By Chris Morrison

Just what did the BBC think would happen when counter protest and violence kicked off last Saturday after weeks of broadcasting divisive cultural propaganda? A few years ago, the death in police custody of a low-level criminal with a history of armed robbery and drug abuse in an American city 4,000 miles away would not have been considered a big news story. Today the BBC, bloated with billions of poll tax pounds and liberal self -importance, has used the incident to fan the flames of British cultural warfare and stoke domestic racial tensions.

Almost the entire output of the Corporation has been designed to link the death of one black man at the hands of a multi-ethnic group of US cops to the wider issue of “systemic” racism and the history of slavery. No mention is made of the fact that the annual number of deaths of unarmed blacks not resisting arrest at the hands of US cops can be measured on the fingers of one hand, or that studies show no pattern of racial bias in lethal police shootings in recent times.

What has the death of George Floyd got to do with British racial experiences? Nothing. Yet the BBC pumps out biased, inaccurate information as the mobs loot and pillage in numerous countries across the world. Making a false direct link between the Floyd tragedy and claimed societal racism in a multi-cultural country like Britain would get you kicked out of a first-year philosophy tutorial. Well perhaps not today, but certainly one in a less cancelled past.

Last week on the BBC Radio 4 Media Show, the journalist Clive Myrie said that he was ”supposed” to be an independent provider of news, but he argued there was a “direct” link between George Floyd, slavery and all the statues. He is of course only polishing the pre-prepared BBC agenda and he summed it up perfectly:

‘There will not be people on the streets if there was not racism – everything else is chaff, frankly, particularly if the riots that take place afterwards are a minor skirmish’

To the BBC and its virtue posing hacks, the deaths of 10 people in America, the shooting of a Las Vegas policeman in the neck and the destruction of billions of dollars of property in many ethnic areas are a “minor skirmish”. This is after all the same BBC that reported the copycat British riots as “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”.

What did the BBC expect when it published this appalling slant on events that saw a police officer severely injured, and criminal damage inflicted on both the national war memorial and the statue of our greatest wartime leader? Many people have a direct connection to the Cenotaph and the honour it pays to the loss of millions of British lives fighting for the country’s freedoms. How do they now feel paying a compulsory levy to an arrogant broadcaster gone rogue that describes the trashing of their symbols of remembrance as “largely peaceful”?

Mere skirmishes perhaps in the great long march towards cultural cleansing and purity.

Of course any counter demonstration is invariably described with the meaningless “far right” label. This inaccurate tag is attached to anyone standing up for British culture and history whether they are former serving military people or the 79-year-old Queen’s Scout promising to hand out a “bunch of fives” if an attempt was made to remove the statue of his beloved Baden-Powell from Poole harbour.

Needless to say, while America burnt, no discussion was heard about the Black Lives Matters movement. For a Corporation that sees extremists only on the “far right”, it is unable to grasp the full Marxist horror of BLM. Nothing to see here with its anti-Semitic tropes, mass re-distribution of wealth based on skin colour and wish to overthrow free economic exchange helped by abolishing the thin blue line.

The framing of an agenda and providing all the news to fit has long been a BBC editorial staple. Every now and then an ex-employee lets the cat out of the bag. In 2017 the former BBC political journalist and now Labour MP Clive Lewis told a meeting of the Corbyn-supporting Momentum group that he was able to use bias in his reports by giving less time to one view than the other.

“I reported on both but the angle and the language I used – I know the pictures I used – I was able to project my own particular political positions on things in a very subtle way”.

On climate change the BBC has closed down all debate on the controversial scientific hypothesis of human-caused global warming on the untrue grounds that the science is settled. It will, for instance, no longer give editorial time for the climate views of sceptics like Professor Antonino Zichichi, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter. And even if the Italian emeritus professor of physics was allowed to have his say, there would be a ban of engaging him in debate from all the usual self-proclaimed eco “experts” like George Monbiot and Caroline Lucas on the grounds that they would “lend credibility”.

On the great Brexit debate the BBC was “systemically” unable to provide an independent editorial platform over the course of three long years. Put simply, its side lost and it doubled down by blatantly loading commentators, guests and panels in favour of upending the democratic wish of the British people.

Covering the Trump presidency in America has been way beyond its editorial competence. Its North America correspondent Jon “Simples” Sopel spent years relaying every crumb that fell from Democrat Georgetown dinner party tables about the obvious campaign collusion between Trump and the Russians.  Less effort seems to have been expended on explaining why over 63 million Americans voted for the brash New Yorker rather than Hillary “basket of deplorables” Clinton.

In its current form the BBC is unable to lead a national discussion about race relations in Britain today. In fact “systemic” problems about the subject exist throughout the operation. Some months ago Jane Garvey on Woman’s Hour casually described a “predominately white” audience for a London theatrical show as a ”problem”. No one at the BBC batted an eyelid. Advertisements for jobs, meanwhile, regularly feature copy that makes it crystal clear that “whites” need not apply.

Few BBC programmes draw on the strengths of Britain as it seeks to integrate large numbers of immigrants that have queued up to enter the country since the second world war. Instead, individual unrelated events are dragged over from the States to bolster racism and slavery tropes and help degenerate large parts of traditional British culture and history.

It is true Britons in the 18th and early 19th centuries traded in slaves but they rarely captured and drove them. They mostly picked them up from west African ports where local leaders sold off what they considered spoils of war and tribal conquest.

Just ten years ago a more rounded debate was to be had. The BBC at print, otherwise known as the Guardian, ran an article headed “African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade” which quoted the president of Uganda Yoweri Museveni stating: “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today”.

Perhaps BBC journalists should take a long hard look at the historical slave trade before they use individual misfortunes from faraway places to help ram home the canard that Britain is a country that is racist to its core.

Follow @CMorrisonEsq on Twitter