Hands up if you think the BBC has done what it sees as it's core responsibility, in a situation like Covid 19 is presenting and that is, to spread as much panic as humanly possible. I don't think they've missed any opportunity, failed to exaggerate and push the narrative.
It is a fabulous organisation, with guaranteed funding, stuffed only with Left ideological staff and certain of it's righteousness and just how benign it's instructions to the population are.
They say they have to pay their senior management huge salaries, to attract the best talent. My question would be, when do you intend to start recruiting talent?
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Friday, 6 March 2020
Monday, 26 March 2018
Is Labour Anti-Semitic?
There are numerous, almost unending examples of anti-Semitism at the forefront of the Labour political machine, since Corbyn became leader. Corbyn either doesn't apologise, denies the truth or issues a non-apology apology (as now). So, yes Labour is deeply rooted in anti-Semitism.
Naturally, with such a high profile story affecting the leader of the Opposition, the BBC led with it at lunchtime news. They reported what people were saying and then went to interview their own political correspondent, as is the vogue these days. He skirted around the subject and didn't offer any analysis either, like why people are making the accusation, what the substance was.
In other words, the BBC admit it is an important story, but do their best to just give an anodyne report allowing lefties and those who don't generally pay attention to think it is all hot air and not worth the bother.
Not a huge surprise for an organisation run by rich, dinner-party lefties who are absolutely certain that they know more than you and are better people too.
Naturally, with such a high profile story affecting the leader of the Opposition, the BBC led with it at lunchtime news. They reported what people were saying and then went to interview their own political correspondent, as is the vogue these days. He skirted around the subject and didn't offer any analysis either, like why people are making the accusation, what the substance was.
In other words, the BBC admit it is an important story, but do their best to just give an anodyne report allowing lefties and those who don't generally pay attention to think it is all hot air and not worth the bother.
Not a huge surprise for an organisation run by rich, dinner-party lefties who are absolutely certain that they know more than you and are better people too.
Wednesday, 16 August 2017
Trump In A China Shop
It is sadly true that Donald Trump pretty much resembles a bull in a china shop when he decides to give his view on something. This is a problem, because, quite often, his instinct for what is right is pretty much spot on.
No-one of a reasonable demeanour would find the ridiculous notion that the colour of a person's skin has anything to do with capability or personality. Obama was an idiot because he is lazy and self-absorbed, not because of his skin.
So, clearly white supremacists are barking up a dead tree. This is not opinion, or current fashion such as gay marriage, this is just a fact. Western culture has been the most successful but the fact that Westerners are white natively, is coincidental, related to place not success.
Those with odious views know they are disliked by pretty much everyone else, so are likely, I would hazard, to strike out and be violent people. It's kind of the way people are. The Left however are very keen on political violence. We see this everywhere, in London, Paris, New York anywhere there is publicity likely. G20 summits, Climate Change gatherings etc.
These people are no less scum than the white supremacist, but absolutely set out to create a violent confrontation that can (and will by the moronic, compliant press) be blamed on the 'Far Right'. To be clear though, this is very much a trick, a sleight of hand. The 'Far Right' are in fact identical to and part of the totalitarian creed that encompasses the Left.
So the violence was really two sets of malign, ignorant and dangerous groups, one who wishes just to get their way within society (white supremacists) and the other wishing to get their way by running society as they see fit (Lefties). Both are detested by the actual Right, which to be the opposite end of the spectrum to them, would be normal, freedom-loving, democratic, liberal people, such as the true Conservatives in the UK (e.g. not Theresa May or David Cameron).
Have we seen, or heard testimony about how the violence started at the white supremacist rally? No we haven't, but we are assured that it was entirely the fault of these 'Far Right' people and Trump not repeating this is an abomination. Or confected rage? It is very likely I feel, given the propensity of the Left to seek violent confrontation, that it was mutual.
That would make Trump's statement correct. When he says that the press can't be trusted to report the facts, he is right; they are not to be trusted. Their interest, as we here see endlessly on the BBC, is to blame him for everything. His name comes up in reports where he can't possibly be involved, but if it's negative, up comes the reference.
There is a phrase that I have never liked , but that seems to fit very well in this kind of situation. The Left have put you in a box regarding what you should see as acceptable, how you should think. Well, try thinking outside the box. The Emperor you know, has no clothes really. And the Left is not your friend.
No-one of a reasonable demeanour would find the ridiculous notion that the colour of a person's skin has anything to do with capability or personality. Obama was an idiot because he is lazy and self-absorbed, not because of his skin.
So, clearly white supremacists are barking up a dead tree. This is not opinion, or current fashion such as gay marriage, this is just a fact. Western culture has been the most successful but the fact that Westerners are white natively, is coincidental, related to place not success.
Those with odious views know they are disliked by pretty much everyone else, so are likely, I would hazard, to strike out and be violent people. It's kind of the way people are. The Left however are very keen on political violence. We see this everywhere, in London, Paris, New York anywhere there is publicity likely. G20 summits, Climate Change gatherings etc.
These people are no less scum than the white supremacist, but absolutely set out to create a violent confrontation that can (and will by the moronic, compliant press) be blamed on the 'Far Right'. To be clear though, this is very much a trick, a sleight of hand. The 'Far Right' are in fact identical to and part of the totalitarian creed that encompasses the Left.
So the violence was really two sets of malign, ignorant and dangerous groups, one who wishes just to get their way within society (white supremacists) and the other wishing to get their way by running society as they see fit (Lefties). Both are detested by the actual Right, which to be the opposite end of the spectrum to them, would be normal, freedom-loving, democratic, liberal people, such as the true Conservatives in the UK (e.g. not Theresa May or David Cameron).
Have we seen, or heard testimony about how the violence started at the white supremacist rally? No we haven't, but we are assured that it was entirely the fault of these 'Far Right' people and Trump not repeating this is an abomination. Or confected rage? It is very likely I feel, given the propensity of the Left to seek violent confrontation, that it was mutual.
That would make Trump's statement correct. When he says that the press can't be trusted to report the facts, he is right; they are not to be trusted. Their interest, as we here see endlessly on the BBC, is to blame him for everything. His name comes up in reports where he can't possibly be involved, but if it's negative, up comes the reference.
There is a phrase that I have never liked , but that seems to fit very well in this kind of situation. The Left have put you in a box regarding what you should see as acceptable, how you should think. Well, try thinking outside the box. The Emperor you know, has no clothes really. And the Left is not your friend.
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Duck! It's Donald
Is Donald Trump the right person to be US President? I have no idea; he comes across as a gimp though. But anyway, it brought tears of delight to me to hear the BBC's very own half-wit, Jeremy Vine squealing in uncontrollable indignation that Trump had won, on Radio 2 this morning. His pain at such an affront to his right-on, I'm-cleverer-than-you, quinoa eating world was sheer delight.
How could you not howl with laughter at the irony of his outrage at the huge swathe of people in the US who voted for Trump. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they differ from Vine's view and he is a great supporter of democracy.
