On August 31 last year, the £1billion taxpayer-funded BBC news machine went into what can only be described as incontinent anti-Brexit overdrive in response to the killing of a Polish man in Essex.

This, its headlines declared, was being regarded as a race hate killing triggered by the Brexit vote two months earlier.

It emerged on Friday at the final sentencing hearing in this sorry case that what happened that day was the polar opposite of what the corporation projected so forcefully in in its headlines.

After the EU referendum, every part of the BBC was working flat out to show why the vote was a huge mistake, as illustrated in reports by my monitoring organisation News-watch here and here. Programmes in Radio 4’s Brexit Collection predicted – with scarcely a peep of counter-opinion – that there would be rioting on the streets over food price hikes.

Then, on August 31, the news broke that a well-liked Polish immigrant in Harlow had been killed. Rumours were circulating that a gang of feral youths were responsible and that there could be a racist element. Police were ‘not ruling this out’.

For the corporation, this was too good to be true. Reporter Daniel Sandford’s account in the main BBC1 bulletins that night suggested strongly that this was a ‘frenzied’ race-hate murder by feral youths and was triggered by Brexit. To reinforce the point, his report – along with other material on the BBC website – included edited reaction to that possibility from the local MP and a Polish diplomat. The full transcript can be seen here.

Later, over on BBC2’s Newsnight, John Sweeney ratcheted up this crude tabloid sensationalism by including an interview in his edited package about the killing in which a friend of the dead man suggested that Nigel Farage ‘now has blood on his hands’.

Let’s not mince words. The death of Polish immigrant Arkadiusz Jozwik, 40, following a late-night altercation in Harlow’s Stow shopping centre, was a sordid, tragic affair, and a sorry reflection of the escalating level of violence in Britain today.

But with Friday’s sentencing at Chelmsford Crown Court of the youth responsible for Mr Jozwik’s death, we know the full story. And it was light years away from what can now be seen as the BBC’s deliberate anti-Brexit editorial drive. Its elevation of the ‘race hate’ angle was especially biased and in tune with its overall portrayal – as also illustrated here – that the Leave vote was swayed by uneducated, bigoted thugs.

The facts that are now clear are, first, that Mr Jozwik was not the victim of a gang killing, nor was he murdered. One youth, said to be a ‘shrimp’ little more than five feet tall and then aged 15, was responsible, and he was convicted of manslaughter.

The youth felled Mr Jozwik with one ‘superman’ punch delivered from behind. But the cause of death was impact with the pavement. All parties in court – including the Crown Prosecution Service and the judge – accepted that the punch was vicious but was not intended to kill.

Second, the ‘gang’ involved did not instigate the incident which led to the punch, and were not spoiling for a fight. It was, as emerged on Friday in court, totally the other way round. The defendant and his friends were provoked. Mr Jozwik had been out drinking with a friend and, according to police statements gathered by a team of detectives and read out in court, was rolling drunk.

Patrick Upward, counsel for the youth, told the sentencing court: ‘Far from being the all-affectionate individual of those that knew him, the deceased and his companion, according to witnesses, were staggering from drink. They made racist remarks to the youths and invited violence from those youngsters, and they were considerably bigger and stronger than the young people. It was after the deceased pushed one of the youngsters that this defendant did what he did.’

The teenager, now aged 16, was sentenced to three years in a youth detention centre.

So what are the lessons? In any killing where the facts are not clear, there should always be a degree of caution by journalists in their framing of initial reports. This applies especially to the BBC which has to adhere to Charter impartiality requirements and its associated editorial guidelines.
On August 31 last year, Daniel Sandford did mention briefly that there was doubt in some quarters about the racist motive, but the race-hate angle was unquestionably most prominent in his report and online. The Sweeney report on Newsnight amplified further the overall BBC approach of outright sensationalism.

Immediately afterwards, News-watch formally submitted detailed complaints to the BBC’s Complaints Unit. With total predictability, they were dismissed.
Meanwhile, the deluge of anti-Brexit BBC reporting has continued, including the angle that race-hate was involved in the vote. And how did the BBC report Friday’s sentencing hearing? With a headline that this was not a race hate murder connected to Brexit? That Daniel Sandford had been wrong to afford such prominence to that possibility? That the (English) killer had been provoked by racist chants by a drunken Polish man 25 years his senior? And that the Farage blood-on-hands quote had now been shown to be preposterous?
Of course not. Tucked away in the BBC’s regional website Essex pages is a short 280-word report that makes no mention of last year’s intemperate sensationalism by the corporation, and notes only towards the end the key point that the racism involved did not emanate from the killer.


