What Your Licence Fee Buys

Well, the election campaign is barely under way and the BBC are possibly more blatantly supporting Labour than usual. Mind you, over recent years they have been more open about their decision to break the law and be biased.

So we get a statement about Cameron's claim that Labour will raise taxes and make cuts, giving a figure of £3000. The BBC then give a commentary that they can't possibly know this. Switching to analysing Labour's claims things are different.

Labour have quoted business people in an FT advert, but just forgot to ask them if it was OK. The BBC modify this truth to explain, they did tell people in advance they would be using the quotes and that most stand by Labour.

The quotes were about staying in the EU and big business has done very well in their dealings with the Brussels bureaucracy. If the EU want to bring out new regulations, they bring in big businesses to ask about its impact. So the big boys agree rules that suit them and do the most damage to small competition. Cushty.

But the BBC 'missed' the biggest point regarding Miliband's advert. And that is that Cameron is offering a referendum to see what the people of Britain want. Miliband is saying he will allow no such thing. The people cannot be trusted with such things. He knows best and he will decide.

Now as the EU, big government and having an elite ignore the general population are all dear to the BBC executives hearts, of course they don't bring it up. Ed is right!

Labour have, of course, countered Cameron's claims to some degree, by admitting they have no plans to balance the books and will be borrowing more. The BBC didn't mention this, naturally.

Oh, My God, It's A Show Trial

I had always thought the Leveson inquiry was a boring political jousting match that the Left was using to attack the Tories. More fool them for being a tad too close to a newspaper. But with the charging of Rebekah Brooks it suddenly struck me, it is a show trial.

These people have committed a grievous crime; they have supported the Tories! I have no flag to wave for Rebekah Brooks, she seems as disappointing a public figure as many these days. You used to be able to look up to important and powerful people, now they are not only very like us, but in fact all too often much less. Just as likely to have public brawls and drunken rants as any on the lowest rung.

But what is really a fairly straightforward case and in the main of little consequence, has been puffed up into something of great and serious significance. The reason of course, is that, as the BBC keep injecting into their 'news' reports, Rebekah knows the Prime Minister.

Did Cameron ask Rebekah to tap phones? Hack computers? Did he benefit from information so gained? No one seems to have alleged any of this, so it is just the inferences of the Left wing media, the Guardian and the BBC then. At these dinner parties we are to believe, from BBC accounts, Cameron would laughingly inquire of Rebekah, 'so, what have you done that was illegal today?'

I'm fairly sure if I had to guess, I would think a newspaperman (as we always used to say) would probably, at the very least push the barriers to get a story. And who's fault is it that today stories of national importance don't sell copy, but what some minor celebrity had for breakfast does? So should a Prime Minister befriend powerful newspaper people? Harder to see why he would avoid it I'm afraid. The biggest problem is that none of these people seem to have ever had moral principles taught to them. Blame the parents.

BBC Bias

The BBC just cannot stop themselves from going flat out against their charter commitment and adding their own ideologicall bias, whenever they feel like it. Humble Kate on the programme plotting the Earth's year did her usual sterling job and there was some genuinely interesting points put across extremely well. Educationally, in many areas I would rated it as some of the finest I have seen.

But Lordy, when they get a chance to introduce Man Made Climate Change the quality falls off a cliff. And it is not just that they believe it so they say so, oh no, they are clearly aware that it doesn't stack up, because of the planning that goes into how this element is introduced and presented.

Melting Arctic sea ice was the subject. First the winter was mentioned and then Kate went straight on to talk about the fact that the sea ice has melted to a far greater extent over the last few years. But clearly the ice doesn't melt during winter, so she was talking about a summer melt. Why should she wish to confuse these two things in your mind? Because she would then have had to say that in winter the sea ice covers a greater area than it did.

The other nice little touch was to address the natural instinct that this may be wrong as we have just had a  few cold winters in Britain. This she said, couldn't be taken as important as it was only two or three winters. So her two or three 'massive melts' are statistically important and proof of something Man is responsible for, but a couple of cold winters are insignificant. Which one is it?

Items such as the formation of clouds and the way massive storms develop near lakes etc were excellent and because there was no political point to make, presumably based on the best knowledge. The bits where they were happy to repeat made up stuff was when an ideology the BBC supports was touched upon.

I just loved the fact that, overall the assumption was that people watching the programme would be so thick that they would blindly accept that repeated ice ages (which naturally required intervening warming) had occurred, but 'Global Warming' was caused by man's output of CO2. The fact that this is unproven as we cannot see the mechanism by which this is true and also don't understand the full complexities of climate change, seems to concern them not a jot.

Nor does the fact that the planet isn't warming, but CO2 output continues. In fact the only place that Man Made Global Warming occurs is in the computer models of people who want MMGW to be true.

The other thing that stunned me was the explanation of how ice ages occur. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I have never heard this 'combination of circumstance' cause before. Seemed highly plausible, but why hadn't such an important and fundamental fact found its way into my head before?

Question Time, Again

Still no idea why I subject myself like this, but sometimes it is good sport to watch the couldn't-care-less-about-the-damage lefties coming up with ideas of the greatest stupidity. Like someone skewering the extremely self impressed Will Self by saying, if there are not many £2m houses, why have a tax on them? Self then squirmed and twisted, but grudgingly admitted it wasn't a great idea, but then suddenly said 'but I didn't think of it!' as if that had any importance. He just wants it for the usual leftie reason; spite.

Will Young is for gay marriage, apparently. I guess people on death row would vote to abolish capital punishment. I still don't understand why the homosexual community don't understand that society invented marriage to create a family unit as a stable way to raise children. That the 'attraction' is just to procreate, we are a slave to it. Homosexuals cannot procreate and this is the essential difference.