He had some wondrous assertions; firstly that only old, white people voted for Trump (must be a lot of them then) and secondly that it was as weird as if Piers Morgan was the Prime Minister. No, luvvy, it is as mad as if you were Prime Minister. That would be a nation that had lost its senses.
How could you not howl with laughter at the irony of his outrage at the huge swathe of people in the US who voted for Trump. They shouldn't be allowed to vote because they differ from Vine's view and he is a great supporter of democracy.
He had some wondrous assertions; firstly that only old, white people voted for Trump (must be a lot of them then) and secondly that it was as weird as if Piers Morgan was the Prime Minister. No, luvvy, it is as mad as if you were Prime Minister. That would be a nation that had lost its senses.
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
The Campaign
The big news today of course is the 100 business people who have signed a letter supporting the Conservatives. Their rationale is that it is not the time to change direction, but to stick with the policies which are quite clearly working.
Difficult to argue with that and even the charge that they are looking after their own interests is hardly different from anyone else. Business votes for the party of low corporation tax, benefits claimants vote for the party that offers the most benefits.
However self-evidently true the letter's contents it does not affect the BBC though. After headlining the letter they go to Chuka Umunna (Labour) for two disparaging quotes. Then they mention that two thirds of economists think that the austerity measures are wrong and unnecessary (not heard that claim before), going on to interview one from the left leaning London Business School.
His point was that things were recovering anyway so the austerity measures were not needed. He went on to explain that the measures were actually just to pay down the deficit in this parliament, something that hasn't been achieved. Oh dear. So which is it? Did it achieve nothing? Was there really an austerity drive? How did not spending not affect the public purse?
But he is an economist so the economy confuses him. Look what it does to Ed Balls! Chuka too was a gem. Apparently, the Tories organised this letter and it was in the Tory supporting Telegraph. And? Proof? But then, what about the Labour advert using unauthorised quotes about the EU, to claim businesses support Labour?
Was this advert not placed in the Labour supporting FT? So do Labour want business backing or not? Why claim it the day before announcing you intend to return to punitive taxing of business?
Then there was the issue of zero hours contracts. I wonder how many people, unable to get any other employment are looking at their job ending if Labour win the election. Because companies cannot afford sometimes to give that commitment.
Thatcher correctly identified that 'the problem with Socialism is that, eventually they run out of other people's money'. Except Socialism is a movement to address issues of deprivation, lack of opportunity and unfair bias in society. Labour today are interested only in state control and increasing its reach.
Much like Oxfam would be out of business if they solved problems, so Labour would be out of business unless there were people locked on benefits. It has not so much created a client class, as condemned a whole section of society to a hopeless future, in the name of maintaining Labour as a party.
All the Union leaders are Marxists, working to bring about a totalitarian state run by them. They do not have to pull too hard on the strings binding Ed Miliband to them as he is also a committed Marxist.
Whilst nothing is perfect, the least worst option is a Conservative government. But the alternative of a communist government under Labour, or worse still a coalition of communists, Greens, SNP would see Britain rapidly spiralling into recession and possibly depression.
They would stifle economic activity, they would increase costs, push up taxes both direct and on things like energy and fuel and would simply lose money dreaming up crackpot schemes and being fleeced by chancers and conmen. Or their friends as they are otherwise known.
Difficult to argue with that and even the charge that they are looking after their own interests is hardly different from anyone else. Business votes for the party of low corporation tax, benefits claimants vote for the party that offers the most benefits.
However self-evidently true the letter's contents it does not affect the BBC though. After headlining the letter they go to Chuka Umunna (Labour) for two disparaging quotes. Then they mention that two thirds of economists think that the austerity measures are wrong and unnecessary (not heard that claim before), going on to interview one from the left leaning London Business School.
His point was that things were recovering anyway so the austerity measures were not needed. He went on to explain that the measures were actually just to pay down the deficit in this parliament, something that hasn't been achieved. Oh dear. So which is it? Did it achieve nothing? Was there really an austerity drive? How did not spending not affect the public purse?
But he is an economist so the economy confuses him. Look what it does to Ed Balls! Chuka too was a gem. Apparently, the Tories organised this letter and it was in the Tory supporting Telegraph. And? Proof? But then, what about the Labour advert using unauthorised quotes about the EU, to claim businesses support Labour?
Was this advert not placed in the Labour supporting FT? So do Labour want business backing or not? Why claim it the day before announcing you intend to return to punitive taxing of business?
Then there was the issue of zero hours contracts. I wonder how many people, unable to get any other employment are looking at their job ending if Labour win the election. Because companies cannot afford sometimes to give that commitment.
Thatcher correctly identified that 'the problem with Socialism is that, eventually they run out of other people's money'. Except Socialism is a movement to address issues of deprivation, lack of opportunity and unfair bias in society. Labour today are interested only in state control and increasing its reach.
Much like Oxfam would be out of business if they solved problems, so Labour would be out of business unless there were people locked on benefits. It has not so much created a client class, as condemned a whole section of society to a hopeless future, in the name of maintaining Labour as a party.
All the Union leaders are Marxists, working to bring about a totalitarian state run by them. They do not have to pull too hard on the strings binding Ed Miliband to them as he is also a committed Marxist.
Whilst nothing is perfect, the least worst option is a Conservative government. But the alternative of a communist government under Labour, or worse still a coalition of communists, Greens, SNP would see Britain rapidly spiralling into recession and possibly depression.
They would stifle economic activity, they would increase costs, push up taxes both direct and on things like energy and fuel and would simply lose money dreaming up crackpot schemes and being fleeced by chancers and conmen. Or their friends as they are otherwise known.
Thursday, 26 March 2015
Sybolism
Some things become symbols, a cipher for larger events and so I believe is the 'sacking' of Jeremy Clarkson. The state subsidised Left wing broadcaster, the BBC cannot contain itself that finally they feel justified in shooting the golden goose, who has the wrong political ideas.
Despite an inquiry, at the highest level in the BBC, news gets out early and the world, including Clarkson presumably learnt that he has been sacked, via the media. So, done deliberately then. This becomes more obvious when the announcement that the Live shows were cancelled was made during the 'investigation'.
The legions of incompetent half-wits, whose only true ability is to gull similarly challenged people to give them high paid jobs, who run the BBC can now update the motoring show 'Top Gear'. So expect legions of lentil eating soap dodgers to whine endlessly about how to get rid of cars. Whilst demanding a limousine to pick them up, or possibly a helicopter from their tax haven home.
This will be presented as 'cutting edge' and 'a daring new direction', with the word diversity slipped in every so often.
In the past, we all found someone who was monumentally useless at their job and whilst we would moan about them when they caused us grief, if they kept their head down that was usually it. Rare and moderately tolerated. Now, with organisations like the BBC stupidity must stand out on your CV every bit as much as statements of support for a range of pointless or better still, damaging Left wing concepts.
And you must mention diversity.
Of course the publicity hungry, political police couldn't wait either. So up they pop to see if they can arrest and charge another non-Left celebrity with something. When one of their own politicians was filmed punching a member of the public, they spent a month reviewing the evidence to see if a crime had been committed and then decided, probably not.
