As per usual the BBC are reporting on the 'benefits of immigration' to the UK economy;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

However they only report that EU migration added almost £5billion more in taxes than they took out the economy, however they completely fail to mention the non-EU immigrants coming to the UK over the same period (mainly from Pakistan, India, Africa) took out almost £120billion more than they put in. Other news outlets do report these facts..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html

The BBC are an absolute disgrace with their left-wing PC reporting, can't believe we have to pay for this cr@p.

 

The native population made a negative contribution in 12 years during the period, running to £591 billion in total, as the British economy ran at a deficit.





They've had to put the 120 billion in apostrophes, since it's conjecture

 

expended story on it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29906592

It's not a very clear cut subject despite what people seem to think, alot of the 'extra' costs are calculated not real figures.

 

Yeah I think it's no secret we live well beyond our means, everyone just takes free healthcare, pensions, nanny state for granted, even though we're getting deeper into the red all the time - not really the point I'm making though, it's the BBC selective reporting that's pi$sing me off.

 

What's the problem? The article is specifically about the 'new' EU members, why would it mention other immigration? It's in the title....
And how is this left-wing?

 

Errrrrrrrrr, because Lying Labour inflicted them on us? En masse?

 

Because they've chosen to only mention that 'positive' aspects of immigration from the report, they chose to not report the negatives. Typical of the BBC.

Other new outlets also run this story, but they give both sides of the story, the positives AND the negatives.

 

The BBC's "news" reporting has been an absolute disgrace for years. Are you only just waking up to that now?

 

Why not read Peston's full article on this? Plenty of balance in it, and some good questions raised.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29912945

" all immigrants to the UK - from outside the European Union and inside - were a net drain on public resources of between £114bn and £31bn"

 

Haven't they admitted they have no clue how many people are in the country?
The figure could be 100's of thousands if not +1 million in error.
They are only measuring the people they know about which by anybodies guess is going to be wildly inaccurate.

 

EFA

 

Who else would clean your bog

 

I thought BBC's coverage was balanced.

 

Oh I've been well aware for a long time, but they got some real flak for it after their reporting of the Rotherham abuse scandal - they initially made no mention that the abuse was carried out by asian/pakistani gangs, and just referred to them as 'criminal gangs', but the that fact was a key part of the story as the whole thing had been brushed under the carpet by the council as they didn't want to upset the minority groups and were afraid of being labeled 'racist' for exposing it.

After the flak they got for that they did start to mention it was pakistani gangs, so I thought maybe they'd turned a corner and were being more balanced, but it's back to business as usual now for them now it seems

 

Sooner they lose their licence fee the better for everyone (except the troughers there of course)

 

Are you talking about the council or the BBC? If the council failed to disclose the facts how can you blame the BBC?

 

Which BBC do you watch / listen too?

All morning they have reported both the EU benefits AND the non- EU costs.

 

The council presumably did disclose the facts as other new outlets reported them, but the BBC chose not to (until they got some flak for it, then they started to).

 

Yep.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29912945

 

Lead article on Radio 4 from 6am this morning. Balanced reporting all morning.

It is you who is bias

 

Have you not looked at the article I posted a link to Martin?

 

Did you not watch and/or listen to the BBC News?

 

It's the report with which you should take issue, not the BBC's reporting of it. Have a look at my link within which is Peston's piece offering alternative perspectives.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...bin-of-History

 

We're talking about one of Pete's pet projects here though. So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for his unbiased opinion

 

You've linked an openly right-wing/conservative opinion piece that criticises an openly inclusive, liberal establishment like the BBC. I trust you see the irony and hope you'll forgive me if I don't recoil in shock.

The BBC can only take the middle ground, as a political animal I'm sure you get that. Just because the BBC doesn't perpetuate the politics of the right doesn't make it left biased, it makes it centrist, and if a political party are centrist (New Labour, Lib. Dems.) it should come as no great surprise that they and the BBC are somewhat aligned. I think you'd be fair to call for the BBC to be entirely apolitical, but as my old political science lecturer used to opine, "everything is politics" and if correct this, unfortunately, renders the call impossible.

 

And hence renders the BBCs position untenable....

 

The alternative being commercial TV, which is beholden to corporations and they're anything but apolitical.

 

They have no clue, not that I believe they care.

If you walk around Manchester with a keen eye, it seems like every third person is a recent immigrant; if they aren't eastern european they look like 'asylum seekers'.

 

the thing that annoys me is this has nothing to do with apple whatsoever so why is it being posted???