Why Don’t the BBC Ever Give a Patriotic View of the News?

Yes, why isn't the BBC news ever given from a patriotic viewpoint? Here, Will Wright shares a letter he sent to the BBC putting them on the line.

Dear BBC

I feel that the BBC, as our national broadcaster, should present a pro-British, patriotic look at the news – both national and international. I don’t suggest that you should suppress inconvenient stories or say something patriotic if it is untrue. But, I would hope that the tone would be upbeat and encouraging when discussing our national interests.

Words such as ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’ would be good when discussing our country. Objectivity, when reporting a conflict of interest between the UK and another country seems to me plain wrong. The BBC should be on our side.

When the BBC should be objective and fair, it often isn’t. There seems to be a left-wing bias. People could point to a number of prominent BBC personnel and remark on their left-wing background. Are there any corresponding right-wingers? If there are, then it seems to me that they are much less prominent.

Equally, there seems to be a pro-EU bias even though the people have chosen to leave the EU – right from the moment that David Dimbleby announced the result of the referendum with a peevish look of disgust on his face. In a programme entitled ‘Brexit: what’s next?’, a year on from the vote, Katya Adler and Kamal Ahmed presented a very biased, pro-EU, view of events. Adler could still report on European affairs without being slavishly pro-EU. If she finds this impossible then she should resign – or be moved to a different BBC job. If Ahmed is on top of his brief, as Economics Editor, then he should have read books by pro-Leave economists such as Roger Bootle, Liam Halligan and Gerard Lyons.

Why does the BBC insist on repeatedly showing a handful of Remoaners with EU flags outside Parliament? Is it to create the impression that there is a lot of opposition to us leaving the EU? Outbursts by un-elected EU commissioners are treated as the voice of authority, rather than the anti-British statements that they are. Any difficulties of the British government are seized upon with glee.

Parliament voted by a very large majority to hold an In-Out referendum. It voted by a very large majority to trigger the sending of the Article 50 letter to the EU. The Leaving the EU Bill has now become law. Isn’t it time for the BBC to get behind Brexit and report events from a pro-British perspective, rather than a pro-EU one?

Barack Obama was a very anti-British US president. Yet the BBC seemed to think he was great. Was this because he was the first black president? Or was it because he was left-wing? Or both? I was nearly sick watching the sycophantic Huw Edwards interview him in 2016, after Obama had interfered in our referendum.

By contrast, Donald Trump, came to power sounding like one of the most pro-British presidents for some considerable time. This may have been just talk, after all he came to power talking of “America First”. But why has the BBC’s America reporter, Jon Sopel been so hostile to someone who is supposed to be an ally? Have Sopel’s own left-wing politics influenced his take on Trump?

Maybe Jon Sopel and Katya Adler could swap jobs? Would the BBC allow this? Then Sopel could employ his critical faculties again Junker, Tusk, Barnier et al and Adler could convert her enthusiasm for everything about the EU to an enthusiasm for a friendship with the Trump presidency.

But most of all, I would like the BBC to have an enthusiasm for Britain’s best interests.

The BBC and Other Media versus The Truth

The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright

Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary

7th May 2018

Dear BBC

There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.

One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43491155/police-are-black-knife-deaths-being-ignored you write “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says.”

It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.

What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.

Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.

How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.

Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.

None of this would be ‘easy’ (I agree with your headline writer) but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.

Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as ‘extreme’ and suggest that Powell got it wrong.

But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.

Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.

Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.

I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.

It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.

Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.

Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.

Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.

Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.

I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the ‘far-right’. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.

So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.

Will Wright

9/11 – The Conspiracy That Won’t Go Away

Published in The Daily Mail on 9th September 2017:

Brother of 9/11 victim claims the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire
• • Geoff Campbell, 31, was one of 67 Britons killed in
the New York 9/11 attacks
• • His brother refuses to accept the official line and insists
there was a cover-up
• • Matt Campbell will protest outside BBC Broadcasting
House on the anniversary
by Sue Reid for the Daily Mail

[Martin Webster notes: This report is good — as far as it goes. But it gives no mention to the issue of what became known as “The Dancing Israelis”, that is, the group of Israeli nationals who were arrested by New York Police Department patrol officers who spotted them on a lorry at a place which overlooked the Twin Towers site.

The men were dancing with joy and hugging one another as the attack was taking place. These Israelis were arrested and confined by the NYPD but, on the orders of the U.S. government, were all quickly released and allowed to fly back to Israel without any investigation. None of these facts have been denied by the U.S. government, but no explanation of the Israelis' release from custody and speedy flight back to Israel has been given. Later Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, on arrival in New York, when asked about the attack on the Twin Towers, he said it was “Very good....I mean, of course, very bad....but....”]

