Still keeping a secret?

So you are a German politician. You learn that details of your previous life are being circulated upon Wikipedia  pages.

These details include the fact that you were a member of the STASI, or East German Secret Police, and that you celebrated the birthday of Stalin, allegations that you were a partner in an Internet Porn site, and news that you joined the STASI because you believed in the way it operated and its philosophies.

You go to the ever-obliging legal system in Germany, and obtain an injunction against to blank any access to its site from Germany.

You then learn that your legal actions have only blocked one small bit of the Free Internet Wikipedia organisation, your details are still up there for everyone to see and read; access has gone up by 700% since your action began, and contributions to Wikipedia have soared, so you give up, drop the injunction, and slink away into the undergrowth.

Transport, if you will the scene to Great Britain’s shores, and we will probably see the following attempts at silencing or blocking the ‘public’s right to know’:

David Cameron tries to block news that he is a firm supporter of everything European, including overall control of our borders, our press, our taxes and anything not so far controlled by the European behemoth.

Nick Clegg attempts to keep secret the astounding news that his medical files include the fact that he has no spine at all!

William Hague stops publication of long-range lens photos of him making a decision which was beneficial to Great Britain, on the grounds that people will find it too incredible to be true!

Ed Millband also tries to prevent knowledge leaking out that he texts ‘triumphant gloats’ to his brother Dave.

A Statement from Multi-CultureLand

I do not normally reproduce articles or posts from other Blogs, but I thought that this particular post rang so true that I have posted the complete thing, with acknowledgements to Sarah, Maid of Albion!