  1. Neither the BBC nor the rest of the narrative conniving leftist “establishment” will care about the true outcome or report it. Their work was done when they misrepresented it to serve their political agenda and they have now moved on to elaborating other anti-Brexit lies.

    They take their cue from every truth distorting, propagandising communist regime in history, imbued with such a sense of their own moral supremacy that any deceit is justified in pursuit of their quasi-religious cause.

    • You might care to search and read

      “The tribe behind all the censorship has exposed itself like never before”on thetruthseekerdotcodotuk …and

      “The smear:how fake news and political operatives control everything” on veteranstodaydotcom…

      • Liz, you might get more takers if you insert the links. I cut and pasted a couple of your suggestions into Google and DDG and got nothing linking me to the articles you mention. i probably should have tried harder to search, but links would be much easier for lazy SoBs like me. 😉

    • We should start with the UN…have a look at the key objectives of their Agenda21 on


      Where they have broken it down into the real meaning of all the fine words…

      “An end to national Parliaments
      An end to western democracy
      The abolition of free speech
      The abolition of private home ownership
      The abolition of private transport
      Continuous surveillance of the population ” etc etc

      Also the objective of ” the harmonisation of incomes and redistribution of wealth across the globe ” explains why Mrs May insists on Foreign Aid payments…

      Have a look at the article on Chelsea Clinton’s wedding on


      to see a supposed breakdown of where our Foreign Aid money has been spent since 2011… I have no idea if it is accurate.

      Natural news dot com has an interpretation of the real meaning of UN Agenda 30 which is equally enlightening…and terrifying….

  2. Just like the British soldiers who where all part of some far right conspiracy, when the true facts come out, like they always do.. They are never mentioned as much as the original fake news.

    • What is amusing about this is that proscribed National Action was set up by a man inspired by Hitler’s Mein Kampf. And by the Third Reich. And by…..The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Tagging them as far right when they are extreme national socialists is astonishing.

  3. The BBC are nothing more than propagandists and should be taken in hand. Until this government do something sensible to change the make up of the BBC they will go on spilling opinions and lies to 70% of the country willing to listen. A very dangerous situation indeed.

  4. Hurray! At last !Thank you, David…you may care to put “BBC Lies” into the search box on


    And read some of the pages and pages and pages of posts that come up.

    If you have a look at


    They still have the video, long removed from the BBC archive, of the BBC correspondent reporting on the collapse of one of the additional Towers in the 9/11 incident…

    The tower is clearly visible over her shoulder as she is reporting…and then starts to collapse as she is speaking…

    How did she know that was going to happen?

    There’s an indication if you care to search and read “Down the memory hole goes the truth”…

  5. This is exactly why identity politics is so bad. The fact that the dead man was Polish was taken as the vital factor – nothing else counted in the blinkered vision and thinking of those with an axe to grind.

  6. Overlooking the Brexit connection there seems to be group of people living here who are totally obsessed with so-called ‘racism’. Every word, every glance &c. is examined for signs of ‘racism’ as they seek to ‘expose’ it. A collective Hysteria has gained hold and it’s getting Scary.

  7. The Pole is a white European. The ‘shrimp’ is a white European. Why was there ever a race angle in the first place? The Polish and the British are not races of mankind. I always find this race angle under such circumstances perplexing to the point of being ridiculous.

    • The global leftist establishment’s cultural revolutionary narrative (fully taken on board by May’s “Conservative” government) has managed to twist national identity into a racial characteristic and therefore subject to racism. Doesn’t apply to English people of course.

    • It isn’t race, but it can be nationalism. My wife and I were assaulted by a group of youths in our local park when they stole my wife’s hat. I gave chase and eventually got the hat back. One youth stood defiantly shouting at us ‘go back to Poland’ – despite the fact we aren’t from Poland, have no Polish accent and no Polish ancestry.

      A few days a go I was talking to an immigrant Romanian family at the airport who were appalled by the fact that many immigrants were coming to Britain and being propped up on welfare whilst Brits were denied it.

      Despite the urgings of Politicians and press that certain groups are this way, or that way inclined, anecdotal evidence appears to contradict there being any homogeneity in attitudes and beliefs except that residents of the U.K. be they recent immigrants or not, can and seemingly do hold the same views as those who have always lived here that the UK is now home to millions of immigrants claiming welfare on the backs of the productive, or having a greater right to that welfare than those who have always lived here.