Next Monday afternoon, Matt Campbell will stand outside BBC
Broadcasting House in London’s Portland Place, protesting about the
killing of his brother, Geoff, and 66 other Britons, in the 9/11 terror
attack at the New York World Trade Centre.

After the horror on September 11, 2001, there was no trace of Geoff.
The 31-year-old risk analyst had been attending a conference on the
106th floor in the North Tower, a short stroll from the Manhattan
apartment where he lived with his American fiancée, Caroline.
At first, his family clung to the hope he was alive, until one year later
fragments of a shoulder blade bearing Geoff’s DNA were found among
Trade Centre rubble at a landfill site.

Matt began asking questions. He has not stopped since. He, and others
who will be at the BBC protest, refuse to accept the official story about
9/11: that four U.S. airliners were hijacked by Islamist terror chief
Osama Bin Laden’s pilots. Two were flown into New York’s famous
Twin Towers, which collapsed.

A third rammed into the U.S. Defence Headquarters at the Pentagon in
Washington DC. The last went down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles
north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and
passengers, later portrayed in the Hollywood film United 93.

Seven hours later, a third tower at the World Trade Centre, WTC7, fell
to the ground over seven seconds, even though no plane had hit it.
The red building, 100 yards from the 110-storey Twin Towers, was less
than half their height at just 47 floors, and few people even know of its
existence. It had already been evacuated after the planes had hit the
main towers.

In total, 2,977 people died, provoking President Bush to mount the ‘War
On Terror’ that led to the invasion of Iraq, with the UK in tow.
Yet as Monday’s anniversary approaches, Matt, a former City worker
who is married with three children and lives in Sussex, insists that 9/11
did not happen in the way we have been told and that there has been a
huge official cover-up to disguise the truth.

‘There are so many questions that the Americans and the British
Establishment refuse to answer,’ he says. ‘I believe that my brother and
thousands of others were murdered on 9/11 and there has been a
cover-up. We, as a family, are still overcoming this tragedy, but we will
never stop seeking the truth.’

He is not alone in his quest. A survey in U.S. magazine Live Science
last year revealed that most Americans (53 per cent) believe the U.S.
Government has concealed — and continues to conceal — vital
information about the 9/11 attacks. Crucially, a team of engineers at the
University of Alaska concluded this week, after two years of forensic
research, that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

Indeed, though the official story is that WTC7 was weakened by fires
caused by debris from the attack, it’s the only steel skyscraper in the
world ever to collapse purely as a result of a blaze.

And a new book by an academic who has become an authority on 9/11,
Professor David Ray Griffin, says that to believe that this building fell to
the ground without explosives being involved is asking the public to
believe in ‘miracles’.

Griffin, a retired philosopher at Claremont School of Theology in
California, adds in his bestseller Bush And Cheney: How They Ruined
America And The World, about the ex-president and his vice-president
Dick Cheney: ‘There is a growing consensus that 9/11 allowed the U.S.
to adopt extreme, unwarranted policies. They include the War On Terror
and the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as first steps in taking control
of the Middle East.’

He, and other 9/11 sceptics such as Matt, have asked if the attack was,
in fact, a copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan during John F.
Kennedy’s presidency to stage terror attacks in America and blame
them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow
dictator Fidel Castro.

In other words, on that September morning in 2001, did the White
House fail to stop — or even fabricate — an outrage against its own
civilians so as to provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Osama Bin

Although there have been countless conspiracy theories about 9/11, the
idea that the U.S. Government connived in it still appears utterly
implausible and has, of course, been denied by U.S. intelligence
services and the White House.

Initially — like most people in America and Britain, including Matt Campbell — Professor Griffin dismissed any notion that the attacks
were an inside job aimed at triggering the war on terror. It was a year later that he changed his mind, when he was writing about
American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic work.

As part of his research he had come across a ‘timeline’ of the day’s
events based on newspaper and television accounts. It raised several
anomalies that caused him to doubt the official version of events. And,
however outlandish it seems, his argument bears consideration.

One of the most puzzling anomalies was that none of the hijacked
planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there would have
been plenty of time to do so and it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if
there is any suspicion of an air hijack.

In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented
67 times in America. Then there were the irregular stock market
dealings before the tragedy.

An extremely high volume of ‘put options’ — bets on the price of shares
falling — were purchased for the stock of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
the international financier that occupied 22 storeys of the World Trade

Even more remarkable was the volume of ‘put options’ traded on
American and United Airlines, which operated the four aircraft hijacked
by the terrorists.