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

An Update on Censorship at Leeds University

Frank Ellis © 2011
My article, Time to Face the Truth about Multiculturalism, first published in heavily censored form in Leeds Student in 2006, is reproduced here without cuts. The full uncensored article has been published on other web sites but generally without an indication of the nature and level of censorship. Those parts of the article which were censored by Leeds Student are indicated below in bold yellow font. They reveal the appalling scale of censorship and leave no doubt at all about just how serious is the problem of censorship in a major British university when discussing issues of race, multiculturalism (multiracialism) and mass non-white immigration. I have no doubt that what befell me at Leeds University has strengthened the hand of the censors enormously. It is now impossible to criticise multiculturalism at any British university without facing some form of quasi-legal or administrative sanction. Clauses in university charters which underline the value of free speech and academic freedom are worthless: they have about as much value as the piece of paper brought back by Neville Chamberlain after the British capitulation at Munich.
I would like to clarify one other point. There is a very widespread perception on various Internet sites that I was forced into retirement or that I had no choice but to leave the University of Leeds in the   summer of 2006 before the start of the next academic year in October 2006. That is not the case. The next stage in the process to dismiss an academic after he has been suspended is to hold an internal hearing. In my case this would have been some 18 months later (September 2007). There are a whole host of reasons to believe that the University would have lost this hearing. Very soon after I was suspended the University realised that its decision to suspend me – largely  under pressure from the then Commission for Racial Equality – had been a serious error. I was informed of this by an anonymous source at the very heart of the University administration. Even now I do not know the identity of this person.
Additional information provided by this source turned out to be exceptionally high grade intelligence and confirmed that the University’s position was in complete disarray. At the end of May 2006 the University capitulated. I was now faced with two options: (i). I could return to full time teaching at the start of the next academic year; or (ii). I could retire from the University. The thought of my having to renew working with people who had revealed such appalling intellectual and moral cowardice turned my stomach. After mutually
acceptable retirement terms had been agreed – Leeds University paid all my legal costs – I left. What happened was a blessing in disguise. Any individual, who regards the institution of free speech, academic freedom and the pursuit of this thing called Truth as core university principles, is clearly unsuited for teaching and researching in a British university (Frank Ellis, 25th April 2011).
Time to Face the Truth about Multiculturalism
© Frank Ellis 2006
All Rights Reserved
Multiculturalism (multiracialism) is doomed to failure – and is failing – because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal; that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other. I see no evidence for the view that all cultures are equal, but vast  amounts against it. To believe that all cultures are equal – and ultimately in the absence of any evidence for, it is the psychology of political fanaticism with which one is dealing here – requires the same hatred and wilful refusal to confront evidence, logic and history that characterised the individuals who believed that Stalin had built paradise on  earth when in fact he had exterminated millions of so-called class enemies. When you point out to these people, as I have over the years, that, as a consequence of Uncle Jo’s Final Solution of the Peasant Question, some 11,000,000 (yes  11,000,000!) peasants were slaughtered so as to break the rural way of life and to impose collectivization, all you get are despicable, cowardly evasions along the lines that such numbers are CIA propaganda. Cowardice, evasions, lying, hypocrisy and censorship of views they do not like, all typify the range of responses from what I call the Guardian-reading classes to any  evidence that multiculturalism, their Neo-Marxist fantasy, is not working. Indeed it never will work, but when it starts to unravel, as Yugoslavia eventually did, we will all suffer.
Crucial to the multicultural experiment is the assertion that there is no such thing as race; that race has nothing to do with genetics or biology. Here, for example, is what Bhikhu Parekh, the editor of a very nasty anti-white tract, The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (Profile Books, London, 2000), has to say on the subject of race: ‘Race, as is now widely acknowledged, is a social and political construct, not a biological or genetic fact. It cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among peoples’ (Parekh, 2000, 63). In a letter dated 6th September 2001 – a mere five days  before we were given a demonstration of what happens when multiculturalism displaces sensible immigration policies in the USA – I wrote to Parekh. Referring to his assertion about race’s being a social and political construct, I sought clarification. ‘I must’, I wrote, ‘confess that it is not at all clear to me that race is “widely acknowledged” to be “a social and political construct”. By whom exactly is this assertion “widely acknowledged”? In the hope of being enlightened I checked your list of secondary literature on pages 378-399 but I could find no reference to any recent study, article or monograph,  that would support your assertion (possible of course that I missed the sources). For example, I found none of the following major studies in the field in your bibliography: Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (1992); Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What they Mean (1997); Arthur Jensen, The g factor: the Science of Mental Ability (1998); J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behaviour, 3rd edition, (2000); and Jon Entine, Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About it (2000). The Bell Curve is cited, though without the indicative sub-title, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, but no attempt is made in the report to refute the Murray & Herrnstein thesis, which, had it been made, might well have provided some basis for your assertion on page 63. Assuming that I have not
missed the source(s) in the bibliography, what exactly are the primary scientific sources on which you rely to assert that race is a social and biological construct, as opposed to its being a biological and genetic fact?’
Needless to say, I received no reply from Parekh. I had called his bluff. He knew it and he ran away. (For a comprehensive analysis of the Parekh Report and its anti-white racism, see Frank Ellis, ‘Race, Marxism and the “Deconstruction” of the United Kingdom’, The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, vol 26, No 4, Winter 2001, pp.691-718).
Now the people who believe that race is a social and political construct are like the Marxists who preached “the  brotherhood of man” only to see it all unravel in 1914. They remind me of the professional, serial liars who went to the Soviet Union in the 1930s, at the very time when Stalin was killing and killing again, returned to the comforts of the liberal-democratic societies they purported to despise, and then had the repulsive effrontery to insist that Stalin was building a new civilization. So we know the sort of people with whom we are dealing. One of the high points of 2005 was the publication of a superb article in which the world’s two greatest experts on race and race differences, Professors Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, summarised and analyzed the findings on the subject over the last thirty years (see J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Volume 11, Number 2, June 2005, pp.235-294. For background detail on the history of the physical and bureaucratic terror used to silence these pioneering scholars see my entry, ‘Race and IQ’, in Derek Jones, ed., Censorship: A World Encyclopedia, vol 3, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2001, pp.2008-2010).