      The problem isn’t immigrants, but the welfare state and entitlement. The Beeb is a welfare recipient so it’s going to want to cause as much trouble as possible to ensure it keeps on sucking of the public teat. I wonder how they would view a duopoly of state funding in which people could choose where to put the license fee-with the other competitor say Polish or sub Saharan African ?

      • The magnets for many immigrants to the UK are
        1. Welfare state provision from NHS to social housinging
        2 Very soft punishments for criminals
        3. No ID documents required.
        4 Self loathing by the English combined with Multiculturalism
        Personally, I welcome desirable immigrants as a bastion against the
        self replicating threat from within
        However, even the most desirable Pole needs housing, NHS, school places etc
        We are full up & should be evicting undesirables & only admitting
        high skilled workers where needed.
        The Saudis cannot train their own people for obvious reasons.
        The oil under their tents has made them rich as Croesus so they import
        foreigners to do most of their work.
        We are no longer rich & should use foreign “aid” money to train our
        own skilled workers & stop poaching from poorer countries.

        • Full up is a strange term. If we were really ‘full up’ then no immigrants could come, or would desire to.

          What we have is an economic and moral catastrophe in progress in which people have allocated themselves a share of the unearned through the use of graff, pull and theft. We are full up because the unproductive now outweigh the productive and the Government can no longer support all its multitudinous offers of ‘free’ stuff which include its proper duties of law and order, but never the less continuous to claim that it does and can.

          The state as leadership is first morally bankrupt and because it is, the entire country is economically bankrupt. We are living far above our sustainable means and lying to ourselves that it can continue like this indefinitely. It can’t and won’t and the signs are everywhere and undeniable.

          Eventually the donkeys will realise that there is no point in this endless carrying of ever heavier loads if it results in no advantage. I expect eventually Atlas will shrug, just as I have. People who work hard and produce cannot carry on doing so as the state and its intermediaries swallows up the majority of their income and moves the goal posts regarding services and infrastructure. The EU referendum result was the first strike and others will follow.

    • Sounds as if the dead man was a drunken bullying thug. Not sure why the shrimp should have been handed down three years.

        • That’s true. Mind you, from the account above, it sounds as
          if the dead man attacked the youngsters and got more than he bargained for.

          • I apologise in advance – one shouldn’t laugh – but quite honestly if i was attacked by a dead man he would have nothing to fear from me. I would be but a distant blur . . . . . .

        • Sucker punch. Not on, provoked or otherwise. If he’d been facing a normal attack and took to self-defence he’d probably have walked. Attacking from behind is a different kettle of fish though. Very dangerous.

    • Not sure the shrimp was white and it is reported that he came to the defence of ‘black youth’ that Arkadiusz Jozwik had made racist comments towards.

  8. Apologies, corrections and retractions from the msm should be given the same prominence as the original story. The self governing complaints departments are pointless.

    • Wasn’t that one of the Leveson proposals? – so welcomed by the BBC.

      (but which only applies to the Murdoch press).

  9. BBC assets and infrastructure should be retained by the state and all those employed should be transferred to a private sector company who must bid with other parties for a ten year licence to provide state broadcasting services. Output to be governed by strict impartilaity guidelines, failure to comply punished by fines with the ulitmate sanction of dismissal.
    TV and radio output to be pared back to minimum to break the current monopoly on national broadcast output.

    • Including the licence fee in general taxation would make it impossible to opt out, as is the case in Germany. At least presently one has a choice.

      • The choice being to own a TV or not.
        The BBC should be a subscription service
        Media historians will recall that in the 1950s the BBC fought tooth & nail to
        prevent the creation of ITV, & noted leftists in the 1960s still wanted it abolished.

        • Sadly, I know an elderly lefty person (she happily collects her state pension accrued whilst employed in the NHS) who will not watch any TV channels other than BBC1 and BBC4. Why? Because she considers commercial channels to be biased & evil as they are run for profit.

          We remain friends but her political outlook is beyond belief.

      • As it stands I want the licence fee abolished.
        But if you recognise the need for some sort of state broadcaster as a public good to provide programming without a commercial imperative, then there is a role for an unbiased and truly all encompassing taxpayer funded service.
        It doesn’t need to be as bloated and expensive as the BBC currently is.
        Under these circumstances the ability to opt out is less of an issue in my opinion.

