41 minutes ago, Will Iam Not said:

 

Two rather different views of the BBC. 

Absolutely agree two different views, they both cannot be correct?

Lets look at some facts:

 

BBC Leftward Slide: Key Facts (1980s–2025)

• 1985: Thatcher govt accused BBC of pro-union, anti-Falklands bias; appointed counter-chairman.
• 2004: Balen Report (internal, withheld) found anti-Israel slant in Middle East coverage.
• 2007: BBC seminar admitted “liberal culture” affecting impartiality.
• 2012: BBC News director Helen Boaden confirmed “deep liberal bias” on immigration when she joined.
• 2013–2021: Center for Policy Studies reports showed BBC twice as likely to cite left-wing think tanks without caveats.
• 2016 Brexit: BBC gave 74% airtime to Leave but framed coverage with Remain-leaning economic warnings.
• 2023: Ofcom ruled BBC breached standards by airing uncut “death to IDF” chant at Glastonbury.
• 2025: Prescott memo listed 30+ examples of left-leaning edits (Trump Jan 6, Gaza, trans issues); triggered resignations of DG Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness.
• Nov 2025 YouGov: 31% of UK public say BBC biased left (highest ever recorded).

Jan 2025: Internal EGSC consultant David Grossman report flagged BBC US coverage bias favoring Kamala Harris over Trump.

• 2025: BBC Arabic service over-emphasized Israel-critical stories; platformed antisemitic/pro-Hamas commentators; David Grossman review found "systemic problems" and anti-Israel slant.
• Summer 2025: Ofcom ruled BBC committed "serious breach" by not disclosing Gaza documentary narrator was son of Hamas official.
• Jun 2025: BBC failed to cut live Glastonbury broadcast of musician chanting "death to the IDF"; Ofcom ruled offensive, breaching standards.
• 2025: Prescott memo claimed transgender coverage "one-sided" and "ill-researched," captured by "small group promoting Stonewall view"; reporters allegedly censored anti-trans opposition.

 

There are many more!

 

 

54 minutes ago, Will Iam Not said:

All the Questions asked are pre-vetted, as they are for PMQs.

No definitive evidence confirms or denies that all questions were pre-vetted as per standard BBC Question Time protocol (audience submits in advance for review, but not scripted).

However, the episode sparked major controversy over perceived staging, particularly around migrant audience members' contributions:

BBC Statement: Over 20 audience members asked questions, including two former asylum seekers (granted refugee status) with "direct experience." All political parties on the panel (including Reform UK) were informed of these participants on Wednesday, Dec 3—one day before the Dec 4 broadcast. No mention of question vetting specifics, but this aligns with routine pre-notification for sensitive guests.

 

Reform UK's Complaint: Zia Yusuf (Reform head of policy) lodged a formal complaint, claiming a "serious failure of impartiality" and "editorial judgment."

He stated he was personally told about the migrant guests just minutes before going on air by host Fiona Bruce, calling it an "ambush" and "set-up job." Yusuf described being "shocked and upset," needing to "reassure myself this actually happened" afterward.

Here's the full episode

 

 

The first refugee was from Afghanistan where there is no war. He previously applied for asylum in Turkey, Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Austria and Germany but was rejected. Why was he accepted in the UK? 🤔

 

The second refugee was from Iran where there is no war. He was reading a pre-prepared statement from his phone and seemed to display an indepth knowledge of the ECHR and the Irish border.

 

Zack Polanski spent the whole episode doing the old leftist trick of constantly interrupting and barracking the Remain panelist.  Zarah Sultana did exactly the same thing on the program a few weeks ago.

Thanks for the thumbs-down, Will 👍

 

8 hours ago, brianburi said:

banging on about bias and suggesting a Torygraph article.....clear to see where your tent is pitched...

 

The Telegraph article relied on factual evidence. Are you denying that the BBC Arabic service was obliged to make 215 corrections/retractions over a period of 2 years? How about the inappropriate editing of the Trump hatchet job on Panorama? These are not isolated incidents.

The BBC has a Londoncentric bias. When space given for ethnic participation, the dominant ethnic opinions are Pakistani/Bengali muslim. This is most evident in the coverage of Indian-Pakistani disputes, where India is portrayed negatively. It was also seen with the downplaying of the Pakistani/Bengali sexual abuser gangs. 

