were even predicting a UKIP win and then the BBC propaganda machine kicked in and suddenly UKIP was on the fringes and it was a battle between the LibLabCon and the loony Greens.  Even the Tory fifth columnist Dan Hannan criticised the BBC's bias against UKIP.  In 2010, Lord Pearson threatened to issue legal proceedings against the BBC if they didn't stop their political bias against UKIP in their American-style "Leaders Debate".  In the run-up to last year's vote on an EU referendum in the Commons the BBC pulled Nigel Farage from an appearance on Breakfast at the last minute so they could replace him with a pro-EU Tory instead.  These are just a few of many examples of institutional bias, politicking and gerrymandering at the BBC.

I have sent the following complaint to the BBC today, I would urge you to do the same:

In last night's GLA election themed Newsnight, you had four candidates for the London Mayor: Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Green.  Despite the fact that UKIP have been consistently out-polling the Greens in every opinion poll by 2% you chose to promote the Green candidate.  UKIP has even been polling above the Lib Dems at times. This is exactly what you do whenever UKIP is doing well in pre-election polling: you invite on the LibLabCon and UKIP's place is always filled by a Green.

Your excuse will no doubt be that the Greens have two assembly members but that has no bearing on the mayoral election and is a reflection of public opinion in 2008, not 2012 so I don't want to hear it as an excuse. I want to know why the BBC's inherent bias against UKIP and in favour of environmentalists (with emphasis on the "mental") is allowed to so obviously surface in persistent discrimination against UKIP, why the BBC's legal obligation to be impartial is ignored where UKIP are involved and why the BBC seeks to unduly influence elections by promoting candidates that it would like to win over those that polling shows are most popular with the electorate.

I don't want excuses, I don't want denials, I just want an explanation as to why you aren't doing your job properly and a promise to put in place immediate steps to end the BBC's political bias.