        • Yes but, and it is a big but. A state broadcaster funded by state taxation, what could possibly go wrong! Quite a lot, on pain of imprisonment people will be forced to pay for state propaganda and the executive and media would become even more closely intertwined that the difference would become even harder to discern. The BBC would likely, if such a thing is possible, become even more biased.

          The fact that we can opt out, which your suggestion curtails, is an important freedom, both in principle and potentially in effect.

          • Good point. In fact the telly tax is one of the few forms of taxation we can legally opt out of if we do not use the service provided.

    • BBC bias ever since the first (Common Market) referendum has been such that
      it can only be described as fake news on all topics relating to the EU.
      Ditto Anthropic Global Warming, rechristened the near meaningless Climate Change,
      muticulturalism, immigration & islam.
      Credit where due, I believe the BBC puts out decent pop garbage a the taxpayers’ expense e.g. Strictly Dancing & Baking Cakes.
      Channels 3 & 5 could do it as well.
      Which leaves only vintage stuff on Radio Four Extra & Radio Three music free of

  10. Slightly off-topic: listening to BBC World Service an item was to be on US Politics, I expected to hear both Republican and Democrat arguments. Instead. there was two virulently anti-Trump Democrats – devoid of any semblance of balance.

  11. Also tucked away on the BBC website was news that 2 of the soldiers detained ‘ on terrorism charges’ had been released without charge several days ago.

    Conflating ‘terrorism charges’ with suspected of being ‘a member of a proscribed group’ is disingenuous to say the least.

    • “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Unless of course the words “far right”, real or contrived, are involved.

    • Give that being a member of National Action is illegal, the release without charge would suggest that he two were not members, and, therefore, were probably lifted solely because of their views.

  12. I am still of the belief that Cameron did some dodgy deal with the BBC over Brexit, which they would have supported anyway, in return for over ruling Whittingdale and extending the TV Tax.

  13. This is why it is your patriotic duty to refuse to pay the TV tax.
    bbctvlicence.com will show you how to fight Aljabeeba.

    • Only the radio is worth listening to, at some point the BBC is going to find itself short of funds, I’m convinced younger people won’t continue to pay the fee going forward.

      • What is on the radio which is not left leaning anti-Brexit moralising lecturing brainwashing propaganda apart from music ? I am simply not listening to the radio any more or watching any BBC apart from the odd drama.
        The BBC have a crushing monopoly.
        I was visited by the research group for opinions on radio listening. I told him that I no longer listened to the radio because of the BBC bias. He told me – with an air of smug superiority that I didn’t know what I was missing and that the BBC License was nothing to do with radio, and that i should listen to Radio 4 or Five Live.
        He missed out the BBC prefix !

        • About the only thing I can stand to listen to on BBC radio is Choral Evensong on Radio 3, which (I think it’s something to do with Canon Law preventing the changing of liturgy from the Prayer Book) is not generally buggered about with. The occasional programme on Radio 4 is good, but they are getting rarer and rarer.

      • You what? Radio 4 is the prime evidence for the foulness that the BBC has become. Today and Womens Hour perhaps being the prime culprits. I now only ever listen to Today when I feel like getting angry, and Womens Hour really should be renamed Transgender Hour. R5 and extra for sport are fine, and R3, whilst massively dumbed down is OK at times. At least they don;t bang on about multi-culti and trannies and Islam. TV? Dunno, we threw ours out years ago and now just have fun taking the piss out of TVLA when they write to us.

        • I was thinking of 3 mostly, 4 is not always so dire although I get your point. 5 is ok, but I cannot stand Adrian Chiles, a perfect example of the beebs inability to sack below par employees. The world service must be recognised. I’d propose the fee going down to £25, scrapping the TV element, keeping the radio.

  14. Very interesting, and, as you say, something the BEEB have avoided telling us about. Also in the frame are the various journos (Polly Toynbee for one), and MPs (Abbott – although she got the case confused with another, hoping of course, that the victim was black), who used the BEEB version repeatedly. Another thing, if the dead man and his drunk chums were attacking the kids, 3 years seems a bit harsh. It sounds like self-defence.

  15. The BBC, like British Airways, the Royal Mail, and many other clingers-on, no longer should be allowed to wear a prefix that implies respectability.
    Especially the BBC, which cannot even hide its contempt for our country.