Virtually all the data and conclusions presented by Rushton and Jensen attack and effectively destroy the comforting  idea that all races are equal and that all differences in black and white educational outcomes are due to white racism or colonialism or any other ad hoc explanation, and that they can be eradicated if we just continue spending millions and millions of dollars. One of the more astonishing findings reported on and analyzed at great length in their long article is the finding, first made at the end of the 1970s, of an average IQ of 70 for sub-Saharan Africa. Now bear in mind that in the American Armed Forces the cut off point for recruitment is an IQ of 80 – lower than that and the recruit is deemed to be incapable of assimilating even basic instructions – and one can see the problem. In the West an individual with an IQ of 70 would be regarded as being very close to, or within the range of, mental retardation.
Now stop, pause and think what this means for a whole continent where the average IQ is 70. How is it possible for a people with such a low average IQ to achieve, let alone to sustain a technologically sophisticated civilization? Nowhere in sub-Saharan Africa – Botswana is a possible exception – do we find any state that conforms to even basic standards  of good governance and administrative competence. South Africa started its downward spiral in 1994. Everywhere one looks there is unbelievable corruption and stupidity, superstition and random savagery. To this gruesome list one can add sexual incontinence. Blacks die of AIDS either because they do not believe that AIDS will kill them or because the imperatives of immediate sexual gratification are so urgent and overwhelming that the consequences are  disregarded.
AIDS kills Africans because Africans refuse to act, or are unable to act, in ways which are sexually responsible. And in an environment where nearly 50% of the adult population is HIV positive (Swaziland, for example) sexual responsibility means not engaging in multiple, random acts of copulation with your fellow men and women. In fact,  the price for survival may well be complete sexual abstinence and then to pray that you never require a blood transfusion. The West has no moral responsibility whatsoever to assist Africa in dealing with AIDS (or new virulent strains of malaria or bilharzia). If Bob Geldof and the hordes of emotional parasites who follow him want to get weepy about Africa’s self-inflicted plight, making a public display of their virtue, fine: go and live there and do not come back when you need medical treatment which is only available in the “racist” West. If Africans refuse to behave responsibly, they condemn themselves to death.
Despite the attempts to censor and to intimidate critics of multiculturalism in the United Kingdom, race difference are not going to go away and eventually social, educational and economic policies will have to reflect the state of our knowledge not the fantasies of  people like Parekh and Trevor Phillips and the Guardian-reading constituencies who support them. I agree with Linda Gottfredson: ‘Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing’. (‘What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True?’ in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Volume 11, Number 2, June 2005, p.318, emphasis in the original).
Race matters because whatever Parekh and others maintain it is connected with a whole range of social, economic, cultural and  intellectual outcomes some of which are of high importance if we are to maintain the stability and prosperity of our country. Even if race (and sex and sex differences) were social and political constructs, the outcomes would not be identical. The implications of race and race differences for our society can be apprehended by any student who wants to take the time and trouble to find out for himself. In essence this means reading the books I have cited in this article and then following up the secondary literature as I have done, behaving, in other words, as an intelligent, independent thinker and researcher. This independent seeking after data and ideas and then evaluating them is  critical.
It is critical because censorship is an essential weapon in the attempt to impose the multicultural agenda on the United Kingdom. The people who plan the BBC’s programming, the hordes of policy makers in the public sector, the universities, the whole gruesome secondary education system, with its teacher indoctrination courses, all know that the diversity brainwashing to which our schoolchildren and university students are subjected in order to promote multiculturalism – or the equally incoherent cult of feminism – would never survive full, open, rational and fearless scrutiny. Any student who relies on the BBC, the Guardian (so that there are no  misunderstanding the ridiculous Daily Telegraph is just as bad) and most universities as a source of information concerning issues on race, feminism and multiculturalism can expect to be lied to, misled and misinformed by people who should no better but are too frightened to know better or do not want to know better. Whatever grandiose words universities use in their Charters regarding free speech and the pursuit of truth, the brutal fact remains that when it comes to questions of race, feminism and multiculturalism universities are craven and corrupt. And they know it.
Anyone who has spent time studying the cult of multiculturalism cannot but notice the nauseating hypocrisy and racial double standards that accompany the systematic and organised lying of multiculturalism. When I posed the possibility of a film with the title – No Black Society has Ever Produced a Written Language or Mathematics – I was drawing attention to an existing film, White Men Can’t Jump (1992). In my hypothetical film title – the lines are taken from Professor Michael Levin’s excellent essay ‘Recent Fallacies in Discussions of Race’, (see The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America, ed, Jared Taylor, New Century Books, Oakton, Virginia, 1998, p.69) – I underlined the hypocrisy and double standards of Hollywood  which can quite happily make films with titles such as White Men Can’t Jump but would avoid any film with my hypothetical title for fear of giving offence.
This is a racist double standard. Whites can be pilloried but blacks and other non-white racial groups enjoy a protected status. There is much worse of course. Interviewed on BBC Radio Scotland in January 2001, Greg Dyke said that the BBC was ‘hideously white’. Would he, I wonder, in response to the question of whether he would like to live in Brixton, have replied that it was ‘hideously black’. Of course not, but whites, as far as the BBC is concerned, are ‘hideous’. So that’s okay then. Not only does the BBC express racist contempt for the white indigenous majority population – who are WIMPS for putting up with BBC lying – but then insults the viewer by demanding payment for receiving a television signal, even when the signal does not emanate from a BBC transmitter.