Enormous resources devoted to chasing sex pest celebrities from decades ago, who turn out to be innocent or the politically motivated pursuit of journalists, to shut them up when there is no proof of wrongdoing at all. (Well apart from the police hacking phones in the desperate hope of finding something even mildly incriminating).
But no resources at all devoted to dealing with real crimes against huge numbers of young girls. Or actual pervert politicians.
The Lefties are the reason the BBC is as bad as it is, are the reason we had a world wide recession, are the reason you pay so much tax, why you cannot think certain things, why people die so routinely in hospitals and why your children will struggle to get a quality education. Have you not had enough of this yet?
Despite an inquiry, at the highest level in the BBC, news gets out early and the world, including Clarkson presumably learnt that he has been sacked, via the media. So, done deliberately then. This becomes more obvious when the announcement that the Live shows were cancelled was made during the 'investigation'.
The legions of incompetent half-wits, whose only true ability is to gull similarly challenged people to give them high paid jobs, who run the BBC can now update the motoring show 'Top Gear'. So expect legions of lentil eating soap dodgers to whine endlessly about how to get rid of cars. Whilst demanding a limousine to pick them up, or possibly a helicopter from their tax haven home.
This will be presented as 'cutting edge' and 'a daring new direction', with the word diversity slipped in every so often.
In the past, we all found someone who was monumentally useless at their job and whilst we would moan about them when they caused us grief, if they kept their head down that was usually it. Rare and moderately tolerated. Now, with organisations like the BBC stupidity must stand out on your CV every bit as much as statements of support for a range of pointless or better still, damaging Left wing concepts.
And you must mention diversity.
Of course the publicity hungry, political police couldn't wait either. So up they pop to see if they can arrest and charge another non-Left celebrity with something. When one of their own politicians was filmed punching a member of the public, they spent a month reviewing the evidence to see if a crime had been committed and then decided, probably not.
Enormous resources devoted to chasing sex pest celebrities from decades ago, who turn out to be innocent or the politically motivated pursuit of journalists, to shut them up when there is no proof of wrongdoing at all. (Well apart from the police hacking phones in the desperate hope of finding something even mildly incriminating).
But no resources at all devoted to dealing with real crimes against huge numbers of young girls. Or actual pervert politicians.
The Lefties are the reason the BBC is as bad as it is, are the reason we had a world wide recession, are the reason you pay so much tax, why you cannot think certain things, why people die so routinely in hospitals and why your children will struggle to get a quality education. Have you not had enough of this yet?
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
A Telling-Off From Judith Wanga
The Telegraph has an article by someone called Judith Wanga today and I have to say I haven't read such confused, yet pontificating drivel in quite some time. And I say that despite the Left squealing loudly everyday about some affront, hurt or pretend crisis.
Judith feels that her personal opinion trumps that of millions of people, so a standard Leftie. She has to be right, because she knows how lovely she is. And she only asks you to hate people she doesn't like.
The article is about Jeremy Clarkson. Well, it is in passing because Judith is spectacularly comfortable interpreting what Clarkson meant in any utterance and invents others that he, probably only an oversight, never got around to saying.
Admitting we don't know the details yet, she prattles on about how his supporters leapt to his defence without knowing what he had done, but she knows he did a horrible thing. Although, we don't know what happened.
She says he called his dog Didier Drogba because he is racist and was 'harking back to the days of dehumanising black people and comparing them to animals'. I don't remember these days and I'm a bit older than Clarkson, but young Judith remembers them. When you are looking to take offence it is good to have done your research (or make it up).
The chance that he has the dog because he likes it and, as a Chelsea supporter named his dog after one of their stars not only doesn't occur to her, it is in fact a disallowed thought, because it suggests way too much humanism against someone she is demonising.
And that is clearly her underlying creed; when she wants to take offence everything you say is wrong. She will set the standard, she will tell you what you are allowed to think. The comment that Clakson supporters think 'PC gone mad' is what Clarkson is against, she makes the usual lazy Leftie assertion.
Naturally something as mad a political correctness doesn't need any additions to do its harm. Designed solely to allow lightweights such as Judith to shut down debate (you can't say that) and accuse anyone they target with a range of -isms invented possibly on the spot, tailored to suit. Even the phrase 'people like Clarkson' admits to stereotypes which is something Judith complains bitterly about.
National stereotypes always seem to have some real world relevance, but that can't be allowed in Marxist fantasy land, where everything must be seen through their political prism.
I don't know what happened in the 'fracas' and I don't know how one of Clarkson's employers, the BBC should react to an incident that didn't happen on their premises or while he was 'at work'. But the Left of course don't do truth, justice or fairness when they have a target in their sights. Judith proves it with an article of personal (affected) affront, full of arrant nonsense. There must be real and talented writers and commentators out there surely, Telegraph?
Judith feels that her personal opinion trumps that of millions of people, so a standard Leftie. She has to be right, because she knows how lovely she is. And she only asks you to hate people she doesn't like.
The article is about Jeremy Clarkson. Well, it is in passing because Judith is spectacularly comfortable interpreting what Clarkson meant in any utterance and invents others that he, probably only an oversight, never got around to saying.
Admitting we don't know the details yet, she prattles on about how his supporters leapt to his defence without knowing what he had done, but she knows he did a horrible thing. Although, we don't know what happened.
She says he called his dog Didier Drogba because he is racist and was 'harking back to the days of dehumanising black people and comparing them to animals'. I don't remember these days and I'm a bit older than Clarkson, but young Judith remembers them. When you are looking to take offence it is good to have done your research (or make it up).
The chance that he has the dog because he likes it and, as a Chelsea supporter named his dog after one of their stars not only doesn't occur to her, it is in fact a disallowed thought, because it suggests way too much humanism against someone she is demonising.
And that is clearly her underlying creed; when she wants to take offence everything you say is wrong. She will set the standard, she will tell you what you are allowed to think. The comment that Clakson supporters think 'PC gone mad' is what Clarkson is against, she makes the usual lazy Leftie assertion.
Naturally something as mad a political correctness doesn't need any additions to do its harm. Designed solely to allow lightweights such as Judith to shut down debate (you can't say that) and accuse anyone they target with a range of -isms invented possibly on the spot, tailored to suit. Even the phrase 'people like Clarkson' admits to stereotypes which is something Judith complains bitterly about.
National stereotypes always seem to have some real world relevance, but that can't be allowed in Marxist fantasy land, where everything must be seen through their political prism.
I don't know what happened in the 'fracas' and I don't know how one of Clarkson's employers, the BBC should react to an incident that didn't happen on their premises or while he was 'at work'. But the Left of course don't do truth, justice or fairness when they have a target in their sights. Judith proves it with an article of personal (affected) affront, full of arrant nonsense. There must be real and talented writers and commentators out there surely, Telegraph?
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
If Roger Harrabin Could Tell The Truth
A report by the vested-interest journalist Roger Harrabin on BBC news was laughable. It is more nonsense to support the global warming scam, which he benefits from financially.
He says that solar power could provide 4 percent of UK energy by the end of the decade and interviewed an industry spokesperson who said solar could be price competitive with fossil fuel electricity within ten years, if subsidies remain stable.