      • The BBC is chiefly anti English.
        The reason being that its overpaid English lefties think that self loathing
        on a grand scale will stop us observing exactly what they earn or where their
        children are educated.

        • About two months ago the BBC (I think it was Newsnight) broadcast a program with the theme “is the Welsh language of any use?” None of the people who took part in it were actually able to speak Welsh.

          Can you imagine the BBC broadcasting a program on “is studying Shakespeare any use” with all the speakers being people who had never read any of Shakespeare’s work and who had managed to play truant during any lessons about Shakespeare at school?

          More to the point, would the BBC make a program with the title, “Is Islam of any use?”

  16. You know, there is nothing to stop News-watch reporting Sandford and Sweeney to the police for breach of the Charter. Perhaps if you just side-stepped the complaints process and went straight to the police alleging a criminal offence has been committed, which is what breach of the Charter is, you might get somewhere.

  17. Absolutely disgraceful, the BBC are the problem and need putting behind a paywall so all that love it can indulge.

    Thank you for bringing this to light David.

  18. The BBC is just very poor at it’s job. So it has to employ secondraters all from the same hive. Last week it did a show on Hong Kong and very poor it was.Visited the racecourse and the usual lack of information. No mention that the betting is akin to our Lottery in that it is a pool and the state takes out a big chunk to pay for all sorts of things. Instead a measure of disapproval at the gambling. Only a little thing but it is typical of he BBC .

  19. The BBC is allowed to investigate itself .That’s a huge problem .There is no point in contacting Newswatch , its just a ploy to make viewers feel listened to. I gather Offcom is taking over as regulator and there is a new board to replace the Trust. Its the same old story though.
    Just watch how the BBC squirm when there is a terrorist attack to avoid apportioning any blame on grounds of religion or race ,unless its English of course.

  20. the Brussels Broadcasting Conspiracy doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased any more, they need to be privatised so they can spew their anti-British bile elsewhere

    • and it’s not even just bias – it’s speculation, becoming fiction, and lies.

      People used to laugh at the USSR’s tractor production broadcasts. This kind of output is much more sinister, aggressive, and manipulative.

  21. Our mass media is now no different from the US where the left position is the only position.
    What ever happened to Thomas Mair who killed Jo Cox.
    That seemed to get very quickly dealt with and put away with barely any commentary.
    Given the way the media reacts to other things it seems very strange that this was allowed to fade away.

    • And the right wing terrorist who ran a muslim man over in the middle of the road. What happened to him? That story died a death quickly, especially as so many Muslims had life changing injuries according to Al Jaz beeba.

    • He was no interest to the MSM once it emerged he did not
      belong to a “right wing” terrorist group & was simply some sad failure
      who should have been cared for by the Social Services.
      Apparently the latter were too busy not observing FGM & muslim grooming
      of our girls to be bothered with this wretched individual.
      I mean to say, white, British & poor ——-

    • … and interestingly, no comment, ever, on the culpable silence of Jo Cox in connexion with the moslem girl rape scandals on her doorstep …

  22. What about David Lammy and Diane Abbot. Allowed to promote their anti White agenda without issue on the BBC? David Lammy was given a platform to go on about his investigation into why black people shouldn’t be punished for crimes on Newsnight the other day. Makepi$$ was almost rubbing herself off as he talked his nonsense.
    Then you have the Grenfell naval gazing and complete misrepresentation of the situation there.

  23. Given that we are still in the EU, why does the BBC not tell us more about what is happening in European countries? Lots of news about America, particularly about Trump, but next to nothing about Europe other than the EU side of the Brexit negotiations and the pronouncements of Juncker and his mates.
    Nothing about recent terror attacks in Paris, the impact of invaders in Germany and Italy or even the forthcoming elections in these countries and Austria. You have to hunt to find news from within the EU countries.

    Why? The BBC wants us to stay in Europe, but tells us nothing about what’s happening there.

    • Some unelected Germanic jerk is shortly to make a,
      and I quote directly, “State of the Union Speech’
      Makes you feel sick at the individuals & organisations who put us
      in this servile position in a bogus Fourth Reich.
      Those who did this to our country should be charged with treason.

    • I always wondered that.

      They say they are ‘passionate’ about Europe, and yet they speak of nothing but American politics.

      Everyone in Britain is obsessed with America. Which is air enough. But why the pretence that we have close cultural affinity with Europe, when clearly we don’t.