Here is another example of racial double standards, once again the BBC is the culprit. During a discussion on the theme of “hate speech” one of my students pointed out to me that on a BBC radio show broadcast in September 2004, a one Jeremy Hardy had said, on air, something along the lines that life in Britain would be better were all people in the British National Party and anyone who voted for the BNP to be shot in the back of the neck. I wrote to the BBC, demanding an explanation and a verbatim transcript of the programme. This is what Hardy said: ‘if you took everyone in the BNP and everyone who votes for them and shot them in the back of the head, [the standard method of execution used by the Bolsheviks, FE] there would be a brighter future for us all.’ This racist, anti-white filth is taken from the same manual of hatred that Julius Streicher, the homosexual sadist and rabid anti-Semitic editor of the Nazi paper, Der Stürmer, used to target Jews. Readers might like to replace all references to the BNP and insert ‘blacks’ or ‘lesbians’ or ‘homosexuals’ and then ask whether the BBC would have broadcast such a programme. I could cite many other examples from the BBC. And I am supposed to believe that the BBC is an impartial and fair organisation? The BBC is no such thing. It is the propaganda arm of a government that wants to destroy ancient English freedoms. The grotesquely overpaid BBC executives know full well that their pampered, protected and under-performing organisation with its diet of celebrity trash and mental junk food would simply not survive in an open and free market. The BBC is a parasite organisation.
I must also mention another case. Last year I made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) about an article in the Daily Telegraph. In the article rural, white Americans were referred to as ‘Georgia rednecks’. The use of the word “redneck” by Harry Mount, the Telegraph journalist, to refer to American whites is unquestionably a “prejudicial” and “pejorative reference” and, one, moreover, with which any journalist possessing even a modicum of understanding regarding racial and ethnic naming, as used in America, should be familiar. Certainly, there can be no excuse for a paper such as The Daily Telegraph not being familiar with the nuances of American racial labels. As stated in the introductory sentence to the Code’s second paragraph: ‘It is essential that an  agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit’. This racist language with regard to white Americans is made all the more offensive by the fact that The Daily Telegraph would not permit Mount to write about  “Georgia niggers”. Mount’s article deliberately singles out American whites for racist abuse.
The PCC judged that since no individual had been named the Daily Telegraph was not guilty of breaking the PCC’s  Code of Practice. Strictly speaking the PCC is correct but again you have to ask yourself whether the editor of the Daily Telegraph would permit a journalist to write about ‘Georgia niggers’. The answer is surely no. I also argue that in finding for the Daily Telegraph the PCC violated the very ethos of its own Code of Practice which insists that papers adhere not just to the letter of the code but to its spirit.
It is now quite clear to me that Mr Kennard came to this interview with the conviction that I was a member of the British National Party (BNP) – what if I was? – which possibly explains his clumsy subterfuge. Now I hold no brief for the BNP but I was and I remain  deeply disturbed by the fact that the leader of Britain’s fourth largest political party can be arrested and put on trial for remarks made at a private gathering. MacPherson, the author of that wretched report, actually recommended
that the law be amended ‘to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place’ (Recommendation 39). Think what that would mean for the privacy of your own home.
The BNP is a lawfully constituted party registered with the Electoral Commission, pursuing a rational agenda. As far as I am aware it was not the BNP that waged a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland for thirty years. Nor was it members of the BNP who murdered some 55 people in London on 7th July 2005. If you do not like the BNP, no problem, vote for another party. I thought this was how a liberal democracy was supposed to work. All those dreadful “racist” white people who vote for the BNP have eyes and ears. They know a hawk from a handsaw and they know that all the talk about “vibrant multicultural society” and “diversity” is an ugly metropolitan lie. Quite rightly, they resent being lied to by white middle class “diversity” groupies who live in nice country houses in Norfolk, Hay-on-Wye, Somerset and Perthshire – a million miles from all that wonderful “diversity” – while spitting abuse at others who express their rational misgivings through the ballot box. The awful truth for the BBC is that its organised campaign of censoring BNP success and the lack of basic courtesy in dealing with the BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin has backfired. The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is one of the best recruiting sergeants the BNP has.
One of the more sinister proposals aimed at the BNP was made by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in July 2004. ACPO proposed that action should be taken against any police officer who joined or who was a member of the BNP. The reason given for this vicious proposal was that the police have ‘to promote racial equality’. Rubbish. It is not the job of the police to promote the ideological programme of the Left. The police exist to prevent and to fight crime. ACPO’s proposal was a direct attack on political
freedom since it involves the police in policing politics. It is yet another example of the creeping Sovietization of the United Kingdom.
In the light of ACPO’s sinister attack on the BNP, I would ask readers to consider the following extract from Alan Bullock’s masterful study of Hitler: ‘The moment Göring entered office he began a drastic purge of the Prussian State service, in which hundreds of officials were dismissed and replaced by men who could be relied on by the Nazis. Göring paid particular attention to the senior police officers, where he made a clean sweep in favour of his own appointments, many of then active S.A. or S.S. leaders’ (Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952), Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1983, pp.260-261).
The BNP is the only party in this country that articulates the thoroughly justified hopes and fears of the white indigenous population regarding the legal/illegal immigrant invasion. Yes, in case it had escaped your attention, we are being invaded. Consider that the number of illegals in this country could be as high as 1.5 million. It should be a matter of the highest national priority to hunt these people down, round them up and eport them. “Diversity is not our strength”. On the contrary it shall be our destruction. One of the more alarming findings from the 2001 census was that for the first time in our history whites are a minority in Birmingham and Leicester. This is the beginning of the racial and cultural dispossession of our people, my people, my country. Am I expected to celebrate this dispossession as one of the benefits of “diversity”? I shall not. It fills me with dread, fear and foreboding.
Meanwhile the Labour government, aided and abetted by cowardly and despicable Tories, will push through ever harsher legislation to silence critics and where that fails, they will subject them to legal and bureaucratic intimidation. This is the context to the Griffin and  Collet trial. Indeed, the process of turning Britain into some kind of Peoples Democracy, along the lines of the old German “Democratic” Republic, is well under way. My freedoms, among them the all important free speech, are only secure when my fellow citizens can exercise the same freedoms. An attack on their freedoms is manifestly an attack on mine. Regardless of what one thinks of the BNP’s leader, if Griffin can be treated in this manner, none of us is safe from the Police. In the words of Martin Niemöller: ‘First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist; then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist; then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist; then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew; then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me’. You have been warned.
Please note, the words highlighted in BOLD are those which were censored by the University