Now, if Roger was able to tell the truth, he would start by questioning the whole reason for vast, ugly, highly reflective fields of solar panels. Prices have dropped it is true, but not enough. Harrabin would then say that worldwide solar currently contributes roughly 0% of energy used and the UK will need to cover enormous areas of land to approach a 4% figure.
Even then, it will be 4% while the sun is shining. What the interviewee didn't say, he could disclose is that the companies building solar farms (and wind farms) do so only to farm the subsidies, not because it is a viable energy source. And the government must keep pushing the price of oil and gas up by taxing it. Oh, and not allowing fracking.
So Roger's headline comment wouldn't have been that 'solar has taken off massively in the UK', it would have been that the collection of state subsidies has been massive, for no benefit.
You think the Left have a use? That they help the small against mighty government? Then why are they the leading proponents of the redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich, via the raising of energy prices, which hit the poor disproportionately hard, merely to hand subsidies to the wealthy?
He says that solar power could provide 4 percent of UK energy by the end of the decade and interviewed an industry spokesperson who said solar could be price competitive with fossil fuel electricity within ten years, if subsidies remain stable.
Now, if Roger was able to tell the truth, he would start by questioning the whole reason for vast, ugly, highly reflective fields of solar panels. Prices have dropped it is true, but not enough. Harrabin would then say that worldwide solar currently contributes roughly 0% of energy used and the UK will need to cover enormous areas of land to approach a 4% figure.
Even then, it will be 4% while the sun is shining. What the interviewee didn't say, he could disclose is that the companies building solar farms (and wind farms) do so only to farm the subsidies, not because it is a viable energy source. And the government must keep pushing the price of oil and gas up by taxing it. Oh, and not allowing fracking.
So Roger's headline comment wouldn't have been that 'solar has taken off massively in the UK', it would have been that the collection of state subsidies has been massive, for no benefit.
You think the Left have a use? That they help the small against mighty government? Then why are they the leading proponents of the redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich, via the raising of energy prices, which hit the poor disproportionately hard, merely to hand subsidies to the wealthy?
Monday, 16 March 2015
Sack Danny Cohen
The Jeremy Clarkson fuss has thrown into the spotlight just how the BBC operates, perhaps more clearly than ever before. It is time for change.
The Marxist agenda running through (and ruining) society has had too much sway for too long and the BBC has been the main propaganda source of the Left. It pushes the global warming scam, it undermines capitalism, freedom of speech, proper education for children and much else besides. Indeed, it helps the Political Correctness mantra of 'you can't say that' by direct measures and interventions.
So the licence fee paying public should at last stand up and be counted, other than by the BBC and its mysterious detector vans! However the BBC is allowed to continue we need to be demanding that standards are set and met by the Corporation and a proper accountability put in place.
No longer should endless Left wing politics be the sole reasoning, repeats and mindless drivel (thinkin' of you Frankie Boyle, oh yeah, you know it) its entire output. The culture of bullying embedded in the way it operates should be dismantled too and all of these things can only happen if we break up the cosy cartel of jobs for the 'correct'.
A good place to start would be the arrogant, without substance, Danny Cohen. If you work at a place like the BBC (a renewable energy company, a council, school, NGO) you are not allowed to have any views contrary to Left wing edicts. You must speak well of any amount of patent stupidity or risk losing your job. All around you are automatons spouting mindless politicospeak, who shriek like frightened mice if you disagree.
Disagreement is not debate to them, there is no prospect that they may have missed something, might learn something; you are just wrong. And as with Jeremy Clarkson, Danny Cohen would have you sent for 're-education' in proper Marxist thought processes (that he calls re-hab!)
There are too many overpaid dumplings taking up space in the BBC. It has long been fashionable to moan about their number and their salaries and whilst these are offensive, they are not really the point. No, despite being overpaid and too numerous by a large margin they actually and actively do harm. That is the reason to get rid of them all.
Without them the Corporation would have more money, to spend on proper programmes well made. And no-one to make sure that it all 'complied'.
If Danny Cohen is so sure about his Marxist tosh, then he should stick with it. I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year and do seem short of really solid top level managers in their TV industry.
Then Jeremy Clarkson can have his job back, but don't let him run the BBC. God, could you imagine that?!
The Marxist agenda running through (and ruining) society has had too much sway for too long and the BBC has been the main propaganda source of the Left. It pushes the global warming scam, it undermines capitalism, freedom of speech, proper education for children and much else besides. Indeed, it helps the Political Correctness mantra of 'you can't say that' by direct measures and interventions.
So the licence fee paying public should at last stand up and be counted, other than by the BBC and its mysterious detector vans! However the BBC is allowed to continue we need to be demanding that standards are set and met by the Corporation and a proper accountability put in place.
No longer should endless Left wing politics be the sole reasoning, repeats and mindless drivel (thinkin' of you Frankie Boyle, oh yeah, you know it) its entire output. The culture of bullying embedded in the way it operates should be dismantled too and all of these things can only happen if we break up the cosy cartel of jobs for the 'correct'.
A good place to start would be the arrogant, without substance, Danny Cohen. If you work at a place like the BBC (a renewable energy company, a council, school, NGO) you are not allowed to have any views contrary to Left wing edicts. You must speak well of any amount of patent stupidity or risk losing your job. All around you are automatons spouting mindless politicospeak, who shriek like frightened mice if you disagree.
Disagreement is not debate to them, there is no prospect that they may have missed something, might learn something; you are just wrong. And as with Jeremy Clarkson, Danny Cohen would have you sent for 're-education' in proper Marxist thought processes (that he calls re-hab!)
There are too many overpaid dumplings taking up space in the BBC. It has long been fashionable to moan about their number and their salaries and whilst these are offensive, they are not really the point. No, despite being overpaid and too numerous by a large margin they actually and actively do harm. That is the reason to get rid of them all.
Without them the Corporation would have more money, to spend on proper programmes well made. And no-one to make sure that it all 'complied'.
If Danny Cohen is so sure about his Marxist tosh, then he should stick with it. I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year and do seem short of really solid top level managers in their TV industry.
Then Jeremy Clarkson can have his job back, but don't let him run the BBC. God, could you imagine that?!
Wednesday, 11 March 2015
Why Has Jeremy Clarkson Been Suspended?
Clearly biffing someone is not a debating stance that most people would accept as relevant or proportionate. Nor would it realistically be considered a fitting form of punishment for a transgression. Word is that Jezza struck someone, a producer, for not having organised a meal for the presenters, to be taken post filming.
Sounds a tad trivial to us and maybe a little 'superstar', but probably not far North of what anyone would do after a long day and when it is the norm and expected. I believe outlets for the provision of food are numerous and some open quite late. But if catering is part of the package, well, you know.
Still not right to hit someone though (for reasons of clarity, can I make clear that by 'someone' I am inferring 'anyone excepting Piers Morgan'). However, the story goes currently, that Clarkson says he didn't hit anyone.
But the BBC is right to act, yes? Actually, the question is irrelevant, the money, popularity and the money that Top Gear brings in has stopped the eager souls at the top of the BBC (nearly said 'work for'! Work? Not likely) from ditching the show years ago.