      • There seems to be a lot of American lefties within academia here too. There is definitely a transatlantic leftist co-ordination thing going on.

    • Breitbart will tell you a lot more. Castigated as being too right wing, at least they will report where others fear to tread.

    • Indeed. I have always found it very interesting. I suspect that it would be a mite too interesting for the BBC. “Europe” for the Beeb seems to consist of Sweden and some other “northern” countries with forays to Paris and other fun cities close to their holiday homes. Of course we almost never hear about the growingly Eurosceptic “east”, no lnger make forays to the still seething Balkans nor noticed the reintroduction of conscription in ththe e frightened Baltics. I suspect the news from Hungary or Poland would be unsettling or the “wall” of barbed wire being built by Bulgaria too un PC.
      Or maybe its just so nice to have expenses paid trips to America where one doesn’t even need to learn the language.

    • This is a phenomenon I noticed too, many years ago. No reports from Europe, ever: it was as if it didn’t exist. EU elections would come and go – then it would be complete radio silence again.

      The trend for some years has been to pick a particular hobby horse and go on endlessly about that instead. Decades ago it was South Africa. Then Northern Ireland. Then aggrieved religious fanatics (a perennial favourite). Now it’s Trump.

      But …don’t mention Europe.

    • I have occasionally listened to the French news channel France 24 to gain European news, but frankly, that often seems worse than the BBC.

  24. Has any of wonderful defenders of our freedoms in the mainstream media actually followed up on this story? I would be interested to know.

    • To be fair, the Guardian reported it quite prominently, but of course without any apology for the inflammatory anti-Brexit nonsense they had published at the time.

      • You can read the Guardian without spontaneously self-combusting? Well done you. I was brought up oop North on the Manchester Guardian, a fine old classical Liberal newspaper. Moving to London was the start of the end.

        • One of the many reasons that no one buys the Guardian is that
          its contents are available free on the BBC.
          Also its journalists.
          Children’s Books, Sports, Art ,Travel, Science, al BEEB always
          has a Guardian jurno to hand.
          In its nasty narrow world few other UK papers exist

  25. Please can we send an invoice for advertising to all those BBC directors and staff who have had there world view broadcast through our state owned broadcaster and when they dont pay it then stop it out there pensions.

    They need to pay for there advertising airtime.

  26. This really makes me angry. Though the truth has come out, it is too late, the lie has already gone round the world and blackened the reputation of our whole country. Brexit voters (I know one) were shocked and shamed out of defending their opinions. Meanwhile Remainers blithely go on accusing Leavers of dishonesty!!

    • Yes – sadly the ‘post Brexit spike in hate crimes’ has gone down into the annals of irrefutable Remaniac legend. If it were true, would it not be likely that such crimes would be continuing, or even worsening, as the racist Leavers felt more and more emboldened?

  27. The bbc is a foul and malignant cancer eating away at all that is kind and decent about our nation. Excision is urgently required.

  28. Not the first time such a “self-defence-turned-deadly” case has ever come up, but if the so-called “victim” is white and well-to-do, and the so-called “perp” is a white prole, the media can make it not into a “racial killing,” but into a sensationalistic one:
    It’s New York and it’s almost 30 years ago, but one could hardly say that the NY Times is not possessed of the same view of the world as al-Jabeeba: “Oh dearie me, some oik from a bad neighbourhood came into the end of town where much of our readership lives! Will no-one rid us of these turbulent beasts?”

    In the instant case, post hoc ergo propter hoc, “It happened after Brexit, therefore it was a result of Brexit!” can only be seen in retrospect as “People seeing what they were prepared to see to have their biases confirmed.” It can also be seen as the BBC saying “Perhaps there really WAS no case of ‘hate crime’ here, but by golly, don’t you think there should have been?”

  29. The BBC complaints process is hopeless . Nearly every complaint is blandly or smugly dismissed .It is to be hoped that a future government cancels the recent charter renewal and does something meaningful about BBC left wing bias and the archaic way that the BBC is financed. No chance of course.

    • Meanwhile the only sanction we have as individuals is to not own a television set and thus not pay for the BBC’s funding. Commercial television (not BBC) can be legally viewed on catch-up online.

