With its usual display of bias and total lack of impartiality, BBC Breakfast this morning was featuring a item asking why are women leaving it later to get married. They trotted out the usual suspects as reasons - focus on career, more opportunities, travel etc. - and totally ignored the obvious answer.
I'll tell you why women aren't getting married until they are into their thirties on average .... blokes aren't asking them to get married anymore. They don't need to. You see, young men are driven by testosterone - they want fast cars, adrenalin surge excitement and sex .... lots and lots of sex. Thirty years ago they couldn't get fast cars, adrenalin surges generally came from football and fairground rides and the only way they could get lots and lots of sex was if they got married.
These days you can buy a fast car for peanuts (though they can't afford to insure it - but when the penalty for not having insurance is barely a tenth of the cost of a years insurance, why bother?), adrenalin rush sports are cheap and plentiful and young men can find plenty of women willing to provide for their sexual urges without commitment.
So they don't need to get married. Instead, young men extend their adolescence well into their twenties and even beyond in a guilt and responsibility free social environment. But the BBC doesn't get that point.
Showing posts with label BBC Propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC Propaganda. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The sneering voice of leftism
I can't remember what it was that propelled Robert Peston onto our TV screens - I think it was something to do with the banking crisis or maybe the expenses scandal - but whatever it was he has been a virtual ever present on the BBC news since.
On the face of it, Peston is the ideal sort of person for the BBC to employ as they attempt to address the criticism of their often overt left wing leanings. The son of a peer and with past experience working at a stockbroker's as well as various journalistic stints at leading "right wing", pro-capitalism newspapers such as the FT and Telegraph, Peston must be as right wing capitalist as they come, right?
Wrong.
Peston's membership of Common Purpose reveals his true political leanings, but you'd never know that just by looking at him. What does give him away, though, is his voice - because Peston has that trademark of the rabid left winger; a whining nasal drone shaped by his barely concealed contempt for politics of the right.
It's the same vocal style I first became familiar with through my scouse English teacher in the mid-seventies. It doesn't matter what the upbringing, accent or dialect - left wingism is characterised by this whining nasal drone with underlying tones of contempt and sneering. It's nasty. This English teacher saw me as something of a protege - I was, at the time, leaning to the left myself - and took me under her wing to some degree introducing me to punk rock and the works of the "poet" John Cooper Clarke.
To be fair, it's probably true to say that this introduction to John Cooper Clarke was what sparked my love of classical - proper - poetry. I found his stuff to be such drivel that I had no choice but to go and find out about real poetry and what a joy I discovered.
Anyway, I digress. My point is that the BBC are reacting to the fact that their institutionalised left wingism has been outed by trying to give an impression of impartiality. Peston is one of those who is supposed to address that. Unfortunately, for the BBC, his sneering nasal drone gives away the reality of Peston's rampant left wing ideology. It always does. Whenever you listen to anything on the BBC, it pays dividends to listen as much to the tone and style of the delivery as much as the words they say - because however they try to dress up their left wing bias the sneering voice of leftism cuts through.
On the face of it, Peston is the ideal sort of person for the BBC to employ as they attempt to address the criticism of their often overt left wing leanings. The son of a peer and with past experience working at a stockbroker's as well as various journalistic stints at leading "right wing", pro-capitalism newspapers such as the FT and Telegraph, Peston must be as right wing capitalist as they come, right?
Wrong.
Peston's membership of Common Purpose reveals his true political leanings, but you'd never know that just by looking at him. What does give him away, though, is his voice - because Peston has that trademark of the rabid left winger; a whining nasal drone shaped by his barely concealed contempt for politics of the right.
It's the same vocal style I first became familiar with through my scouse English teacher in the mid-seventies. It doesn't matter what the upbringing, accent or dialect - left wingism is characterised by this whining nasal drone with underlying tones of contempt and sneering. It's nasty. This English teacher saw me as something of a protege - I was, at the time, leaning to the left myself - and took me under her wing to some degree introducing me to punk rock and the works of the "poet" John Cooper Clarke.
To be fair, it's probably true to say that this introduction to John Cooper Clarke was what sparked my love of classical - proper - poetry. I found his stuff to be such drivel that I had no choice but to go and find out about real poetry and what a joy I discovered.
Anyway, I digress. My point is that the BBC are reacting to the fact that their institutionalised left wingism has been outed by trying to give an impression of impartiality. Peston is one of those who is supposed to address that. Unfortunately, for the BBC, his sneering nasal drone gives away the reality of Peston's rampant left wing ideology. It always does. Whenever you listen to anything on the BBC, it pays dividends to listen as much to the tone and style of the delivery as much as the words they say - because however they try to dress up their left wing bias the sneering voice of leftism cuts through.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Something sinister at the BBC
On the face of it, this report from the BBC website seems reasonable.
But check out the picture of Lord Pearson. Do you think it would have been possible for the BBC to have found a more sinister picture of the UKIP leader?
I don't - and I don't think it is a coincidence either. This is another example of the BBC's institutional bias showing through its rather thin veneer of "impartiality".
I know that news organisations put a great deal of effort into finding the "right" pictures for their articles. The old adage that a picture speaks a thousand words is as true today as it has ever been and the BBC use this to promote their particular ideology.
The BBC is not impartial.
It does not deserve to be publicly funded.
But check out the picture of Lord Pearson. Do you think it would have been possible for the BBC to have found a more sinister picture of the UKIP leader?
I don't - and I don't think it is a coincidence either. This is another example of the BBC's institutional bias showing through its rather thin veneer of "impartiality".
I know that news organisations put a great deal of effort into finding the "right" pictures for their articles. The old adage that a picture speaks a thousand words is as true today as it has ever been and the BBC use this to promote their particular ideology.
The BBC is not impartial.
It does not deserve to be publicly funded.
Monday, December 21, 2009
BBC grovelling to the left
The failure of the left to force an agreement at the UN Copenhagen conference last week has obviously upset a lot of people in the media. The left wing newspapers (just about all of them) have been voicing their displeasure, but this wasn't so easy for the BBC who are, supposedly, impartial.