The Thoughts of Chairman Andrew!

Copying almost verbatim from the thoughts, not of Chairman Mao, but another who thinks he is better and more worthy than just about anyone else; Andrew Marr. I give you slices of the wisdom of the BBC commentator and ‘journalist’

“Teachers are the most effective anti-racist campaigners in the country, this means more than education in other religions, it means a form of political  education. Only people who understand the economic forces changing their world, threatening them… have a chance of being immune to the old tribal chants.

And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress…

I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good.

Stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off…

A new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.”

The Head of the Church in England and Wales, which has been mercifully on the sidelines of this story, says that what’s happened is “shameful”; that abuse was
not deliberately covered up. Archbishop Vincent Nichols is with me now. Good morning, Archbishop.

ARCHBISHOP NICHOLS: Good morning to you.

ANDREW MARR: I know you’re off to conduct Palm Sunday Mass shortly. Can I ask you about the persistent allegations and fears that the Pope in his previous job as Head of the Congregation of the Faith was involved in these cover-ups; that there was a strong desire in the church, as somebody put it, not to wash our dirty linen in public?

ARCHBISHOP NICHOLS: Well as far as the role of Cardinal Ratzinger’s concerned, he was not involved in any cover-up. The case of the priest from America, for example, had already been reported to the police in 1975, and it was over 20 years, 25 years before it came to the attention of the Holy See. Because the role of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to oversee the canonical legal procedures, not …

ANDREW MARR:  I understand. The Head of the Church in Ireland, Cardinal Brady, was there when children who had been abused or people who’d been abused were sworn to secrecy. Do you think his position is now untenable?

ARCHBISHOP NICHOLS: But again, it has to be understood. You know the media has a very proper role in invigilating, in looking at what’s going on and bringing things to the surface, and I totally accept that role of the media. But the media also needs to be a bit more attentive to detail, so the secrecy that is concerning … that’s around the cardinal in Ireland was the secrecy for the process of a trial. It’s like giving victims anonymity in the course of a trial. Now they think …

ANDREW MARR: (over) But they then have to swear secrecy forever after …


ANDREW MARR: … which is quite something if you’ve been the victim of something like this.

Andrew Marr:—-I found this, from June 3, 1940, by the American journalist H L Mencken: “The function of a newspaper in a democracy is to stand as a sort of chronic opposition to the reigning quacks. The minute it begins to out-whoopthem it forfeits its character and becomes ridiculous.”

Marr on bloggers as “inadequate, pimpled and single”, and citizen journalism as thespewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night”.

When asked for the secret of being a good reporter, number one rated political reporter Andrew Marr told Press Gazette: “I think as with any kind of journalism, curiosity is essential. You also need a basic fair-mindedness. You have to accept that most of the people in the political game have mixed motives but part of their motives are good ones and they do want to make the world better, whether they are on the right, centre or left.

Andrew the Good:-  “A good journalist treats the business of politics, if not everything that happens in politics, with a certain amount of respect – which I try to do.”

Andrew Marr this morning:- “I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists. Am I embarrassed by it? Yes. Am I uneasy about it? Yes.” But he added: “I also had my own family to think about, and I believed this story was nobody else’s business. I still believe there was, under those circumstances, no public interest in it.”

But Mr Marr added that the use of injunctions seemed to be “running out of control”. He said: “There is a case for privacy in a limited number of difficult situations, but then you have to move on. They shouldn’t be forever and a proper sense of proportion is required.”


Mr Marr told the Daily Mail that he took out the super-injunction to protect his family’s privacy but says he will not pursue it any further.

The unnamed woman is understood to be considering taking out her own High Court super-injunction to protect the privacy of her own family and her guide dog.

Can you keep a secret?

It is a strange state of ‘affairs’ when only some people are allowed to know what is happening within the lives of some  rich and famous people, with the rest of us outside the fence looking in. Whether you are curious whether a prominent ex-banker has been shagging a female banker or not, you are not allowed to read of his peccadillos in the newspapers because a judge has deemed that his ‘privacy’ is more important the freedoms which we in this country have taken for granted for centuries.

I have always believed in the old-fashioned phrase of ‘putting up or shutting-up’ Why don’t the MPs who know of all these allegations speak out under Parliamentary privilege, ‘out’ all of these people who have persuaded some judge who believes that certain people are ‘better’ than the rest of us, and see what all the fuss is about. Alternatively, why don’t we see all the newspapers who obviously know all the details, print those details, and see if a jury will convict any or all of them?