      • Or watch without a licence, not a lot they can do , bin letters and tell their so called inspectors to leave and you have saved yourself around £140…

  30. In Newscasting the truth has fallen by the wayside and has been replaced by dramatisation. With the advent of 24 hour news and the race for ratings, there’s been a will to make news more dramatic in an effort to raise viewing figures.
    Sadly I’ve not seen a factual News report without some emotive element, dramatisation or spin of the facts for a long time on any news channel.

  31. I wonder why the Conservative Government is not prepared to politely request the BBC to try a little harder to be objective in its news reports and to ask for a little more rigour in its complaints processing.

    • Because the so-called Conservative party are the blue wing of the Liberals. The BBC enabled Cameron’s election win by traducing Miliband, who was admittedly hopeless and they feel comfortable with a non-threatening, non-anything May.

    • They were going to, until DC decided to accept the BBC’s offer of its full support for his side of the Brexit referendum in return for watering down the proposals.. The only time he had easy rides in BBC interviews was on Brexit – unlike Tory leavers, and of course anyone from UKIP.

    • I was in Spain last week watching BBC World News to see what was going on back home, how wrong I was. It was Dire, globalist bullshit, all of it. Repeated ad nauseum. I remember when the World service promoted the UK to the World, not ignored the UK to promote every other country’s globalist pet project.

  32. I remember how dizzying it was after the vote, when the BBC and other pillars of the establishment became vicious in portraying Leave voters as the very worst racists imaginable. It was as if the ‘hate crime’ surge had been taken out of some emergency kit should Leave do the unthinkable and win.
    Just 48 hours earlier I’d be having civil, friendly conversations with commonwealth Leave voters who didn’t see why people for their countries needed to go through an immigration process while anyone from far flung corners of the EU could just turn up. I agreed. I wondered how they felt when the BBC and other Remain media were portraying Brexit as some racist victory?
    That the sad but ultimately obscure ‘local paper’ story of the Polish man could be dragged before the nation and used to publicly flog Leave voters is sick-making. Utter abhorrent. Defund the BBC now.

  33. The BBC has long since given up reporting current affairs in order to inform people. Instead it is just a huge lie and propaganda machine. My only concern is that this vile and toxic organisation should one day implode and cease to rob licence payers in return for third rate viewing. Politicians please note: there will be a lot of votes for the patty that revokes the BBC Charter

    • It’s main role was always to “shape public opinion” which is why no government has ever threatened its existence despite the bluster from the politicians.

  34. Another Beauty as the Donald would say.
    Keep pointing out their dishonesty. It is hard and repititive work, but so powerful.

  35. I remember watching that report with the incendiary tag-line barb aimed at Farage and thought he’d have every right to sue for slander or defamation. (depending on legal interpretation) Having seen the case pan out I still do.

  36. The BBC World service is constantly stating that the BREXIT vote was a result of racism.

    This deliberate untruth is a direct sabotage of Britain and British export industries. Would you buy products made by a bunch of racists or listen to the opinions of racist ministers and diplomats?

    These lies should be stopped and the people responsible sacked and the BBC fined a huge amount of money for national sabotage. About £50 billion might cover the damage caused so far to current and future export earnings.

    • Al BEEB uses “racism” as an insult much like the communists used
      “bourgois tendencies”or “cosmopolitanism”.
      They think we’re so thick that we don’t realise that the Europeans are
      overwhelmingly members of the same race.
      When any other people achieve independence from foreign control, al BEEB celebrates
      When the British wish to regain their independence from an, essentially German
      anti democratic colonial system, we are racists.
      If the current gang of quislings were running the BBC in 1940,
      Lord Haw Haw would be presenting Today & Newsnight.

    • Linking Brexit to racism is an easy jibe and totally ignores the millions of decent people that simply do not want to be slaves under the corrupt EU political project.

  37. The BBC is an arrogant dismissive organisation that is overtly leftist.
    I have several times complained about of all things the ” One Show ” which is regularly used by a celebrity to plug their latest offerings for free.
    The Beeb need to show there is another opinion apart from the Neo-liberalist nonsense !!

    • The unremitting leftism of this show would be an embarrassment to a truly ‘balanced and impartial’ organisation.

  38. The BBC should be investigated and key staff prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, inciting public disorder and inciting others to breach of the peace for this and any other number of incidents. The Police are allegedly cracking down on any private citizens doing the above so surely the BBC should be held to the same account? They are subject to the laws of the land as is anyone else.

    Hoist the bastards by their own “hate-speech” petard.