Left liberals (as they call themselves) have been screaming to delete Jeremy Clarkson for as long as he has been allowed airtime. He not only promotes cars, which are evil in their eyes, but he does so with a distinct lack of seriousness. In fact, you could go as far as suggesting a degree of tomfoolery. Worse, as part of the jocularity, he says and encourages others to say things that are not Left wing.
This ability to have an opinion runs contrary to all they have been working towards, and largely succeeded over decades. They do not want to see a counter-culture survive and thrive. Clarkson tells jokes without the target being Margaret Thatcher, he lampoons beloved public services on the supposedly important grounds that they lack use. And he suggests that things they say and do are idiotic, particularly heath and safety Nazis and speed limits for no purpose.
Clarkson has even objected, on occasion to the Left telling lies, as if that could ever matter, in the cause of the greater good.
So basically, Clarkson had to go and it seems that now he has given the pathetic wretches who run too much of everything in this country, enough to force their co-religionists to be rid of him. Good. Let's get the team on Sky where the programme could have some real life and not sully the BBC or hinder in their race to the bottom, largely on their own.
Perhaps they could call it 'Gold-Top Gear, the Cream of Motoring Shows'
Sounds a tad trivial to us and maybe a little 'superstar', but probably not far North of what anyone would do after a long day and when it is the norm and expected. I believe outlets for the provision of food are numerous and some open quite late. But if catering is part of the package, well, you know.
Still not right to hit someone though (for reasons of clarity, can I make clear that by 'someone' I am inferring 'anyone excepting Piers Morgan'). However, the story goes currently, that Clarkson says he didn't hit anyone.
But the BBC is right to act, yes? Actually, the question is irrelevant, the money, popularity and the money that Top Gear brings in has stopped the eager souls at the top of the BBC (nearly said 'work for'! Work? Not likely) from ditching the show years ago.
Left liberals (as they call themselves) have been screaming to delete Jeremy Clarkson for as long as he has been allowed airtime. He not only promotes cars, which are evil in their eyes, but he does so with a distinct lack of seriousness. In fact, you could go as far as suggesting a degree of tomfoolery. Worse, as part of the jocularity, he says and encourages others to say things that are not Left wing.
This ability to have an opinion runs contrary to all they have been working towards, and largely succeeded over decades. They do not want to see a counter-culture survive and thrive. Clarkson tells jokes without the target being Margaret Thatcher, he lampoons beloved public services on the supposedly important grounds that they lack use. And he suggests that things they say and do are idiotic, particularly heath and safety Nazis and speed limits for no purpose.
Clarkson has even objected, on occasion to the Left telling lies, as if that could ever matter, in the cause of the greater good.
So basically, Clarkson had to go and it seems that now he has given the pathetic wretches who run too much of everything in this country, enough to force their co-religionists to be rid of him. Good. Let's get the team on Sky where the programme could have some real life and not sully the BBC or hinder in their race to the bottom, largely on their own.
Perhaps they could call it 'Gold-Top Gear, the Cream of Motoring Shows'
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
BBC: No Point Complaining
To support the lies of the anti-capitalists pushing the Global Warming scam, the BBC has gone into overdrive with its propaganda. Now, whilst in a sane world this would attract a sustainable complaint, it is not the worst of it.
Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.
The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.
The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.
Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.
The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.
The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Harman And The Paedophile Information Exchange
First of all, I was amazed to stumble across the Harman/NCCL story on Newsnight last night (a usually unwatchable programme). I was amazed because it was a negative story about a Left wing person and fairly extreme Left at that, who are normally a protected species as far as the BBC (and Guardian/Observer) are concerned.
Cynicism held its ground though as the interviewer, Laura Kuenssberg started with a leading question blaming The Mail for making her have to speak out, to defend herself. Harman readily agreed and I expected this to continue, but as Harman was plainly not going to give a straight answer to even fairly innocuous questions, Laura appeared to get a bit annoyed. She started insisting on getting an answer, or failing that, to keep asking.
Exasperated at such unexpected quizzing from the normally reliable BBC, Harman launched a remarkable, unsupportable tirade against The Mail, suggesting, but not directly saying, that it prints pictures of 'very young girls in bikinis', meaning under-age. Meaning, but not saying.
The performance of the money grubbing politician (her and her husband both suck on the State) was incredible. The NCCL didn't vet 'affiliates' they just took the money, so it wasn't a 'real' relationship. She knew nothing about the PIE, spoke out against them at the time and they had been got rid of by the time she joined. Laura said they were affiliated from 1976 to 1983. Harman did a 'and your point is?' reply.
At the outburst about Mail pictures, Laura tried to get her to confirm she was all but accusing The Mail of publishing paedophile pictures, but all she got was a smug smile from Harman of the 'its self evident, surely' variety. The lawyer in her carefully not saying what she is clearly inferring. Like trying to ignore the letter she wrote for the NCCL objecting to the possession of pornographic pictures of children becoming a crime.
Just as outrageous though, was when normal service was resumed next day on the BBC Breakfast programme. Here the 'news' article about the interview, concentrated on the 'fact' that The Mail publishes pictures that are, well, you know. And that Harman had been smeared by the paper. The report even said that the NCCL was 'once' associated with the Paedophile Information Exchange. 'Once' here meaning from 1976 to 1983.
As ever, Left wing politics trumps all, including the welfare of children. Nothing is more important than ideology.
Cynicism held its ground though as the interviewer, Laura Kuenssberg started with a leading question blaming The Mail for making her have to speak out, to defend herself. Harman readily agreed and I expected this to continue, but as Harman was plainly not going to give a straight answer to even fairly innocuous questions, Laura appeared to get a bit annoyed. She started insisting on getting an answer, or failing that, to keep asking.
Exasperated at such unexpected quizzing from the normally reliable BBC, Harman launched a remarkable, unsupportable tirade against The Mail, suggesting, but not directly saying, that it prints pictures of 'very young girls in bikinis', meaning under-age. Meaning, but not saying.
The performance of the money grubbing politician (her and her husband both suck on the State) was incredible. The NCCL didn't vet 'affiliates' they just took the money, so it wasn't a 'real' relationship. She knew nothing about the PIE, spoke out against them at the time and they had been got rid of by the time she joined. Laura said they were affiliated from 1976 to 1983. Harman did a 'and your point is?' reply.
At the outburst about Mail pictures, Laura tried to get her to confirm she was all but accusing The Mail of publishing paedophile pictures, but all she got was a smug smile from Harman of the 'its self evident, surely' variety. The lawyer in her carefully not saying what she is clearly inferring. Like trying to ignore the letter she wrote for the NCCL objecting to the possession of pornographic pictures of children becoming a crime.
Just as outrageous though, was when normal service was resumed next day on the BBC Breakfast programme. Here the 'news' article about the interview, concentrated on the 'fact' that The Mail publishes pictures that are, well, you know. And that Harman had been smeared by the paper. The report even said that the NCCL was 'once' associated with the Paedophile Information Exchange. 'Once' here meaning from 1976 to 1983.