I know of at least two injunctions which have been breached on the internet, and I intend to write about them on my own site soon. What I would like to see is a ‘grand outing’ via this same Internet, because people should know what their ‘role models’ have been up to behind the privacy granted via the likes of Judge Eady.

“Agreed then? I’ll keep your name secret if you’ll keep mine.”

hat tip to Mac of the Daily Mail

Flee, for we are all contaminated!

Not too many people listen to the Sunday Programme on the BBC, but I do, mainly because it never fails to get my blood pressure up and racing, spitting blood and snot (metaphorically speaking) as I listen. This morning’s effort was little different, with the usual platitudes being spread far and wide. The speakers just couldn’t understand why the residents of Burnley kept pretty much to themselves, white with white, and ‘Asian’ with ‘Asian’ in their housing and living arrangements, and equally could not understand why not many white people acknowledged having ‘Asian’ friends, or vice versa!

In other words, the usual, liberal, hands-wringing bullshit about ‘why people couldn’t see the best of each other, and how ‘integrated’ or secular schools would of course work the miracle they were all hoping for to prove the flawed philosophy of ‘MultiCulturalism’ actually works!

But the icing on the cake, about twenty-one minutes in to the recording, was the world-shattering discovery  that a BNP Councillor, John Cave, has been elected by his fellow Councillors in the Town Council of Padiham to become Deputy Mayor. Not to be Mayor, but to be the Deputy Mayor. The problem is that this year’s Deputy automatically becomes next year’s Mayor!

They rolled out some Bishop or cleric to state that the whole idea was appalling, despite the vicar also stating that he had nothing personal against Mr. Cave, its just that he was a member of a ‘RACIST’ organisation, he holds ‘RACIST’ views; and that just wasn’t British. They did include a counter-argument from an ex-Councillor, who stated that the Town  Council is a non-political organisation, that Mr. Cave was elected by a majority of his fellow Councillors, his political views were not important, and his work as a Town Councillor had been without reproach.

Next: the police will probably be called in to investigate the other Councillors to ascertain if they secretly hold similar views to Mr. Cave, and the file will be forwarded to the Criminal  Benevolent Crown Prosecution Service for action.

Frankly, I reckon Mr. Cave’s biggest problem is that he has just a moustache instead of a full beard, like mine!

Salute to the Glosters

An American Presidential Unit Citation is a comparatively rare animal. Even rarer is the award to a foreign Unit. So when the 1st Battalion the Gloucestershire Regiment and Troop C,  70th Independent Mortar Battery, British Army were awarded this singular honour, it was well earned and deserved.

During the spring of 1951 three Divisions of the 63rd Chinese Communist Army chose an historic invasion route along which to mount an attack on Seoul. Astride their route of advance lay this valley, where the 29th Brigade had prepared its position overlooking the Imjin River.

The 1st Battalion of the Gloucestershire Regiment was supported by C Troop 170th Independent Mortar Battery, Royal Artillery now called the Imjin battery. The remainder of the Brigade, the Northumberland Fusiliers, The Royal Ulster Rifles and the Belgian Capital Battalion was deployed to the east of the Gloucestershire Regiment. Centurion tanks of the 8th Kings Royal Irish Hussars, 25 pounder guns of 45th Field Regiment, and 55 Squadron Royal Engineers provided the Brigade with its close support. The Brigade frontage of about 12,000m contained gaping holes through which the enemy were subsequently to infiltrate in their thousands.

It was a warm day, with a touch of spring in the air when, on 22 April 1951, the Battle of the Imjin began. Throughout the first night the Battalion held its positions against seemingly overwhelming odds of ten to one. During the next two days, in the course of bitter fighting, it was forced to withdraw from the forward positions onto the hills overlooking Solma-Ri (The  site of the Gloucestershire Regiment Memorial).

By the evening of the 24th April, the exhausted survivors, occupying a small position on the hill-top, were completely surrounded. Ammunition was low and all attempts to relieve them had failed. That night, they held the hill against further repeated attacks. Finally on the morning of the 25th April, they made their last stand before attempting to break out through the encircling Chinese. Lacking ammunition most were captured in the Chinese dominated countryside.

At the roll call after the battle the “Glorious Glosters”, as they became known, could only muster 67 Officers and men. There were 59 dead and 526, of whom 180 were wounded, had fallen into enemy hands. Of these 34 died in captivity. Though minor in scale the battle’s ferocity caught the imagination of the world. In this action the Glorious Glosters were awarded two Victoria Crosses. The valour of these two men epitomized the selfless sacrifice of all those who were killed, captured, or wounded during this brief, but bloody, encounter.

Their action delayed for three days the advance of the Chinese, providing time for the United Nations Forces to re-group and block the Chinese advance on Seoul.


I wish all my readers a Happy St. George’s Day.