But the BBC are THE left wing media organisation. More than any other they encompass the beliefs and values of the left. They employ an almost entirely left wing staff and broadcast only left wing approved programming.
However, because they are "impartial" they are not allowed to put forward opinions on failures such as Copenhagen. So what to do? It's quite a conundrum but the BBC have now established a way around this.
What they do is they put forward a number of representatives from various left wing NGOs - such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF - and ask them their opinion. As if that matters!
Greenpeace, FoE and WWF are not democratically elected organisations. Their opinions are not required and should not be sought - and they are no more valid than my opinion. The BBC should no more be seeking the opinion of these organisations any more than they should be seeking the opinion of a large multinational corporation for their views on Copenhagen.
But in the days following the failure of the Copenhagen conference the BBC trotted out various spokespeople from the NGOs I mentioned for their opinion in a shameless display of grovelling to their puppet masters.
The worst thing about this is that they aren't even subtle about it. They are quite open about their unashamed bias now - they have stopped even trying to be impartial. It's a national disgrace that this organisation is now so institutionally biased and continues to receive public funding to put forward their putrid views.
But the BBC are THE left wing media organisation. More than any other they encompass the beliefs and values of the left. They employ an almost entirely left wing staff and broadcast only left wing approved programming.
However, because they are "impartial" they are not allowed to put forward opinions on failures such as Copenhagen. So what to do? It's quite a conundrum but the BBC have now established a way around this.
What they do is they put forward a number of representatives from various left wing NGOs - such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF - and ask them their opinion. As if that matters!
Greenpeace, FoE and WWF are not democratically elected organisations. Their opinions are not required and should not be sought - and they are no more valid than my opinion. The BBC should no more be seeking the opinion of these organisations any more than they should be seeking the opinion of a large multinational corporation for their views on Copenhagen.
But in the days following the failure of the Copenhagen conference the BBC trotted out various spokespeople from the NGOs I mentioned for their opinion in a shameless display of grovelling to their puppet masters.
The worst thing about this is that they aren't even subtle about it. They are quite open about their unashamed bias now - they have stopped even trying to be impartial. It's a national disgrace that this organisation is now so institutionally biased and continues to receive public funding to put forward their putrid views.
Monday, October 05, 2009
The EU and BBC bias
As expected, the Irish people - faced with a mounting economic crisis and the offer of substantial bribes coupled with thinly veiled threats - have reversed their original vote against the Lisbon Treaty and have now voted to accept it at the second time of asking.
No doubt some people will argue that this proves that the Irish media, business and political establishment have successfully argued the case for the Lisbon Treaty - personally I think it more accurately reflects the pragmatism of the Irish people who, realising that they will be repeatedly asked to vote again and again until they say "yes", decided to concede now rather later.
So the Irish vote tells us nothing new - just reinforces the point that any attempt by any member nation to reassert their national sovereignty as a member will be received with the usual cold contempt by the architects of the EU.
For me, though, the most infuriating thing about the run up to the Irish capitulation was that whenever the BBC mentioned the impending vote they always referred to the treaty as ".... the Lisbon Treaty - designed to improve/reform/modernise the way the EU works" or something along those lines. This is the worst sort of subliminal indoctrination there is - repeatedly slipping in some term with positive connotations for the explicit purpose of making the subject more acceptable.
Who says that the Lisbon Treaty was "designed to improve/reform/modernise" the EU? The designers! Yet they know full well that that is not what the Lisbon Treaty was designed for. It was designed to give the EU full legal status - to allow for the imposition of a permanent EU presidency and foreign office. It was designed to make sure that the Irish, French, Dutch, British or whoever - regardless of their constitution - will never ever be allowed a referendum on such things again.
Yet not once did you hear any of this from the BBC. And while we are on the subject of BBC bias - I watched this morning as Bill Turnbull interviewed Boris Johnson on breakfast television and asked him about his time in the infamous Bullingdon Club while at university with Cameron - as if this is somehow relevant or important.
It isn't. Sorry to dismiss all the conspiracy theories, but members of parliament and the political establishment belonging to elite clubs and behaving in arrogant, superior ways when they were young is nothing new. It's been going on for centuries and still goes on today. There have been countless ministers of the state who have belonged to these sorts of clubs from both sides of the house.
What is new to British politics is that there are now ministers of state who have been - and may be still are -active communists, but they never get asked about their past by the BBC. I wonder why that is?
No doubt some people will argue that this proves that the Irish media, business and political establishment have successfully argued the case for the Lisbon Treaty - personally I think it more accurately reflects the pragmatism of the Irish people who, realising that they will be repeatedly asked to vote again and again until they say "yes", decided to concede now rather later.
So the Irish vote tells us nothing new - just reinforces the point that any attempt by any member nation to reassert their national sovereignty as a member will be received with the usual cold contempt by the architects of the EU.
For me, though, the most infuriating thing about the run up to the Irish capitulation was that whenever the BBC mentioned the impending vote they always referred to the treaty as ".... the Lisbon Treaty - designed to improve/reform/modernise the way the EU works" or something along those lines. This is the worst sort of subliminal indoctrination there is - repeatedly slipping in some term with positive connotations for the explicit purpose of making the subject more acceptable.
Who says that the Lisbon Treaty was "designed to improve/reform/modernise" the EU? The designers! Yet they know full well that that is not what the Lisbon Treaty was designed for. It was designed to give the EU full legal status - to allow for the imposition of a permanent EU presidency and foreign office. It was designed to make sure that the Irish, French, Dutch, British or whoever - regardless of their constitution - will never ever be allowed a referendum on such things again.
Yet not once did you hear any of this from the BBC. And while we are on the subject of BBC bias - I watched this morning as Bill Turnbull interviewed Boris Johnson on breakfast television and asked him about his time in the infamous Bullingdon Club while at university with Cameron - as if this is somehow relevant or important.