As ever, Left wing politics trumps all, including the welfare of children. Nothing is more important than ideology.
Friday, 30 August 2013
Dinosaurs And Duff Scientists
As if there wasn't enough evidence that the decades old reverence of 'scientists' is due at least a reassessment, we saw interesting proof on a BBC Horizon programme.
A very nice lady, working in the 'unglamorous' branch of her science as she put it, was looking for dinosaur DNA. Well, she wasn't looking for it, she just became aware that it might actually be possible to find it, against the prevailing wisdom that said it was too fragile to last 65 million years, or more.
Describing herself as a 'housewife' from pretty much nowhere her expectations on publication of her results in finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones were fairly low. However, one of the peer reviewers wrote that he didn't care what the data said, he didn't believe it.
And that ladies and gentlemen is what passes for science today. So yes, the global warming zealots are making it up and lying to you, because they are asserting what they believe, not what the data shows.
A very nice lady, working in the 'unglamorous' branch of her science as she put it, was looking for dinosaur DNA. Well, she wasn't looking for it, she just became aware that it might actually be possible to find it, against the prevailing wisdom that said it was too fragile to last 65 million years, or more.
Describing herself as a 'housewife' from pretty much nowhere her expectations on publication of her results in finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones were fairly low. However, one of the peer reviewers wrote that he didn't care what the data said, he didn't believe it.
And that ladies and gentlemen is what passes for science today. So yes, the global warming zealots are making it up and lying to you, because they are asserting what they believe, not what the data shows.
Sunday, 11 November 2012
British Broadcasting Corpse
Entwhistle seems to have blown the lid off what the BBC is about. It is a structure to supply very well paid jobs to left-liberals who do not like working. Clearly, despite years in the organisation and with adequate warning that it was under close observation, Entwhistle still didn't feel obliged to pay any attention to what was going on inside the BBC. Just as he showed no interest in the Jimmy Savile news.
Now it is apparent, no one else in management actually does anything. They are not just incompetent, they actually appear not to do anything. Previously, the BBC has admitted that it has an in-built left-liberal bias, contrary to its legal obligation for impartiality and it didn't care. It had no intention of changing and no one pursued it to do so.
Then it had a secret conference to decide to formally commit to being a propaganda spout for global warming alarmism, where a scientist present said that BBC executives clearly had no understanding of the subject, had done no research and didn't care to. They still decided that they would openly support the alarmist lobby and ridicule anyone with an opposing view. Again, this breaches their Charter requirements and they again don't care.
It is clear this organisation is self absorbed and feels it has a perfect right to exist. The ludicrous Lord Patten sits atop this with the same stunning ignorance seemingly required of all at the top of the BBC. The scruffy oik should take his free, expensive lunches and find someone else to offer him a work free sinecure.
A real scandal exists of course and the left are desperately hiding it whilst raging about child abuse and scrapping around for some connection to the Tories. The fact that something in the order of 30+ Labour party members, councillors and Mayors, have been arrested on child pornography and abuse charges, doesn't seem to get much mention. Then there is the keenness of the Left to push for laws to allow paedophilia, Harriet Harman of course, having been the legal representative of a key organisation with such an interest.
Are they actually against Savile and his like then, or is their outrage confected?
Now it is apparent, no one else in management actually does anything. They are not just incompetent, they actually appear not to do anything. Previously, the BBC has admitted that it has an in-built left-liberal bias, contrary to its legal obligation for impartiality and it didn't care. It had no intention of changing and no one pursued it to do so.
Then it had a secret conference to decide to formally commit to being a propaganda spout for global warming alarmism, where a scientist present said that BBC executives clearly had no understanding of the subject, had done no research and didn't care to. They still decided that they would openly support the alarmist lobby and ridicule anyone with an opposing view. Again, this breaches their Charter requirements and they again don't care.
It is clear this organisation is self absorbed and feels it has a perfect right to exist. The ludicrous Lord Patten sits atop this with the same stunning ignorance seemingly required of all at the top of the BBC. The scruffy oik should take his free, expensive lunches and find someone else to offer him a work free sinecure.
A real scandal exists of course and the left are desperately hiding it whilst raging about child abuse and scrapping around for some connection to the Tories. The fact that something in the order of 30+ Labour party members, councillors and Mayors, have been arrested on child pornography and abuse charges, doesn't seem to get much mention. Then there is the keenness of the Left to push for laws to allow paedophilia, Harriet Harman of course, having been the legal representative of a key organisation with such an interest.
Are they actually against Savile and his like then, or is their outrage confected?
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Is There Any Hope?
On BBC Breakfast, discussing the US Presidential elections they said that surely Romney represents all that went wrong recently, deregulation, capitalism? It is this kind of loaded, when did you stop beating your wife, statements that makes the BBC the ridiculous rump it is, that makes listening to them on any subject entirely pointless. If that was true then so would be that Obama, representing the socialist approach is harking back to Stalin and mass murder by the State.
This story that has been planted in people's minds is very dangerous. Capitalism is what has enriched the world, has led to major advancements on every front. Marxism, socialism has at the very least introduced systems to hold people down and at the extreme, tyranny. Allowing a person or a group of people absolute power, taking away earnings so that the State in the form of these people will decide how your money should be spent, is so obviously a bad idea that it is incredible that, through the spread of a story, it has become the norm.
Look at how it invades without substance. Jeffrey Archer isn't well liked and was guilty, but why did he get the longest sentence for perjury ever? Because he was a Conservative. Why, when MacShane has been found to have defrauded Parliament and the taxpayer through expenses fiddles is the law so slow in pursuing him? Because he isn't a Tory. Why was Tony Blair not impeached, why was he not arrested over the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, why not for the illegal slaughter of farmers animals? Because he isn't a Tory.
The Conservative Party have done nothing to earn this reputation, it is a story put about, constantly by the Left and like all propaganda, with repeated telling it comes to be believed. Thatcher did many extremely good things for Britain, including a rebate from the EU, which we are told by the Left is impossible. But she is demonised without real substance and yet 13 years of a corrupt Labour administration passes with scant mention (because the 'Right' don't do slurs, generally).
Whilst a few individual Tories were corrupt and were imprisoned for it, Blair and Brown institutionalised sleaze and were open for business of a very corrupt kind, but who was prosecuted? Mandelson for lying on a mortgage application? No, that is only wrong if you do it.
One thing is certain though, no matter what the narrative of the Left says, if Obama gets in again, to spend another 4 years posturing with no substance, America is doomed.
This story that has been planted in people's minds is very dangerous. Capitalism is what has enriched the world, has led to major advancements on every front. Marxism, socialism has at the very least introduced systems to hold people down and at the extreme, tyranny. Allowing a person or a group of people absolute power, taking away earnings so that the State in the form of these people will decide how your money should be spent, is so obviously a bad idea that it is incredible that, through the spread of a story, it has become the norm.
Look at how it invades without substance. Jeffrey Archer isn't well liked and was guilty, but why did he get the longest sentence for perjury ever? Because he was a Conservative. Why, when MacShane has been found to have defrauded Parliament and the taxpayer through expenses fiddles is the law so slow in pursuing him? Because he isn't a Tory. Why was Tony Blair not impeached, why was he not arrested over the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, why not for the illegal slaughter of farmers animals? Because he isn't a Tory.