  39. It’s a bit of waste of time complaining to the BBC. After he was elected, I made a formal complaint about well-known. indeed famous BBC persons suggesting that Donald Trump ought to be assassinated and got a brush-off.

    I pointed out that this was a serious matter, seeing that there is a history of USA politicians being murdered.

    Not long ago, an aristocrat was jailed for offering a reward to anyone who would assassinate Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner.

    Apart from the money, I don’t see any difference between these cases.

  40. If I could find a lawyer with balls I would take the BBC to court, at the end of the day we are forced with the threat of a jail term if we don’t help fund the BBC in the form of a TV licence, but they are supposed to be an impartial broadcaster which they are clearly not, however there is a law in this country that no person can be forced into handing over cash to an organisation that holds and promotes a political agenda that they may not share, it was brought in by Thatcher to end the unions operating a closed shop, I believe the BBC holds and promotes a political agenda that I don’t support, thus I’m not willing to help fund it. I just wish I could find a lawyer with balls enough to have a go!

  41. Everything the BBC produces is designed to push an agenda. This morning there was a piece on the Today R4 programme purportedly to consider trust in scientists. Or so it innocently pretended. In fact it was nothing but a choreographed piece of climate propaganda. John Humphries interviewed a ‘guest scientist’ debating whether we can trust scientists. It ranged around a few decoy topics like MMR vaccine then finally hit the punchline message – essentially that climate change science was infallible and sceptics were idiots.

    The guest science expert was Professor Steve Jones. What neither Humphries or Jones revealed was that this was the very same individual who the BBC engaged at significant cost in 2011 to ostensibly conduct an official review of ‘the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science’. But likewise, the bulk of the report was a tirade against climate sceptics getting any airtime at all on the BBC and recommending that henceforth climate sceptics should be marginalised. It has been BBC policy ever since.

    Professor Jones is clearly a passionate ‘believer’ in climate alarmism, but his area of expertise has nothing at all to do with climate. He is an expert on the genetics of snails.

    Humphries and Jones – partners in slime?

  42. Am i the only one fed up with noisy drunk East Europeans on our streets, mostly Polish they are arrogant and aggresive, maybe a return to their own country which they now seem to have disowned would be in order…..

  43. It’s worse than that:

    At the time, the Polish ambassador to Britain “condemned a rise in xenophobic attacks after the Brexit referendum” (thus by implication blaming Brexit voters);

    “Harlow MP Robert Halfon, who visited the area with the ambassador, said the referendum was “being used by people who come from the sewers who want to exploit division and have their own racist agenda”;

    and Eric Hind, organiser of a protest march about alleged xenophobic attacks, said that “the Polish community had remained quiet for too long about abuse”. Speaking to the Guardian, he said: “Brexit kind of gave the British people a kind of green light to be racist”.

    Reality check – who was being racist and xenophobic, towards whom? And was anyone involved a supporter of Britain leaving the EU?

    It is reported that Jozwik himself was being racist, so yes, there was a xenophobic and racist element to the killing, but the reverse of what the BBC and Guardian were loudly reporting. They need to apologise.

    The defendant was not a Brexit voter at all, but was 15 years old and non-white. The QC mitigating, said: “The deceased and his companion, according to witnesses, were staggering from drink. They made racist remarks to the youngsters, then invited violence from them, and they were considerably bigger and stronger than the young people.”

  44. From Ciaran Hanna, BBC complaints team :
    “BBC news did not report that the murder … was a consequence of the Brexit vote. Our coverage simply reflected this was a *possible* reason”

    Ciaran. It was not a reason at all.

  45. At what point in time has the BBC not been in ‘incontinent anti-Brexit overdrive’? Or Sky News or Channel Four News? To the overwhelming majority of newsreaders and reporters in these organisations, the typical Brexit voter is something between an easily duped r*t%rd and a disgusting, feral animal. Same goes for anyone who has ever voted Conservative.

  46. Caught red handed.

    They’ll never apologise, because the people they should be apologising too are the target for their hate filled lies.

  47. Once the BBC make (deliberately ?) erroneous claims the damage is already done. When I walk into my work tomorrow and speak to a Polish colleague about the discussion we had at the time of this incident I know my colleague will not know what really happened as the publicity of the court case will never match that of the BBC’s initial report. This is another reason the BBC should be broken up ( it’s got too powerful) and other news organisations should be encouraged e.g. Murdoch news empire. To use the language of the Left , more “diversity” is required in broadcasting.

Comments are closed.