It isn't. Sorry to dismiss all the conspiracy theories, but members of parliament and the political establishment belonging to elite clubs and behaving in arrogant, superior ways when they were young is nothing new. It's been going on for centuries and still goes on today. There have been countless ministers of the state who have belonged to these sorts of clubs from both sides of the house.
What is new to British politics is that there are now ministers of state who have been - and may be still are -active communists, but they never get asked about their past by the BBC. I wonder why that is?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
In built bias at the BBC
As revealed by a senior controller.
Ben Stephenson, the controller of BBC drama commissioning, said that the corporation should encourage "peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."
Mr Stephenson then tried to excuse his bias by claiming that the phrase had no political meaning.
"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective," he said.
In which case Mr Stephenson is either a fool - and I don't think that someone that stupid should be a controller in the BBC - or is being deliberately disingenuous. Unless he is a complete idiot he will know damn well that "left of centre" is a political phrase meaning socialist. He'll also know that it does not mean the same as "left field" and is not interchangeable with that expression.
I don't think Mr Stephenson is a fool - I think he knows only too well what is meant by "left of centre" and slips it in to promote his own particular choice of politics - and I believe he is far from being the only one who is left of centre in the BBC who does this. I think he's got so used to doing it unchallenged that it didn't occur to him that some people might disagree with him.
Ben Stephenson, the controller of BBC drama commissioning, said that the corporation should encourage "peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."
Mr Stephenson then tried to excuse his bias by claiming that the phrase had no political meaning.
"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective," he said.
In which case Mr Stephenson is either a fool - and I don't think that someone that stupid should be a controller in the BBC - or is being deliberately disingenuous. Unless he is a complete idiot he will know damn well that "left of centre" is a political phrase meaning socialist. He'll also know that it does not mean the same as "left field" and is not interchangeable with that expression.
I don't think Mr Stephenson is a fool - I think he knows only too well what is meant by "left of centre" and slips it in to promote his own particular choice of politics - and I believe he is far from being the only one who is left of centre in the BBC who does this. I think he's got so used to doing it unchallenged that it didn't occur to him that some people might disagree with him.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sleazy, creepy fascist on Andrew Marr show
Personally, I think it is disgusting that the BBC allow these fascist scum to appear on television shows to spout their poisonous drivel virtually unchecked and unchallenged.
Still, enough about the obnoxious Ed Miliband's appearance on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.
Still, enough about the obnoxious Ed Miliband's appearance on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
I don't feel so good thanks to the BBC
Adultery, family breakup, bullying - all part of the BBC's new "feelgood" drama series, All The Small Things, which started last night. And those were just the obvious things as there were plenty of less apparent issues smuggled in as well - such as racism, sexism, feminism and discrimination.
The series is ostensibly conservative - church, choir, middle class, affluence - but couldn't be more liberal left. It's indicative of the institutionalised leftism that infests the BBC and a prime example of why that institution needs serious reform.
The BBC tagged the series as "feelgood", but if this is what makes them feel good, then it is even worse than I thought.
The series is ostensibly conservative - church, choir, middle class, affluence - but couldn't be more liberal left. It's indicative of the institutionalised leftism that infests the BBC and a prime example of why that institution needs serious reform.
The BBC tagged the series as "feelgood", but if this is what makes them feel good, then it is even worse than I thought.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Freeze the licence fee? No, scrap it!
I suppose Cameron ought to be congratulated for suggesting that the BBC licence fee should be frozen for a year - at least he is trying to think of ways in which the government can help the ordinary person in the street even if it is pathetic.
Better still, why not go all the way and just scrap the licence fee altogether?
I used to be a supporter of the licence fee - and still could be if the BBC would stop being a lefty mouthpiece. When I was growing up the BBC could be relied upon for three things. Good, clean family entertainment; thought provoking, interesting documentaries based on fact and quality drama.
What about balanced reporting I hear you say. Well, what about it? The BBC has never had balanced reporting during its entire history - or if it did it would have been for the briefest of times sometime between the end of World War Two and the start of the swinging sixties - but I never noticed it. The fact is that the BBC news reporting used to be predominantly pro-British. It was, effectively, a propaganda machine during the war years, but even after that it still remained predominantly a pro-British institution.
Such was its Britishness that the main news bulletins when I was young- which used to last between 15 and 20 minutes - consisted almost entirely of home news. The first ten minutes or so would be devoted to reporting on events in Britain, followed by a brief two minute round up of foreign news and the rest filled with sports news.
To see how much this has changed one only has to look at yesterday's lunchtime news. The lead report was about an Austrian child rapist, followed by an in depth report on Denmark's decision to award compensation to women who have developed breast cancer after years working night shifts and a long piece about some judges in Pakistan getting their jobs back. The only news about Britain was a brief mention about a minimum price for alcohol.
As for the rest of the BBC - the idea of "family entertainment" was sacrificed a long time ago on the altar of "yoof culture". Their prime time output is dominated by programming which is either leftist or youth obsessed - or both. Their factual documentaries are almost always based on left wing progressive ideas and designed to promote those ideas only and never to give credence to any alternative theories.
As for quality drama - well, the BBC still manages the odd success, but on the whole it is drivel driven by the same institutional left wing thinking that dominates Auntie these days.
And apart from all that - the BBC carries as much advertising these days as ITV. OK, it is only "advertising" the BBC, but it is still advertising!
If the BBC could return to the kind of institution it once was - and through which it gained its reputation - then I'd be happy to pay the licence fee, but as long as it remains institutionally leftist, youth-obsessed and politically biased I say scrap it.
Better still, why not go all the way and just scrap the licence fee altogether?
I used to be a supporter of the licence fee - and still could be if the BBC would stop being a lefty mouthpiece. When I was growing up the BBC could be relied upon for three things. Good, clean family entertainment; thought provoking, interesting documentaries based on fact and quality drama.
What about balanced reporting I hear you say. Well, what about it? The BBC has never had balanced reporting during its entire history - or if it did it would have been for the briefest of times sometime between the end of World War Two and the start of the swinging sixties - but I never noticed it. The fact is that the BBC news reporting used to be predominantly pro-British. It was, effectively, a propaganda machine during the war years, but even after that it still remained predominantly a pro-British institution.