The Conservative Party have done nothing to earn this reputation, it is a story put about, constantly by the Left and like all propaganda, with repeated telling it comes to be believed. Thatcher did many extremely good things for Britain, including a rebate from the EU, which we are told by the Left is impossible. But she is demonised without real substance and yet 13 years of a corrupt Labour administration passes with scant mention (because the 'Right' don't do slurs, generally).
Whilst a few individual Tories were corrupt and were imprisoned for it, Blair and Brown institutionalised sleaze and were open for business of a very corrupt kind, but who was prosecuted? Mandelson for lying on a mortgage application? No, that is only wrong if you do it.
One thing is certain though, no matter what the narrative of the Left says, if Obama gets in again, to spend another 4 years posturing with no substance, America is doomed.
Thursday, 25 October 2012
Chris Patten
The ridiculous figure that is Chris Patten has launched himself barking into the public gaze, just after comments suggesting he might have to 'fall on his sword' emerged, during the Saville affair. Obviously the thing that is most important to this member of the BBC Trust is his own comfort. Up until now, he didn't seem to have a view, nor from his previous lack of interest any care. That's the Patten we know.
He thinks George Entwistle was fine at the CMS grilling because anyone would have felt the pressure, he was only 11 days into the job when this all blew up and he is entitled to blame the editor. What we know though is that Entwistle worked, in a senior capacity for the BBC, before he became DG, that he was tipped off about the Newsnight programme and now claims to have been aware but not that interested and that Rippon, the Editor didn't 'step aside' as was repeatedly reported, but was told to by Entwistle.
We also know that Rippon's boss, Helen Boaden has taken a vow of silence and that the BBC, which Patten fiercely claims to be independent, has hired lawyers to look into the Saville scandal who have done a significant amount of work for the Corporation previously and presumably, would be keen to get more in the future.
It may be difficult to discern exactly what did go on at the BBC, but some of the actions of the senior management would suggest that they don't ever want us to know, for whatever reason.
He thinks George Entwistle was fine at the CMS grilling because anyone would have felt the pressure, he was only 11 days into the job when this all blew up and he is entitled to blame the editor. What we know though is that Entwistle worked, in a senior capacity for the BBC, before he became DG, that he was tipped off about the Newsnight programme and now claims to have been aware but not that interested and that Rippon, the Editor didn't 'step aside' as was repeatedly reported, but was told to by Entwistle.
We also know that Rippon's boss, Helen Boaden has taken a vow of silence and that the BBC, which Patten fiercely claims to be independent, has hired lawyers to look into the Saville scandal who have done a significant amount of work for the Corporation previously and presumably, would be keen to get more in the future.
It may be difficult to discern exactly what did go on at the BBC, but some of the actions of the senior management would suggest that they don't ever want us to know, for whatever reason.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
George Entwistle
What on Earth is George Entwistle? From the bits I've seen of his appearance before the CMS Select Committee he has done the usual senior executive thing of denying his role involves knowing anything about what goes on in the organisation he runs. In this case though, it seemed like it might be true. He may be the Manager we believe the BBC to be stuffed with; someone with no actual job.
Anyway, the bit I was particularly struck by was when Entwistle emerged from his citadel and paused to speak to the waiting journalists, saying "I am pleased the MP's have found the time to see me" or words to that effect. Does he really believe he is the important bit in all this? The MP's were not grilling him, they had found a slot in their busy schedule to allow him to help them with their enquiries.
Except of course he didn't know anything. He had a remarkable lack of curiosity and he definitely had no knowledge of anything the MP's might not have thought proper.
Anyway, the bit I was particularly struck by was when Entwistle emerged from his citadel and paused to speak to the waiting journalists, saying "I am pleased the MP's have found the time to see me" or words to that effect. Does he really believe he is the important bit in all this? The MP's were not grilling him, they had found a slot in their busy schedule to allow him to help them with their enquiries.
Except of course he didn't know anything. He had a remarkable lack of curiosity and he definitely had no knowledge of anything the MP's might not have thought proper.
The BBC And The Left
Was the amazing lack of interest in exposing Jimmy Saville's paedophilia down to the Left leaning nature of the BBC? Did these people, who widely support paedophilia as a way of breaking down our society, think that they were doing the ideology's work by keeping quiet? Perhaps they didn't care.
If you vote for whoever seems to have the best ideas when an election comes around, or if you feel socialism is a fair option, then you need to think again about the Left in this country. Compare the complete and utter lack of hysterical screaming by the Left about Jimmy Saville (and others) abusing children, with the reaction to Murdoch and the phone hacking scandal.
It is a terrible thing to think you are entitled to listen in to other people's personal messages, to then publish those details. But it was tittle tattle about celebrities and whilst illegal, of little import otherwise. Prosecute and punish as the law requires. Warn papers about their conduct and move on.
But here we have a national broadcaster of immense power and influence, funded through tax, that is not being particularly criticised by the Left, despite the fact that they decided to ignore children being abused. I know which I think is more important and more damaging.
Another background squeal emanating from the Left is a claim that a cabal of secretive characters run the world. Obviously they don't want a debate about it and they don't pretend to have any evidence, but then, as ever, they just claim to be right and you are not allowed to doubt it. The Left like not allowing things, like not debating climate change, not being allowed to have an opinion about homosexuality unless it is their opinion.
But there most definitely is a Left conspiracy and it is not and never really was, the Soviet Union. The EU is a replacement USSR of course and positions like university lecturers and senior police officers, social workers and judges have all been taken by people carefully indoctrinated in the Sixties and later. So today, there is a rotten core at the heart of Britain, that we perhaps don't even realise is there.
Political Correctness is one of their major weapons, being used to shut down debates that they couldn't possibly win in a free and open society. You know what i mean; how often do you now hear 'oh, you can't say that'. Can't? When did that happen? Who decided for us?
Time to wake up and send these ne'er do well's and communist fellow travellers packing. If they want a North Korean state here they can forget it, but the land of their dreams does exist so they can pop off over there. Except they won't, because they wouldn't be in charge and that is a key aspect it their 'revolution'. They must never suffer what they inflict on others.
If you vote for whoever seems to have the best ideas when an election comes around, or if you feel socialism is a fair option, then you need to think again about the Left in this country. Compare the complete and utter lack of hysterical screaming by the Left about Jimmy Saville (and others) abusing children, with the reaction to Murdoch and the phone hacking scandal.
It is a terrible thing to think you are entitled to listen in to other people's personal messages, to then publish those details. But it was tittle tattle about celebrities and whilst illegal, of little import otherwise. Prosecute and punish as the law requires. Warn papers about their conduct and move on.
But here we have a national broadcaster of immense power and influence, funded through tax, that is not being particularly criticised by the Left, despite the fact that they decided to ignore children being abused. I know which I think is more important and more damaging.