12 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Perhaps you have been watching too much GB News (no bias there eh?? #sarcasm) and have formed a biased opinion where the Zia Yusuf narrative came from.  

Two audience members with direct experience: former asylum seekers who'd arrived by small boat from France but have since been granted refugee status (so legally in the UK now, per BBC clarification). One (from Iran) questioned Reform's deportation plans and defended the ECHR, even referencing Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement. The other (from Afghanistan, rejected by six other countries en route) challenged Reform's stance on not needing "foreign doctors."

Yusuf later said on GB News that he was only told about them "two minutes before going live," while other panelists knew the day before—calling it a "bewildering" setup that felt like an ambush on Reform. He texted a reporter mid-broadcast to vent, and Reform has since filed a formal complaint, labeling it a "serious failure of impartiality" and "inappropriate" for a public broadcaster. Some viewers and X users piled on, spotting what looked like headphones on one questioner and accusing the BBC of "coaching" him with a script—fueling "defund the BBC" calls. You'd have to be blind not to see the agenda here. 

All parties were briefed Wednesday (December 3) about the participants, who weren't "illegal immigrants" but vetted contributors with lived experience to add balance.

They both entered the country as ILLEGAL economic migrants, one of whom had applied for asylum previously in 6 other countries, yet for some strange reason they were successful in their application in the UK, but unsuccessful in the other countries.

7 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

They both entered the country as ILLEGAL economic migrants, one of whom had applied for asylum previously in 6 other countries, yet for some strange reason they were successful in their application in the UK, but unsuccessful in the other countries.

 

 

8 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

They both entered the country as ILLEGAL economic migrants,

There you go again, changing the narrative to suit your own bias. Where in the entire QT show did it say they entered the country as ILLEGAL economic migrants? They were asylum seekers is all I heard.

On 12/6/2025 at 5:44 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I pointed out that of all the people employed at the ABC who went into politics, 100% of them went to the left-wing Labor Party. I also pointed out that of all the ex-politicians employed by the ABC, 100% were from the Labor Party.

Of course, it's not true! 🤣

20 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

The first refugee was from Afghanistan where there is no war. He previously applied for asylum in Turkey, Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Austria and Germany but was rejected. Why was he accepted in the UK? 🤔

 

The second refugee was from Iran where there is no war. He was reading a pre-prepared statement from his phone and seemed to display an indepth knowledge of the ECHR and the Irish border.

 

Zack Polanski spent the whole episode doing the old leftist trick of constantly interrupting and barracking the Remain panelist.  Zarah Sultana did exactly the same thing on the program a few weeks ago.

So both of them fled religious Muslim dictatures, also involved in terrorism....

On 12/6/2025 at 4:03 PM, WorriedNoodle said:

Perhaps you have been watching too much GB News (no bias there eh?? #sarcasm) and have formed a biased opinion where the Zia Yusuf narrative came from.  

Two audience members with direct experience: former asylum seekers who'd arrived by small boat from France but have since been granted refugee status (so legally in the UK now, per BBC clarification). One (from Iran) questioned Reform's deportation plans and defended the ECHR, even referencing Northern Ireland's Good Friday Agreement. The other (from Afghanistan, rejected by six other countries en route) challenged Reform's stance on not needing "foreign doctors."

Yusuf later said on GB News that he was only told about them "two minutes before going live," while other panelists knew the day before—calling it a "bewildering" setup that felt like an ambush on Reform. He texted a reporter mid-broadcast to vent, and Reform has since filed a formal complaint, labeling it a "serious failure of impartiality" and "inappropriate" for a public broadcaster. Some viewers and X users piled on, spotting what looked like headphones on one questioner and accusing the BBC of "coaching" him with a script—fueling "defund the BBC" calls. You'd have to be blind not to see the agenda here. 

All parties were briefed Wednesday (December 3) about the participants, who weren't "illegal immigrants" but vetted contributors with lived experience to add balance.

Not as I understand it . Yusuf was told only minutes before the programme was aired . The 2 boat people entered the UK illegally and should not have been given the right to apply for asylum . That is encouraging others to use the small boats . The UK governance is a laughing stock and if they performed the same way in private enterprise , they would all have lost their jobs.