Such was its Britishness that the main news bulletins when I was young- which used to last between 15 and 20 minutes - consisted almost entirely of home news. The first ten minutes or so would be devoted to reporting on events in Britain, followed by a brief two minute round up of foreign news and the rest filled with sports news.
To see how much this has changed one only has to look at yesterday's lunchtime news. The lead report was about an Austrian child rapist, followed by an in depth report on Denmark's decision to award compensation to women who have developed breast cancer after years working night shifts and a long piece about some judges in Pakistan getting their jobs back. The only news about Britain was a brief mention about a minimum price for alcohol.
As for the rest of the BBC - the idea of "family entertainment" was sacrificed a long time ago on the altar of "yoof culture". Their prime time output is dominated by programming which is either leftist or youth obsessed - or both. Their factual documentaries are almost always based on left wing progressive ideas and designed to promote those ideas only and never to give credence to any alternative theories.
As for quality drama - well, the BBC still manages the odd success, but on the whole it is drivel driven by the same institutional left wing thinking that dominates Auntie these days.
And apart from all that - the BBC carries as much advertising these days as ITV. OK, it is only "advertising" the BBC, but it is still advertising!
If the BBC could return to the kind of institution it once was - and through which it gained its reputation - then I'd be happy to pay the licence fee, but as long as it remains institutionally leftist, youth-obsessed and politically biased I say scrap it.
Monday, February 23, 2009
One out of three
The BBC and others decided to celebrate 10 years of the Macpherson report by considering whether the Met police is still "institutionally racist" with former Home Secretary Jack Straw concluding that they are not.
Mr Straw told the BBC: "If you are asking me whether I believe the Met as a whole is still institutionally racist, the answer is no."
Instead, Mr Straw suggested that there are "pockets of racism" in the force, but that it is not institutionalised. Actually, for those of us who never bought into the "institutionally racist" claptrap that's all there ever was - pockets of racism - just like as there has always been in society in general. The Met - being a product of society - reflects that.
What nobody bothered to ask is whether the other two issues the Macpherson report highlighted have been addressed as well. Along with "institutional racism" the report suggested that the Met also suffers from "professional incompetence" and a "failure of leadership".
Ten years on and they still do. Two out of three ain't bad - one out of three is pretty bloody awful.
Mr Straw told the BBC: "If you are asking me whether I believe the Met as a whole is still institutionally racist, the answer is no."
Instead, Mr Straw suggested that there are "pockets of racism" in the force, but that it is not institutionalised. Actually, for those of us who never bought into the "institutionally racist" claptrap that's all there ever was - pockets of racism - just like as there has always been in society in general. The Met - being a product of society - reflects that.
What nobody bothered to ask is whether the other two issues the Macpherson report highlighted have been addressed as well. Along with "institutional racism" the report suggested that the Met also suffers from "professional incompetence" and a "failure of leadership".
Ten years on and they still do. Two out of three ain't bad - one out of three is pretty bloody awful.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stating the bleedin' obvious
The BBC brings us this startling revelation today.
The recession is taking its toll on public finances, official figures show.
Well, who'd've though that? Actually, pretty much everyone - only most of us don't need "official figures" to know that as it is almost as obvious as BBC bias. The only difference is that the BBC doesn't bother to hide its bias the way the government tries to cover up the yawning truth that our economy is well and truly screwed.
The Office of National Statistics, which releases the public finance figures, also said that it plans to incorporate the finances of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group into the public finance balance sheet.
It said this could add between £1 trillion and £1.5tn to public sector debt - between 70% and 100% of the UK's GDP.
That's an addition to the public sector debt - not the whole debt.
Despite the ever-growing debt burden, the government has made it clear that it will borrow more money if necessary in order to boost the ailing economy.
Yeah? From whom?
The recession is taking its toll on public finances, official figures show.
Well, who'd've though that? Actually, pretty much everyone - only most of us don't need "official figures" to know that as it is almost as obvious as BBC bias. The only difference is that the BBC doesn't bother to hide its bias the way the government tries to cover up the yawning truth that our economy is well and truly screwed.
The Office of National Statistics, which releases the public finance figures, also said that it plans to incorporate the finances of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group into the public finance balance sheet.
It said this could add between £1 trillion and £1.5tn to public sector debt - between 70% and 100% of the UK's GDP.
That's an addition to the public sector debt - not the whole debt.
Despite the ever-growing debt burden, the government has made it clear that it will borrow more money if necessary in order to boost the ailing economy.
Yeah? From whom?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Leftist BBC smearing conservatives
I was reading this BBC article - a puff piece for an upcoming Panorama programme full of the usual bull shit - when I came across this.
Sheikh Khalid Yassin, one of the stars of the preaching circuit, has lectured about his contempt for homosexuals saying:
"If you prefer the clothing of the Kaffirs [non-believers] other than the clothing of the Muslims - most of those names on most of that clothing is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians."
Another influential preacher, Abdurraheem Green, whose internet lectures receive hundreds of thousands of hits, preaches that "Islam is not compatible with democracy" and that to prevent a wife committing "evil" a husband has the right to "apply some type of physical force... a very light beating" - though he says this should not leave any marks.
Despite these conservative views the Metropolitan Police has sought Abdurraheem Green's advice recently.
And the preacher himself insists that in spite of his conservative views about life in Britain he is "part of the solution" to extremism because young people listen to him. (My emphasis)
It's not the fact that the Met. are using a hate preacher for advice - that's not at all surprising - it's the way the BBC refers to these opinions as "conservative views" twice in the space of two sentences and deliberately linking it to views about
The intention is obvious - to associate anti-democracy, homophobia and wife beating with "conservative". Yes, I know the BBC are not using the big C Conservative word and that they can defend the piece as editorially correct, but I reject the assumption that being in favour of wife beating is the least bit conservative.