Another background squeal emanating from the Left is a claim that a cabal of secretive characters run the world. Obviously they don't want a debate about it and they don't pretend to have any evidence, but then, as ever, they just claim to be right and you are not allowed to doubt it. The Left like not allowing things, like not debating climate change, not being allowed to have an opinion about homosexuality unless it is their opinion.
But there most definitely is a Left conspiracy and it is not and never really was, the Soviet Union. The EU is a replacement USSR of course and positions like university lecturers and senior police officers, social workers and judges have all been taken by people carefully indoctrinated in the Sixties and later. So today, there is a rotten core at the heart of Britain, that we perhaps don't even realise is there.
Political Correctness is one of their major weapons, being used to shut down debates that they couldn't possibly win in a free and open society. You know what i mean; how often do you now hear 'oh, you can't say that'. Can't? When did that happen? Who decided for us?
Time to wake up and send these ne'er do well's and communist fellow travellers packing. If they want a North Korean state here they can forget it, but the land of their dreams does exist so they can pop off over there. Except they won't, because they wouldn't be in charge and that is a key aspect it their 'revolution'. They must never suffer what they inflict on others.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Fit And Proper BBC
Oh dear, oh dear it is all unravelling for the BBC. What is a Left wing biased, haughty (naturally) and arrogant organisation supposed to do? When a journalist reported a story truthfully about lies told by one of the Prime Minister's closest aides, so the Prime Minister could start a war by further lying himself, not only did the BBC make sure it didn't investigate the government, it even got rid of senior people.
No-one can say it didn't do its best to help and support fellow travellers. I mean they showed all the level of unconcern about the most serious corruption in places of power, they bent over backwards to align with all the nonsense of the Blair and Brown mania.
And they were just as in thrall to money and celebrity as any other good leftie, hence the lack of interest in the 'personal' life of Jimmy Saville. If you are tempted to think that this is an outrageous claim by a right winger it isn't and I'll explain why. (First though, 'right wing' itself is incorrect, that is just another form of socialism, one of the two extremes. I believe in moderation).
When Peter Mandelson (for whom the character Kaa in Disney's version of Jungle Book is sooo fitting) said that he was comfortable with the filthy rich it was taken that he was explaining how different New Labour was from the old. He hoped you would think that what he meant was he and the government of which he intermittently formed a part, supported those who were or became wealthy.
His actions however betrayed what he really intended. Mandelson meant he was comfortable with the wealthy, that he would allow them to enrich him in return for a co-operative government. He and all the other creeps around Tony Blair. The rich had nothing to fear from New Labour as long as they played ball with the key players, the elite surrounding the Cromwellian monarch, Blair.
Today we learn that an MP, Philip Davies (strangely, not a Labour MP) has written asking the regulator Ofcom, whether the BBC is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence. The answer to that currently of course is clearly 'no' and will remain so until it stops treating left liberal propaganda as its reason for existing.
If Hillsborough and Jimmy Saville don't tell you that we have to remove, root and branch the left based corruption that has become endemic in this country under the Blair regime, then I cannot imagine what would convince you.
No-one can say it didn't do its best to help and support fellow travellers. I mean they showed all the level of unconcern about the most serious corruption in places of power, they bent over backwards to align with all the nonsense of the Blair and Brown mania.
And they were just as in thrall to money and celebrity as any other good leftie, hence the lack of interest in the 'personal' life of Jimmy Saville. If you are tempted to think that this is an outrageous claim by a right winger it isn't and I'll explain why. (First though, 'right wing' itself is incorrect, that is just another form of socialism, one of the two extremes. I believe in moderation).
When Peter Mandelson (for whom the character Kaa in Disney's version of Jungle Book is sooo fitting) said that he was comfortable with the filthy rich it was taken that he was explaining how different New Labour was from the old. He hoped you would think that what he meant was he and the government of which he intermittently formed a part, supported those who were or became wealthy.
His actions however betrayed what he really intended. Mandelson meant he was comfortable with the wealthy, that he would allow them to enrich him in return for a co-operative government. He and all the other creeps around Tony Blair. The rich had nothing to fear from New Labour as long as they played ball with the key players, the elite surrounding the Cromwellian monarch, Blair.
Today we learn that an MP, Philip Davies (strangely, not a Labour MP) has written asking the regulator Ofcom, whether the BBC is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence. The answer to that currently of course is clearly 'no' and will remain so until it stops treating left liberal propaganda as its reason for existing.
If Hillsborough and Jimmy Saville don't tell you that we have to remove, root and branch the left based corruption that has become endemic in this country under the Blair regime, then I cannot imagine what would convince you.
Monday, 15 October 2012
The BBC And Science
A little while ago, after spending some time pointing out that neither the theory of evolution or climate change could be wrong, the BBC overtly stated that it was giving up on science. 'It would be wrong', they declared, 'to support views that oppose our own'.
Had people as intellectually conflicted as those running the BBC today, existed and wielded the same influence throughout history, imagine how backward we would be today. Imagine the damage they would have done.
Climate change is right, because lots of 'scientists' say so, is the BBC line. So, when the lone nutcase Galileo popped up, the BBC would have had him ridiculed for disagreeing with 'everyone' else. You may say that the Catholic church served the role of the BBC, but that wasn't quite the case. The opposition to Galileo was not because they thought his proof irrelevant, as would the BBC, as they understood and knew he was right. What the Church wanted, was to control the release of the information so their position of authority was not undermined.
It comes across that generally, throughout history people have striven to find answers and accept new ideas that made sense and carried proof. Now, we have an 'Establishment' remarkable for its obsessive closed mind stance.
We know Man Made Global Warming is a crock, because it stopped well over a decade ago and the inputs from Man are too small. But mainly we know that the people claiming with such certainty to know the future of climate don't, because they do not even understand how it works, so couldn't possibly create an accurate computer model. It is like claiming to know every word spoken by Julius Caesar throughout his life.
The BBC is formed of the same people behind the global warming scam; Left wing activists seeking to destroy democratic capitalism. It is politics, not science or journalism that drives both.
Had people as intellectually conflicted as those running the BBC today, existed and wielded the same influence throughout history, imagine how backward we would be today. Imagine the damage they would have done.
Climate change is right, because lots of 'scientists' say so, is the BBC line. So, when the lone nutcase Galileo popped up, the BBC would have had him ridiculed for disagreeing with 'everyone' else. You may say that the Catholic church served the role of the BBC, but that wasn't quite the case. The opposition to Galileo was not because they thought his proof irrelevant, as would the BBC, as they understood and knew he was right. What the Church wanted, was to control the release of the information so their position of authority was not undermined.
It comes across that generally, throughout history people have striven to find answers and accept new ideas that made sense and carried proof. Now, we have an 'Establishment' remarkable for its obsessive closed mind stance.
We know Man Made Global Warming is a crock, because it stopped well over a decade ago and the inputs from Man are too small. But mainly we know that the people claiming with such certainty to know the future of climate don't, because they do not even understand how it works, so couldn't possibly create an accurate computer model. It is like claiming to know every word spoken by Julius Caesar throughout his life.
The BBC is formed of the same people behind the global warming scam; Left wing activists seeking to destroy democratic capitalism. It is politics, not science or journalism that drives both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)