On 12/6/2025 at 10:24 AM, BritManToo said:

The obvious answer was 'I don't speak with illegals'.

The obvious answer is the rightwing really don’t want the audience to hear what the immigrants themselves have to say.

 

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The obvious answer is the rightwing really don’t want the audience to hear what the immigrants themselves have to say.

 

As long as they say it while living in their home countries, they can say as much as their governments will allow.

1 hour ago, superal said:

Not as I understand it . Yusuf was told only minutes before the programme was aired . The 2 boat people entered the UK illegally and should not have been given the right to apply for asylum . That is encouraging others to use the small boats . The UK governance is a laughing stock and if they performed the same way in private enterprise , they would all have lost their jobs.

The right to apply for asylum is not contingent on how an applicant enters the UK.

 

When you say:

 

”The UK governance is a laughing stock and if they performed the same way in private enterprise , they would all have lost their jobs.”

 

I take it you are not referring to the bail out junky banks?!

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

As long as they say it while living in their home countries, they can say as much as their governments will allow.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

2 hours ago, superal said:

Not as I understand it . Yusuf was told only minutes before the programme was aired . The 2 boat people entered the UK illegally and should not have been given the right to apply for asylum . That is encouraging others to use the small boats . The UK governance is a laughing stock and if they performed the same way in private enterprise , they would all have lost their jobs.

 

The data probably doesn't exist to support the following, but I would think that very few asylum seekers meet the requirements to apply for legal immigration.

 

As it is impossible to apply for asylum outside of the UK, they have no choice but to arrive illegally. If these individuals are then automatically excluded from applying for asylum that effectively closes all avenues to those seeking asylum in the UK.

2 hours ago, superal said:

Yusuf was told only minutes before the programme was aired

Yusuf said to be told only minutes before the programme was aired.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The data probably doesn't exist to support the following, but I would think that very few asylum seekers meet the requirements to apply for legal immigration.

 

As it is impossible to apply for asylum outside of the UK, they have no choice but to arrive illegally. If these individuals are then automatically excluded from applying for asylum that effectively closes all avenues to those seeking asylum in the UK.

So maybe the answer is to set up asylum application offices in other countries ? However many foreigners apply for a UK  visitors visa and simply vanish / overstay .

4 hours ago, superal said:

So maybe the answer is to set up asylum application offices in other countries ? However many foreigners apply for a UK  visitors visa and simply vanish / overstay .

 

Agreed. Individuals used to be able to seek asylum at our overseas embassies and consulates but this practice was discontinued (by Johnson I think?)

 

There may have been security issues, but I imagine it was done in the name of efficiency and to provide a better service for customers! A bit like how contracting out passport renewal at the embassy and consulates has made things so much better and easier for all of us customers 🤔😂

On 12/6/2025 at 9:23 AM, superal said:

Thursday December 4 , BBC question time had an Immigration Special programme that was clearly an ambush on the political party Reforms Zia Yusuf who was told , only 2 minutes before the programme was going live on air , that there would be 2 illegal immigrants  ( small boat crossing from France ) in the audience and that they would be asking questions . All the other panelists were told the day before . Once again ( as I have said before on this forum ) the audience were biased against Yusuf and applauded the likes of the Green parties Polanski opinions . Indeed the QT presenter , Fiona Bruce , seemed to be making things difficult for Yusuf who was the only panelist who was speaking sense .

The BBC is supposed to have impartial views but is now under a lot of scrutiny as well as having a reputation for workplace bullying . Indeed the Beebs credibility has taken a downturn with a growing discontent from viewers with many refusing to pay for the TV licence .

Very sad indeed. The BBC is a left wing parasite bent on indoctrinating the masses into its web of socialist, globalist agenda.   

On 12/6/2025 at 1:34 PM, riclag said:

Labor & Starmer really made a mess of National Sovereignty 

My arse , Farage is a fascist, racist pos and thats all coming out so hes about to be grilled and as he has zero policies except put the boot into immigrants then no reasonable British person is going to vote for that crap.

14 minutes ago, Usnh said:

My arse , Farage is a fascist, racist pos and thats all coming out so hes about to be grilled and as he has zero policies except put the boot into immigrants then no reasonable British person is going to vote for that crap.