I know it is quite deliberate. I am certain some liberal lefty editor has sneaked this in with every intention of defaming conservatism and I know that the BBC will not think they have done anything wrong- but it is wrong.
And it is another disgusting example of the institutional leftism that pervades the BBC.
Sheikh Khalid Yassin, one of the stars of the preaching circuit, has lectured about his contempt for homosexuals saying:
"If you prefer the clothing of the Kaffirs [non-believers] other than the clothing of the Muslims - most of those names on most of that clothing is faggots, homosexuals and lesbians."
Another influential preacher, Abdurraheem Green, whose internet lectures receive hundreds of thousands of hits, preaches that "Islam is not compatible with democracy" and that to prevent a wife committing "evil" a husband has the right to "apply some type of physical force... a very light beating" - though he says this should not leave any marks.
Despite these conservative views the Metropolitan Police has sought Abdurraheem Green's advice recently.
And the preacher himself insists that in spite of his conservative views about life in Britain he is "part of the solution" to extremism because young people listen to him. (My emphasis)
It's not the fact that the Met. are using a hate preacher for advice - that's not at all surprising - it's the way the BBC refers to these opinions as "conservative views" twice in the space of two sentences and deliberately linking it to views about
The intention is obvious - to associate anti-democracy, homophobia and wife beating with "conservative". Yes, I know the BBC are not using the big C Conservative word and that they can defend the piece as editorially correct, but I reject the assumption that being in favour of wife beating is the least bit conservative.
I know it is quite deliberate. I am certain some liberal lefty editor has sneaked this in with every intention of defaming conservatism and I know that the BBC will not think they have done anything wrong- but it is wrong.
And it is another disgusting example of the institutional leftism that pervades the BBC.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Spot the difference
Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand - along with many other "stars" of the BBC - regularly use offensive language, make derogatory remarks about people and generally behave in a rude and boorish manner on air, often live and usually quite deliberately. They rarely get sacked or reprimanded for doing so and if they do it is only after a long campaign and thousands of complaints. Even then the BBC goes to great lengths to defend its editorial policy of being "edgy".
Carole Thatcher makes one unguarded comment off air which a BBC presenter takes offence to and which none of us would know about unless the BBC decided to announce it (as they did) and it's curtains for Ms Thatcher faster than you can say "politically incorrect".
Can you spot the difference?
Carole Thatcher makes one unguarded comment off air which a BBC presenter takes offence to and which none of us would know about unless the BBC decided to announce it (as they did) and it's curtains for Ms Thatcher faster than you can say "politically incorrect".
Can you spot the difference?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Will the BBC take heed?
Now that our real government has decreed that we can retain our traditional weights and measures after all, do you think it is possible that the BBC will stop trying to force the metric system on us?
Of course, it should be said that our education system should now desist from teaching metric alone (they never should have started) and go back to telling our kids about yards, feet and inches - measurements which are not only more human, but knitted into the very language we use. There was never any need for our schools to go the whole nine yards and teach metric only, but if you give 'em an inch they take a mile.
Imperial measurements are based on human characteristics. An inch is roughly the width of an adult male thumb, a foot is roughly the distance from the wrist to the tip of the elbow and a yard is roughly the distance from the tip of the nose to the tip of an outstretched arm - the whole point being that no matter where you were or who you were you would always have a rough and ready method of measuring.
Metric, on the other hand, is based on a miscalculation by a couple of Napoleonic flunkeys.
The BBC are the worst culprits. They insist on giving measurements in metric - whether it is rain/snow fall in millimetres in the weather reports or distances from locations in kilometres in news reports. The funny thing is, when they start talking about human characteristics they always resort to imperial measurements. They give the height of a suspect in feet and inches and weight in stones.
That's because even after years of being taught nothing but metric at school, people still measure themselves in feet and inches and weight themselves in stones and pounds. It's also because if they said on Crimewatch that the police were looking for a suspect who was 178 cm tall and weighed 86 kg no one would have a clue if they were fat, thin, tall or short.
Now that the EU have graciously (that's sarcasm, by the way) allowed us to retain our measurements our government should pass a law insisting that these are taught in schools and used in the media as they already have for road signs.
The BBC should start with the weather report. When they say there will be 25 mm of rain few people know what that is without thinking about it, but if they said an inch instead we'd all know that was roughly the width of our thumb and we'd know that instantly and instinctively. Simple and very very human.
Now that the EU have finally stopped trying to force metric on us, our own government, media and broadcasters should do the same.
Of course, it should be said that our education system should now desist from teaching metric alone (they never should have started) and go back to telling our kids about yards, feet and inches - measurements which are not only more human, but knitted into the very language we use. There was never any need for our schools to go the whole nine yards and teach metric only, but if you give 'em an inch they take a mile.
Imperial measurements are based on human characteristics. An inch is roughly the width of an adult male thumb, a foot is roughly the distance from the wrist to the tip of the elbow and a yard is roughly the distance from the tip of the nose to the tip of an outstretched arm - the whole point being that no matter where you were or who you were you would always have a rough and ready method of measuring.
Metric, on the other hand, is based on a miscalculation by a couple of Napoleonic flunkeys.
The BBC are the worst culprits. They insist on giving measurements in metric - whether it is rain/snow fall in millimetres in the weather reports or distances from locations in kilometres in news reports. The funny thing is, when they start talking about human characteristics they always resort to imperial measurements. They give the height of a suspect in feet and inches and weight in stones.
That's because even after years of being taught nothing but metric at school, people still measure themselves in feet and inches and weight themselves in stones and pounds. It's also because if they said on Crimewatch that the police were looking for a suspect who was 178 cm tall and weighed 86 kg no one would have a clue if they were fat, thin, tall or short.
Now that the EU have graciously (that's sarcasm, by the way) allowed us to retain our measurements our government should pass a law insisting that these are taught in schools and used in the media as they already have for road signs.
The BBC should start with the weather report. When they say there will be 25 mm of rain few people know what that is without thinking about it, but if they said an inch instead we'd all know that was roughly the width of our thumb and we'd know that instantly and instinctively. Simple and very very human.