A man who cannot supply the seed or a woman who cannot conceive are not the same as homosexuals in this respect, because they are drawn to the opposite sex by nature, as if they could conceive. Homosexuals are drawn to the same sex, contrary to the genetic coding to procreate and that is not a dangerous thing. It is a fact. I'm sure we could devise drugs to make everyone gay, but I'm not sure there is a future in that.

I don't really see it as a command from God, so the Church's angle is not something I am concerned with, it is the power politics being enacted by some homosexuals. I'm sure also that homosexuals, who demand that the word 'normal' cannot be applied to sexuality (which kind of ignores why one human being would be attracted to another at all), want to have marriages just like everyone else so they can claim to be mainstream. It is why they also demand to be handed or allowed to purchase children (the child of course, having no rights in our society).

Will Young keeps talking about being terrified by certain language, well he should try seeing it from the position of someone who doesn't think he has power on his side. Those people have to suffer, literally in silence, an outrageous assault on the freedom of speech that we once had. A world where I can have an opinion that someone else may oppose. We don't have to fight or even get nasty. We can just debate, disagree or ignore. But gays apparently need something else. They need to have a special category of crime; hate crime. This of course is based on the way you think. And that isn't worrying?

Hold on though, I don't think you are allowed to oppose Climate Change, so perhaps it is any leftist agenda that is protected by the tag hate crime?

Occupy London -Leeches

These empty-headed 'Occupy London' types really annoy me. Why can some people not get past the juvenile stage? Why do they think some half-baked idea of everybody loving everybody else is ever going to come true? Particularly when they themselves are so full of hate and resort to violence so quickly.

They don't even represent themselves. Of course, having made a mess on Church property (knowing as all tyrants do, that you always target the weak minded) they then didn't bother to inconvenience themselves by actually occupying the tents! And a Tory MP, who quite rightly pointed out that they are as much endeared to the capitalist corporate culture as anyone, visiting the local Costa coffee, she was ridiculed by left liberal twits (Paul Merton etc) who said that surely having a coffee doesn't affect their political stance.

True, if that was what she was saying, but then the left don't like debate and certainly not unless they set the framework. The hypocrisy of decrying a culture you happily subscribe to is not very cohesive, but then they need a generous welfare state to fund their 'protests' as well.

There are a great many things about which we should protest and the left get excited about almost none of them. They instead continue to pursue their agenda to undermine Western civilisation to bring about a socialist revolution, in which nutters like them get to tell you what to do. You know the way it goes; they never deviate from Animal Farm.

And if you think this extreme and 'surely no one can really be up to such mischief in this country', look at the state broadcaster. With an absolute mandate to be fair in news reporting, they spin their left bias incessantly. For instance, the Occupy London radicals are anti-capitalists, they want our system of government overthrown to be replaced with a state controlled economy, such as the Soviet Union had under Stalin and the EU are aiming for. The BBC called them 'protesters against corporate greed', a massively inaccurate description and deliberately disingenuous -they know how dangerous it would be to tell you the truth about the left.

BBC 'News'

Wow, the BBC seem to be ramping up the bias on their news, unless it is just someone controlling breakfast news today. After a report about how manufacturing seems to be picking up, the 'advert' for its next slot asked how companies would cope with consumer spending down and growth down. The report about the anti-capitalism tents (I don't know if there are any people involved) at St Paul's had close ups, repeatedly, of a banner saying 'What would Jesus do?'. This of course appeals to the Left liberal type, lacking a religious motivation as well as basing their ideology on spite as they do. The banner is clearly designed to appeal to the conscience of the religious, which is a cruel trick by people who clearly don't have a conscience at all.

A piece about the government's attack on gang culture involved interviewing a Professor who provided some nice attacks on the suggestions, but little helpful advice and a woman who had grown up in a respectable family, yet still joined a gang. Her comments were listened to or ignored depending on which bits fitted left liberal ideology. When she said she doubted the government initiatives would work, there was great interest. When she said that she made the choices that caused her to join a gang (and ultimately leave) she was ignored.

Making choices suggests empowerment as opposed to victim status and as every fool knows people only join gangs because they are in some way victims. I'm not forced to pay for the Guardian (well, apart from it surviving on state funded advertising!) so why am I forced to pay for an ideologically corrupt institution like the BBC?

BBC Bias

You would hope that, with perhaps some personal leanings, news reports would attempt to be just that, reports on the news. However, just watching the lunchtime BBC slot it became apparent just  how distorting this broadcaster is. Whilst blatant bias is unacceptable from any broadcaster one that you are compelled to pay for should be squeaky clean. But the BBC feel they are above the mere opinion of the hoi poloi.

Today the head of the Press Complaints Commission resigned over the phone hacking scandal, but what did the BBC choose to lead on? James Murdoch. And what was the 'story? That he had been asked to clarify something. The way the BBC chose to present this was 'James Murdoch no doubt thought his appearance before the House committee would be his last', but it went on, 'the Chairman has asked him to reply in writing' to clarify something he said earlier. In an attempt to justify their misleading intro, the BBC went on to say that one Labour MP on the committee wanted James recalled but was out-voted. And the 'news' was that an email had shown up that seemed to contradict something James had said to the committee earlier. This being something that came to light days ago. So, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, the state broadcaster ran a headline story that was old news and no news. Just to keep their figures of hate, the Murdoch's in the glare of publicity.

The BBC really is a disreputable organisation and one on which you can have no faith that you are being told the truth.