Utter, leftwing, woke bile.

9 hours ago, Usnh said:

My arse , Farage is a fascist, racist pos and thats all coming out so hes about to be grilled and as he has zero policies except put the boot into immigrants then no reasonable British person is going to vote for that crap.

Meanwhile, they are busy delaying local elections .......... scared citizens will all vote for Farage.

14 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Agreed. Individuals used to be able to seek asylum at our overseas embassies and consulates but this practice was discontinued (by Johnson I think?)

 

There may have been security issues, but I imagine it was done in the name of efficiency and to provide a better service for customers! A bit like how contracting out passport renewal at the embassy and consulates has made things so much better and easier for all of us customers 🤔😂

I ask myself , did the asylum seekers apply for asylum in France which allowed them legal entry to France or have they arrived there without applications or any documents ? Asylum applications , set up in various countries would mitigate the rubber boat crossings and make such attempts a crime , leading to immediate deportation .

As far as QT goes , I am baffled as to why there are supporters of illegal entries to the UK . These , mostly single , men ditch all their I.D. documents in the channel before reaching the UK shores . Thus giving zero tractability of any criminal actions and hides their age which leads to many claims that they are young teens.  Have you read about the 2 young Afghanistans who seized and raped a 15 year old girl in a UK park . Her first encounter with sex . Life changing event and trauma for the young girl . Imagine if it was your daughter . If mine I would be distraught . 

11 hours ago, Usnh said:

My arse , Farage is a fascist, racist pos and thats all coming out so hes about to be grilled and as he has zero policies except put the boot into immigrants then no reasonable British person is going to vote for that crap.

Farage & the Reform party represent the mainstream of public opinions on immigration .  Zia Yusuf is their Head of Policy and talks a lot of sense . No reasonable British person would agree to having undocumented invaders setting foot on British shores . 

Many attempts to ruin Farage but none will succeed .  ( All other political parties are running scared of Reform ) , hence the bullying on QT to Yusuf .

Now Starmer has delayed Mayoral elections in May , in 5 cities , to 2028 because he knows the Reform will win them or Labour lose them which will underline the Labour unpopularity . 

18 minutes ago, superal said:

Farage & the Reform party represent the mainstream of public opinions on immigration .  Zia Yusuf is their Head of Policy and talks a lot of sense . No reasonable British person would agree to having undocumented invaders setting foot on British shores . 

Many attempts to ruin Farage but none will succeed .  ( All other political parties are running scared of Reform ) , hence the bullying on QT to Yusuf .

Now Starmer has delayed Mayoral elections in May , in 5 cities , to 2028 because he knows the Reform will win them or Labour lose them which will underline the Labour unpopularity . 

 

"Undocumented invaders" or desperate people seeking asylum?

 

Reform's popularity, along with Farage's, is already declining.  By the time of the next general election they will be at similar levels to the Lib Dems.

14 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

"Undocumented invaders" or desperate people seeking asylum?

 

Reform's popularity, along with Farage's, is already declining.  By the time of the next general election they will be at similar levels to the Lib Dems.

If you were a true asylum seeker , why would you ditch all of your I.D. documents into the channel ? Answer is to make your criminality background untraceable . 45,000 illegal boat arrivals this year and 46,000 last year is an unsustainable figure even if they were all good people . Over burdening the NHS , housing and benefits systems  etc . 

Political polls are never totally accurate but given the Reforms popularity , they are hot favourites to win the next election . Now other MPs are defecting to Reform . Who in their right mind would vote Labour , Tory , Lib or Green ?

48 minutes ago, superal said:

I ask myself , did the asylum seekers apply for asylum in France which allowed them legal entry to France or have they arrived there without applications or any documents ? Asylum applications , set up in various countries would mitigate the rubber boat crossings and make such attempts a crime , leading to immediate deportation .

As far as QT goes , I am baffled as to why there are supporters of illegal entries to the UK . These , mostly single , men ditch all their I.D. documents in the channel before reaching the UK shores . Thus giving zero tractability of any criminal actions and hides their age which leads to many claims that they are young teens.  Have you read about the 2 young Afghanistans who seized and raped a 15 year old girl in a UK park . Her first encounter with sex . Life changing event and trauma for the young girl . Imagine if it was your daughter . If mine I would be distraught . 