Now that the EU have finally stopped trying to force metric on us, our own government, media and broadcasters should do the same.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Is this the death knell for the multicultural experiment?
A report commissioned by the BBC confirms what most of us already knew - that Britain's communities are considerably more fragmented than they were 30 years ago.
Community life in Britain has weakened substantially over the past 30 years, according to research commissioned by the BBC.
Although the article does mention immigration as being a contributory factor, at no time does it mention the thing that would have been the single biggest factor. The policy of multiculturalism. Instead they claim that the major reason for the breakdown of communities is wealth and transport.
Increased wealth and improved access to transport has made it easier for people to move for work, for retirement, for schools, for a new life.
Sorry, but this is speculation. Not only that, but it doesn't explain why people choose to move for "a new life". Retiring to the coast has been part and parcel of our lives for some time before 1971, but more and more younger people are choosing to leave the areas where they grew up and leave behind their friends and families in doing so. Why? No one chooses to make such an upheaval lightly.
They are doing so because the areas they once called home have changed beyond all recognition. Not only are they no longer familiar as part of their past, they are not even familiar as parts of their country. Fuelled by the policy of multiculturalism and driven by immigration, huge swathes of Britain are no longer "British". When people find that they are strangers in their own town they look elsewhere and that is what has driven the "mobility" that the researchers refer to - not wealth.
Living in Slough I can understand that. The only thing that stops me moving is a stubborn refusal to accept that my home town is no longer my own - even though I increasingly feel like the stranger. A walk down the high street confirms that with the proliferation of shopfronts and signs in foreign languages and where the sound of an English voice speaking the English language is increasingly rare.
The thing is, in a sane world this would be taken as confirmation that the multicultural experiment is the complete failure that most of us realise it is. The sensible thing to do would be to reverse the policies that have allowed our communities to become so fractured and return to the sensible policies that once ensured that our society held together. Unfortunately, with our current crop of politicians this is unlikely to happen whether it is a Labour or Tory administration.
Nations are nothing other than the culmination of communities that share an identity, culture and history. It simply is not possible to introduce foreign cultures, alien identities and alternative histories into those communities and expect them to adapt to it. They won't. It is totally unreasonable to expect the majority to change to suit the minority. When forced to do so the majority will leave the community and try to find familiarity elsewhere - either within the nation or outside. The result will be what this report finds - fragmented and broken societies.
This report should be the final nail in the coffin of multiculturalism. It should be seen as the final warning that the only thing to do is return to the predominantly Christian culture that was once the bedrock of the greatest nation on earth. Failure to do so will ultimately lead to the end of this nation as we know it.
Community life in Britain has weakened substantially over the past 30 years, according to research commissioned by the BBC.
Although the article does mention immigration as being a contributory factor, at no time does it mention the thing that would have been the single biggest factor. The policy of multiculturalism. Instead they claim that the major reason for the breakdown of communities is wealth and transport.
Increased wealth and improved access to transport has made it easier for people to move for work, for retirement, for schools, for a new life.
Sorry, but this is speculation. Not only that, but it doesn't explain why people choose to move for "a new life". Retiring to the coast has been part and parcel of our lives for some time before 1971, but more and more younger people are choosing to leave the areas where they grew up and leave behind their friends and families in doing so. Why? No one chooses to make such an upheaval lightly.
They are doing so because the areas they once called home have changed beyond all recognition. Not only are they no longer familiar as part of their past, they are not even familiar as parts of their country. Fuelled by the policy of multiculturalism and driven by immigration, huge swathes of Britain are no longer "British". When people find that they are strangers in their own town they look elsewhere and that is what has driven the "mobility" that the researchers refer to - not wealth.
Living in Slough I can understand that. The only thing that stops me moving is a stubborn refusal to accept that my home town is no longer my own - even though I increasingly feel like the stranger. A walk down the high street confirms that with the proliferation of shopfronts and signs in foreign languages and where the sound of an English voice speaking the English language is increasingly rare.
The thing is, in a sane world this would be taken as confirmation that the multicultural experiment is the complete failure that most of us realise it is. The sensible thing to do would be to reverse the policies that have allowed our communities to become so fractured and return to the sensible policies that once ensured that our society held together. Unfortunately, with our current crop of politicians this is unlikely to happen whether it is a Labour or Tory administration.
Nations are nothing other than the culmination of communities that share an identity, culture and history. It simply is not possible to introduce foreign cultures, alien identities and alternative histories into those communities and expect them to adapt to it. They won't. It is totally unreasonable to expect the majority to change to suit the minority. When forced to do so the majority will leave the community and try to find familiarity elsewhere - either within the nation or outside. The result will be what this report finds - fragmented and broken societies.
This report should be the final nail in the coffin of multiculturalism. It should be seen as the final warning that the only thing to do is return to the predominantly Christian culture that was once the bedrock of the greatest nation on earth. Failure to do so will ultimately lead to the end of this nation as we know it.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
And the point is?
The BBC gives a lot of coverage to a rather pointless study which claims that married inmates are more likely to commit suicide than unmarried criminals.
Studies in the general population have consistently shown that marriage plays an important role in reducing the chances of someone taking their life.
But when the prison figures were analysed, the team found that the opposite was true. Those most likely to commit suicide in jail were white, male, married and working before they were convicted, the study concluded.
So now we know, being married and free reduces the likelihood of committing suicide. Being married and locked up increases the chances. And that helps society how, exactly?
Seriously, does anyone give a damn?
Studies in the general population have consistently shown that marriage plays an important role in reducing the chances of someone taking their life.
But when the prison figures were analysed, the team found that the opposite was true. Those most likely to commit suicide in jail were white, male, married and working before they were convicted, the study concluded.
So now we know, being married and free reduces the likelihood of committing suicide. Being married and locked up increases the chances. And that helps society how, exactly?
Seriously, does anyone give a damn?