On these two airlines, and only these, the level of share trade went up
by 1,200 per cent in the three days before the catastrophe. As the
shares dropped in response to 9/11 the value of these options multiplied
a hundredfold. Someone, somewhere, made $10 million in profit.But, of all the conundrums, the most perplexing is how the three World

But, of all the conundrums, the most perplexing is how the three World
Trade Centre towers fell to the ground.

The official version is that the Twin Towers collapsed because their
steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two
crashed planes.

This explanation has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the U.S. intelligence services and almost
every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and the UK.

However, sceptics say the science does not stand up. They argue that
steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800f, and open
fires of jet fuel — such as those in the Twin Towers inferno — cannot
burn hotter than 1,700f.

Official reports state the steel in the third tower reached a maximum of

Professor Griffin and other sceptics believe the Twin Towers were
deliberately blown up. They claim their controversial theory is
corroborated by first-hand testimony from firefighters at the scene.

In oral histories of 9/11 by New York Fire Department staff which have
been made public, almost a quarter suggest they heard explosions
going off before the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Of the South
Tower, firefighter Richard Banaciski said: ‘There was just an explosion.
It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It
seemed like it was going all the way round like a belt . . . all those

Colleague Kenneth Rogers heard them, too. He said: ‘There was an
explosion in the South Tower. Floor after floor after floor. One floor
under another after another . . . I figured it was a bomb because it
looked like a synchronised kind of thing
And Fire Captain Dennis Tardio recalled: ‘I hear an explosion and I look
up. It is as if the building is being imploded from the top floor down,
boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can’t believe what I am
seeing. The building is coming down.’

But a more extraordinary challenge to scientific reason would happen
on the day of the attacks in respect of the third tower, WTC7, which
contained the offices of the secret service, and then mayor Rudy Giuliani’s emergency command centre, fitted with bullet- and bomb-
resistant windows as well as secure air and water supplies.

In 2008, a U.S. Government-ordered report by the prestigious National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded a six-year probe into the WTC7 attack.

Bystanders interviewed by U.S. television that day said there were
‘bang, bang, bang’ sounds before it fell down. Yet NIST insisted there
was ‘no evidence’ of a controlled explosion.

The fall was provoked by fires on multiple levels. The heating of floor
beams and girders had caused a critical support column to fall, initiating
the fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

This week, eminent Alaska University engineers dismissed this
explanation. Dr J. Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the university’s Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department, said: ‘Fire did not and could
not have caused the failure of this building.’

Griffin adds: ‘We are led to believe that for the first time in the known
universe, a steel-framed, high-rise building was brought down by fire
without the aid of explosives or incendiaries.

‘More clearly miraculous was the precise way in which WTC7 collapsed
[straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline] into its own
footprint. This is the kind of free-fall implosion that can only be caused
by a world-class demolition company.’

But there is another perplexing matter regarding this third building. It
concerns the bizarre TV reports in the U.S., and the rest of the world,
that it had collapsed when it was clearly still upright — announcements
made 23 minutes before it had actually fallen down.

One piece of BBC World footage shows a studio anchor talking to news
correspondent Jane Standley, who is standing in front of the clearly
visible WTC7 tower.

The anchor says: ‘The 47-storey building, situated very close to the
World Trade Centre, has also just collapsed. It seems that this was not
the result of a new attack. It was because the building had been
weakened during the morning attacks.’

Then, oddly, the link to Standley breaks up and is lost.

Of course, this may just be a mistake made on one of the most hectic news days ever. Certainly, the BBC seems to think so.

In a statement made in 2007, a spokesman said: ‘In the chaos and
confusion, I am sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or
inaccurate, but at the time were based on the best information we had.
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage, for reasons
of cock-up, not conspiracy.’

This response — and the question of why the BBC announced the fall
of WTC7 before it actually happened — has enraged those fighting for
the ‘truth’, such as Matt Campbell. They say a series of 9/11
documentaries put out by the BBC have not been impartial or
scientifically accurate.

It is why he, and other Britons who disagree with the official version of
9/11, have chosen to make their protest outside BBC headquarters on

This unlikely rebel, a trained theoretical physicist, former IT expert in the
City, and now a reflexologist, has refused to pay his BBC licence fee for
the past four years.

He claims: ‘The BBC has presented information to the public that
breaks its own editorial guidelines. In at least one documentary, it
removed the sounds of huge explosions going off in WTC7 moments
before its collapse.

‘I think my brother Geoff and many others were murdered in an event
that conflicts with what we have been officially told.

‘I believe there has been BBC complicity in a deliberate cover-up about
how thousands died on that day nearly 16 years ago,’ he said yesterday
as he braced himself for the sad anniversary.