 

It's clear that much needs to change wrt how asylum claims are dealt with: Asylum is meant for those fleeing persecution or war, not those seeking to immigrate irrespective of whether they are criminals or decent individuals.

 

Imo the catalyst for the current problem can be traced back to 2015. If you recall, an estimated 1.3m people - mainly fleeing from ISIS - arrived in Europe seeking asylum. Although impossible to prove, I don't doubt that the vast majority were genuine. However, Europe was completely unprepared to deal with such numbers. TBF hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it is easy to blame politicians for their lack of planning, but how many of us foresaw the scale of the problem before then and how many of us had any semblance of a workable plan for dealing with it? Having said all that, imo the single most foolhardy policy subsequently implemented was Merkel's well-meaning but disastrous decision to effectively throw open Germany's door to all-comers. This sent the wrong message and is the main reason why illegal immigrants continue to arrive in their droves in Greece, Italy and Turkey and move across Europe.

 

We are where we are so what to do next? Frankly, I have little idea.  Within the UK, an overhaul of the asylum system (processes, procedures and perhaps, criteria) is clearly needed: It is no longer fit for purpose. In a similar vein, the ECHR may no longer be fit for purpose and it also needs an overhaul, however, neither redefining the UK asylum processes and/or leaving the ECHR will magically stop the boats overnight. Likewise, other measures e.g. making facilities in the UK harsher for the illegal arrivals may have some effect, but that does seem unfair on genuine refugees.

 

Sending the illegal migrants back to France and effectively saying, 'Your problem' is a knee jerk reaction, which will simply poison relations between France/ the EU and the UK, and most probably lead to an increase - not a decrease - in the number of attempted crossings as France and the EU countries will make no attempt to intercept individuals en route to the UK. I strongly believe that a coordinated Europe-wide solution(s) is needed but I have no idea what that/ they look like.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

It's clear that much needs to change wrt how asylum claims are dealt with: Asylum is meant for those fleeing persecution or war, not those seeking to immigrate irrespective of whether they are criminals or decent individuals.

 

Imo the catalyst for the current problem can be traced back to 2015. If you recall, an estimated 1.3m people - mainly fleeing from ISIS - arrived in Europe seeking asylum. Although impossible to prove, I don't doubt that the vast majority were genuine. However, Europe was completely unprepared to deal with such numbers. TBF hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it is easy to blame politicians for their lack of planning, but how many of us foresaw the scale of the problem before then and how many of us had any semblance of a workable plan for dealing with it? Having said all that, imo the single most foolhardy policy subsequently implemented was Merkel's well-meaning but disastrous decision to effectively throw open Germany's door to all-comers. This sent the wrong message and is the main reason why illegal immigrants continue to arrive in their droves in Greece, Italy and Turkey and move across Europe.

 

We are where we are so what to do next? Frankly, I have little idea.  Within the UK, an overhaul of the asylum system (processes, procedures and perhaps, criteria) is clearly needed: It is no longer fit for purpose. In a similar vein, the ECHR may no longer be fit for purpose and it also needs an overhaul, however, neither redefining the UK asylum processes and/or leaving the ECHR will magically stop the boats overnight. Likewise, other measures e.g. making facilities in the UK harsher for the illegal arrivals may have some effect, but that does seem unfair on genuine refugees.

 

Sending the illegal migrants back to France and effectively saying, 'Your problem' is a knee jerk reaction, which will simply poison relations between France/ the EU and the UK, and most probably lead to an increase - not a decrease - in the number of attempted crossings as France and the EU countries will make no attempt to intercept individuals en route to the UK. I strongly believe that a coordinated Europe-wide solution(s) is needed but I have no idea what that/ they look like.

The illegal asylum seekers are using that tab to seek permission to stay in the UK . They are at best economic migrants who are taking advantage of the soft government . Do we see this happening in Russia , USA , Poland or Hungry etc ? No because those countries take care of their own first . Illegal invaders bypass all of the qualifications to gain entry . How many are law breakers ? The QT programme has incited outrage from many a Brit because they were clearly biased against Reform / Yusuf  and giving 2 illegals the right to air time . The BBC were a bastion of the UK broadcasters but not any more . 

The UK including both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are suffering from the over population of illegals.