Sunday, November 02, 2008
BBC promise to change not one bit
Listening to Mark Thompson on the Amdrew Marr show this morning it was pretty clear that the BBCs only intention is to ride this storm over Ross and Brand out as best it can before going back to how it was. The message was clear - we got caught this time, but we're not going to change.
This is, for me, perhaps more indicative of the BBC attitude than the actual incident itself. The sheer arrogance of an organisation which eats up £3 billion of public money while refusing to accept being held to account by the people from whom it takes this money is breathtaking.
It is not enough to say sorry for this clear breach of broadcasting standards, the BBC must take steps to ensure that it will never happen again, but Thompson was at pains to make it clear that, despite the furore, the BBC will continue to push the boundaries of taste. By doing so he makes it certain that something similar will occur once more, but the thing is that this latest outrage has become the benchmark - in other words, the BBC will push up to this limit at least and possibly beyond.
The remarkable thing is that there seem to be no taboos which the BBC will not consider breaking - except for the liberal progressive taboos. The simple fact is that the BBC would never allow anyone on its network to be so deliberately offensive to gays, blacks or Moslems. These are the only taboos which nobody may transgress on the BBC - all we ask is that similar standards be applied to the rest of society.
This is, for me, perhaps more indicative of the BBC attitude than the actual incident itself. The sheer arrogance of an organisation which eats up £3 billion of public money while refusing to accept being held to account by the people from whom it takes this money is breathtaking.
It is not enough to say sorry for this clear breach of broadcasting standards, the BBC must take steps to ensure that it will never happen again, but Thompson was at pains to make it clear that, despite the furore, the BBC will continue to push the boundaries of taste. By doing so he makes it certain that something similar will occur once more, but the thing is that this latest outrage has become the benchmark - in other words, the BBC will push up to this limit at least and possibly beyond.
The remarkable thing is that there seem to be no taboos which the BBC will not consider breaking - except for the liberal progressive taboos. The simple fact is that the BBC would never allow anyone on its network to be so deliberately offensive to gays, blacks or Moslems. These are the only taboos which nobody may transgress on the BBC - all we ask is that similar standards be applied to the rest of society.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
What is it that alarmists actually want?
It's rare that I praise The Guardian - and today is no exception. In a piece about thinning Arctic sea ice, Juliette Jowit gets some exercise by jumping to conclusions.
The findings, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, raise the possibility that the loss of the Arctic sea ice could accelerate, because as the ice recedes the water temperature rises.
Really? What does the author of the study say, Juliette?
Katharine Giles of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, who led the study, said it was too soon to say whether the downward trend would continue and lead to summer sea ice disappearing even faster than forecast. "It's dangerous to extrapolate out because colder weather would mean the ice could recover again," said Giles.
So the "possibility" that the Arctic melt could accelerate is "dangerous" to suggest. Not least because, as the article points out, the Arctic has been getting colder. The loss of sea ice in the last two years was not caused by warming temperatures - man-made or otherwise - but by entirely natural warm currents and strong winds. As the author points out, the Arctic is getting colder.
The north pole was predicted to be ice free this year by the alarmists - but it wasn't. Instead the sea ice extent actually grew (that's why this year is the second lowest, not the lowest). Does anyone remember the coverage of the guy who was intending to paddle his kayak to the north pole earlier in the year? He appeared on BBC TV and in lots of newspaper articles to publicise his stunt - and what happened to him?
He failed - miserably. Not that you'd know that from the news here which, having seen him off in a blaze of glory, then allowed the dismal failure of his attempt to drop from their radar. Doesn't fit the agenda, you see.
According to this site monitoring sea ice extent, the Arctic is recovering nicely - it already appears to be above 2005 levels and may even be approaching 2002 levels (my eye-sight ain't what it used to be). You can use this site to compare sea ice today with historic extents going back to 1979. As you can see, October 27th 2008 doesn't look a great deal different to October 27th 1979.
The findings, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, raise the possibility that the loss of the Arctic sea ice could accelerate, because as the ice recedes the water temperature rises.
Really? What does the author of the study say, Juliette?
Katharine Giles of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London, who led the study, said it was too soon to say whether the downward trend would continue and lead to summer sea ice disappearing even faster than forecast. "It's dangerous to extrapolate out because colder weather would mean the ice could recover again," said Giles.
So the "possibility" that the Arctic melt could accelerate is "dangerous" to suggest. Not least because, as the article points out, the Arctic has been getting colder. The loss of sea ice in the last two years was not caused by warming temperatures - man-made or otherwise - but by entirely natural warm currents and strong winds. As the author points out, the Arctic is getting colder.
The north pole was predicted to be ice free this year by the alarmists - but it wasn't. Instead the sea ice extent actually grew (that's why this year is the second lowest, not the lowest). Does anyone remember the coverage of the guy who was intending to paddle his kayak to the north pole earlier in the year? He appeared on BBC TV and in lots of newspaper articles to publicise his stunt - and what happened to him?
He failed - miserably. Not that you'd know that from the news here which, having seen him off in a blaze of glory, then allowed the dismal failure of his attempt to drop from their radar. Doesn't fit the agenda, you see.
According to this site monitoring sea ice extent, the Arctic is recovering nicely - it already appears to be above 2005 levels and may even be approaching 2002 levels (my eye-sight ain't what it used to be). You can use this site to compare sea ice today with historic extents going back to 1979. As you can see, October 27th 2008 doesn't look a great deal different to October 27th 1979.
Perhaps the most curious thing about all this is that the alarmists are not jumping for joy at the way their predictions are failing to materialise. You'd have thought they'd be happy that the Arctic is recovering nicely, temperatures have cooled globally over the last 10 years, polar bears are thriving, and the human fingerprint that is supposed to prove we are the cause of global warming has failed to materialise in the tropical upper troposphere indicating that whatever did cause the globe to warm it wasn't man-made CO2 emissions.
So, given that the earth, despite all the nasty things man does, is doing very well thank you very much, you'd have thought they'd be content. Instead their hand wringing becomes even more frenzied.