The beauty of the image is that it combines the outline of the Saint on horseback in combat with the Dragon, along with the Cross which is of course the Crusader symbol.

Anything which is destined to offend or annoy the newcomers to our shores is good enough for me!

Alternative voting; Block a Tory!

AV; Alternate Voting.

We are told that ‘THE WINNING CANDIDATE WILL ALWAYS EITHER HAVE THE MAJORITY OF VOTES, OR WILL BE THE MOST POPULAR CANDIDATE  OVERALL’ – therefore they are a better representative of their constituency.

Once everyone has voted, all the 1st choices are added up – if any candidate has more than 50% of that count, they win! AV only kicks in if no candidate has a majority.

The principles of democracy are that the person sitting in Westminster representing a constituency, represents the majority of that consituency. This does not always happen with the existing First Past the Post voting system.

All the usual reasons are trotted out by the Left, and the Lefties (Lib-Dems) but this morning, the cat is as usual, out of the bag with Vince Cable’s statement that the “progressive majority’, meaning Labour and their puppets the Lib-Dems should vote ‘Yes to AV’ because that way they can keep the Tories out forever! His statements are echoed by Polly Toynbee (who else) and a host of trendy clowns who just wanna get their lefty-liberal wishy-washy policies in again.

So, get off your collective a**holes on the 5th May, and vote ‘No’ to AV if only for the sheer joy of upsetting the likes of Cable, Milliband, Toynbee, Prescott and all the other scroungers who say one thing, but mean something entirely different.

When did you last see your girlfriend?

The principle of mobile phones, and how you are able to connect two mobiles to speak with the number you dialled; is at the same time fantastically complex and remarkably easy. The ‘Cell’ principle, whereby every phone within radio contact of the aerial base set automatically gets registered with that base as being active. If you dial another mobile number, an extremely fast and robust computer system locates where that particular phone is located, switches through, and lo and behold, you are speaking to your colleague, or mate, or indeed your father. Early attempts at mobile phone use fell apart when it was found that the numbers of ‘cell bases’ were not sufficient to allow contact with people who moved in and out of the ‘cell’ coverage.

As the systems grew more popular, and more investment was pured in, mobile coverage improved, and suddenly I could call my mate in another car just ahead of me on the A2 coming into London(on hands-free phones, of course). So your phone, and of course you, are already logged in as to your whereabouts from the very beginning of mobile phone use.

I repeat, your position, down to the certain area of the ‘cells’ which you were registered to, is already known and logged.

 So why all the fuss?

and lift carefully here!

Long time back, during my days at sea as an Engineer Officer, I got hit pretty badly by heat exhaustion one day. We were on board the S.S. Foyle, a P&O tanker at anchor in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, and I had been detailed to work inside the boiler casing, which was still pretty hot. I myself can’t remember too much about what happened in the engine room, but the junior engineer who was on watch at the same time said I came stumbling out of the boiler room, bleeding from a nasty gash on my head where he presumed I had fallen and hit my skull.

I hazily came to on deck, while draped across a set of railings, with the Second Engineer pouring water all over me to try and get my temperature down. The Second Deck officer, who was detailed to be the source of all things medical on board ship, decided that I needed hospital treatment, and the shore launch was summoned to make the five-mile run across the Lake to Maracaibo City.

Because I literally could not walk, being semi-comatose,(some nasty persons might state that I have never recovered!!) my fellow engineers decided that, in order to transfer me to the launch from the high deck of the tanker I neede to be strapped into a Robertson Stretcher, which, as can be seen, is equivalent to being wrapped in cling-film. Four officers lifted me up,  the captain being by my left shoulder, and I began the long journey down the gangway from the ships deck to the waiting launch. Because the gangway was both at a steep slant, as well as being narrow, the four men carrying me had to hold the stretcher handles at an angle.

We were about quarter way down when the captain’s hand slipped, and he let go of the strap, and I was swinging, upside down, staring straight down into the waters of Lake Maracaibo, with my arms of course tied tightly inside the stretcher.

So I know exactly how she felt!

X-posted from A Tangled Web

Remember the ‘Horizon’

I am not, as many will recall, overfond of mass memorials. Yes, the Two-minute Silence in Great Britain at 11 a.m. on 11th day of the 11th month to remember those who gave their lives so that we might live without tyranny is, to my mind, one of the very few exceptions to my own rule. Anything proposed or formulated by the European Union is definitely beyond the pale as far as I am concerned.

But there are times when I believe we should pause, and remember those, who by a combination of arrogance, stupidity, greed, simple corruption and fraud have lost their lives while simply doing their jobs.

A minute, if you will, for the Dead of Deepwater Horizon!

Because of the Children!