So why do they seem more determined than ever to push this busted theory forward? You don't suppose that they might actually have a hidden agenda do you?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Olympically OTT
Before I get into this rant I should point out that I'm not much of a sports fan, but am I the only one in Britain who hasn't found the "celebration" of our athlete's relative success in Peking a little over the top? It seems as if we've had virtually non-stop 24 hour coverage of the blasted circus for the last three weeks with even the news carrying the Olympics as its main story line.
Of course, I recognise that winning an Olympic gold medal is quite an achievement, but I also recognise that they are only doing what they are supposed to do and that they have - on the whole - received an awful lot of taxpayers money to do. In that respect they are far more fortunate than the vast majority of us, so for much of the media to then suggest that their efforts should be recognised with further honours - knighthoods, MBE's and so on - is ridiculous and cheapens the honours system.
The honours should be reserved for those who have given a lifetime of service to the nation or carried out some selfless act - not for those privileged athletes who are largely insulated from the rigours of everyday life that so many of us mere mortals go through.
I have no problem with honours being bestowed on sporting personalities after a lifetime of achievement and dedication - generally they have not only worked hard in their own sport but have done a great deal of good for charity and the nation, but I find the idea of handing out gongs to a 22 year old just for winning one event at the right time rather silly.
One other thing that has struck me during the Olympic fortnight was the incredible sycophancy of the BBC towards the Chinese. From the opening ceremony where BBC commentators gasped in awe like dumbstruck children at the gaudy, vulgar but wonderfully stage managed displays on show (totalitarian regimes are usually very good at stage managed displays - fear is often a good motivator) and through every event they have been doing nothing but telling us how wonderful the Games were and how great the Chinese are.
Yeah, they are great as long as you don't mention the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or the millions who have died at the hands of this oppressive nation. It was always a mistake, in my view, to give the Olympic Games to the Chinese - they were always going to use it as a political lever and the BBC more than anyone have helped them to do this.
From what I understand, the Berlin Olympics of 1936 were wonderfully stage managed too and went a long way to allaying some of the fears people had about the Nazi regime. It would be another 12 years and millions of violent deaths before there was another Olympic Games. There is also a certain irony that after the Berlin Olympics the next city to host them would be London in 1948 - as it will be after the Peking Games.
Though I don't expect the same thing to happen this time I do find it repugnant that another viciously oppressive totalitarian regime is once more allowed to present a false visage to the world through a sporting meet and that our own state broadcaster more than anyone supports them in doing so.
Of course, I recognise that winning an Olympic gold medal is quite an achievement, but I also recognise that they are only doing what they are supposed to do and that they have - on the whole - received an awful lot of taxpayers money to do. In that respect they are far more fortunate than the vast majority of us, so for much of the media to then suggest that their efforts should be recognised with further honours - knighthoods, MBE's and so on - is ridiculous and cheapens the honours system.
The honours should be reserved for those who have given a lifetime of service to the nation or carried out some selfless act - not for those privileged athletes who are largely insulated from the rigours of everyday life that so many of us mere mortals go through.
I have no problem with honours being bestowed on sporting personalities after a lifetime of achievement and dedication - generally they have not only worked hard in their own sport but have done a great deal of good for charity and the nation, but I find the idea of handing out gongs to a 22 year old just for winning one event at the right time rather silly.
One other thing that has struck me during the Olympic fortnight was the incredible sycophancy of the BBC towards the Chinese. From the opening ceremony where BBC commentators gasped in awe like dumbstruck children at the gaudy, vulgar but wonderfully stage managed displays on show (totalitarian regimes are usually very good at stage managed displays - fear is often a good motivator) and through every event they have been doing nothing but telling us how wonderful the Games were and how great the Chinese are.
Yeah, they are great as long as you don't mention the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or the millions who have died at the hands of this oppressive nation. It was always a mistake, in my view, to give the Olympic Games to the Chinese - they were always going to use it as a political lever and the BBC more than anyone have helped them to do this.
From what I understand, the Berlin Olympics of 1936 were wonderfully stage managed too and went a long way to allaying some of the fears people had about the Nazi regime. It would be another 12 years and millions of violent deaths before there was another Olympic Games. There is also a certain irony that after the Berlin Olympics the next city to host them would be London in 1948 - as it will be after the Peking Games.
Though I don't expect the same thing to happen this time I do find it repugnant that another viciously oppressive totalitarian regime is once more allowed to present a false visage to the world through a sporting meet and that our own state broadcaster more than anyone supports them in doing so.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Swindling the viewer
The makers of the Great Global Warming Swindle have been given a slap on the wrist by the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom (who makes up these stupid names). Apparently the ticking off was not because the programme misled viewers in any way, but it did, so Ofcom claim, break Channel 4's own rules on "impartiality".
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
A couple of things about this decision intrigue me. First of all, why would anyone think that a programme entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" would be impartial? The clue is in the title, guys.
Secondly, seeing how Channel 4 news run considerably more reports which do mislead the public regarding global warming and very rarely provide any balance to the opposing viewpoint why is it that Channel 4 News hasn't been criticised for breaking it's own impartiality guidelines?
Thirdly, why did this Ofcom finding get so much news coverage? The Great Global Warming Swindle was made, in part, as a response to Al Gore's much vaunted and totally one-sided "An Inconvenient Truth". This film was not only very partial, is was found to be far from the truth and contained no less than 11 inaccuracies which did materially mislead the viewer according to British judges.
Did that news receive the same sort of coverage as this? I don't think so.
It's one of the reasons why people like Al Gore and the equally disreputable Michael Moore prefer to make "movies" rather than TV documentaries. If you make a documentary for television you have to abide by certain rules like "being honest" - but if you make that "documentary" for the cinema those rules don't apply. So you can lie as much as you like, you can be as partial as you like, you can cut and edit to twist the words and views of people as much as you like - it's only a film. Doesn't stop those films being shown on television, though.
Anyway - having made this ruling, I wonder if Ofcom will get off their backsides to do anything about the way broadcasters - especially the BBC - present man-made global warming as "fact" without ever questioning it?
I won't hold mu breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)