I have read of, and sympathised with, many people who are distinctly uncomfortable with the high level of security at airports, inclusive of the frisking and thorough patting-down of people inclusive of small children before flight-time. I do admit to a certain level of dissatisfaction with the civilian category of security at British airports, what with the low I.Q. evident amongst the people assigned to search, and security in general. Add to that the large numbers of bloody muslims who are employed in the security industry, by virtue partly of the fact that they allegedly will do a job which is totally mind-destroying and who are ultra-visible by virtue of their dress, their features and their colour.

But I have now to admit that, after watching the televised production of ‘The Liquid Bomb Plot’ on television, I have changed my mind completely!

Why the change of mind?

Because the bomb plotters were actually recorded discussing whether they should bring their wives and children on board the very flights that they were planning to destroy. Imagine, if you can; the mindset of an individual who is not only planning to destroy, without compunction, a series of airliners which would be carrying over two thousand lives: but also to bring on board the jet which they plan to destroy their own families, because that would ensure that the ‘Kuffar’, the Infidel, would never suspect that a ‘Jihadi’ was in fact on board.

Allahu fucking Akhbar!

Poor Boy!

When I was a small boy, I saw the end of the Second World War. Obviously, because I was only five years of age, that momentous happening passed me by. But we saw my father return from the Army, and suddenly we were a family once more. We weren’t rich, we saw tight times, but we had a regular wage coming through the door, and we never lacked for the basics.

True, I inherited my brother’s shirts as he grew out of them, but we always made do, and we always got by. As we grew up, we were able to wear our school blazers and uniforms, we had whatever was required. In other words, our parents saw that we grew up in a British tradition, of knowing that whatever we had came from hard work, and nothing came from nothing.

Many of our schoolfriends were not so lucky in their lives. I remember one day two of the boys in my class were absent; and two days later they returned. The explanation was simple, they had no shoes, so they had to wait until their parents could afford new shoes.  Others were late to school, because they had to walk, not having the pennies for the bus fare.

Some of my schoolmates ate all their school dinners, every day.  When I tell you that the food served up at school lunchtimes was possibly the most tasteless concotion known to man, that gives you some idea of the reality of the previous sentence. That school dinner was probably the only solid nutritional meal that they would see all day.

The truth was simple, that there wasn’t the money in those households to stretch to extra shoes, or bus-fares; or extra food on the table. That, my friends, is to be poor! That is a definition of poverty! Not to be able to heat your home, or properly clothe or feed your children!

The Child Poverty Act 2010 is neither definition, reality or fact. There are no poor people in Britain, not with the huge back-up of Social Security benefits available at the stroke of a pen or the ‘click’ of a mouse. There are feckless people aplenty, there are those who don’t use their benefits wisely; and there are those who do not deserve the very title of parent, but all of those people do not live and never have have lived, for a very long time, in any sort of poverty; except the poverty of the mind!

The land of the Free…

Norman Rockwell, an artist who created controversy with every brushstroke, features in a travelling exhibit called American Chronicles..The Art of Norman Rockwell.

I came upon this knowledge through a visit to a fellow blogger’s pages, and through him to the source of the comments on this iconic figure in American Culture and Art.

As I commented in David Duff’s pages:-

Some rate Rockwell as a cheesy folksy amateur, whose images, while never showing ‘Mom and Apple Pie’ literally had those thoughts showing through every thing he produced. Whilst I accept that those who disliked Norman have as much right to their opinion as I have to mine, I would argue that Rockwell, together with his chosen vehicle of the Saturday Evening Post as a carrier for his vision, showed the real strength of America.

What other Nation, apart from America, could rise up from the seeming death blow of Pearl Harbour to bring the thunderclouds of retribution upon the Japanese Empire in four odd years? Along with the mightiest armadas ever seen upon the oceans, they brought succour and help to a stricken British Empire when it was needed most, leaving 30,000 of their young men dead after flying against the Nazis in the Skies of Occupied Europe!

His deft brushstrokes revealed a strength of purpose within the American psyche, and if the Warlords of Germany and Japan had maybe studied his works, they might have seen the strength hidden behind a camouflage of ‘stumbling mongrels’, as the Japanese named the many peoples who made up the Nation who backstopped democracy until the War was won.

spare change Guv?

The only discordant note in that rather beautifully photographed and produced video is the accent. Both the elderly blind man, and the attractive young woman who comes to his aid, have Scots accents.

Everyone knows that if the blind man was actually seated on the pavements of Glasgow, any cash he had collected would be half-inched by the local junior heavies before he had time to place it in his tin can.

If the reality had taken place in Edinburgh, he runs the risk of arrest under ‘proposed aggressive begging by-laws’.

migration, or imposition?

When you hear or read of politicians discussing immigration in tones which ‘suggest’ that mistakes have been made, and changes will be made, just check the calendar, and find out when Elections are due.

Dave Cameron is supposed to be bleating on about how they can’t speak English, and how they don’t integrate; and then how his Coalition will be ‘doing something’ about it.

‘Fast Forward’ if you will to about five-six months into the future, and I forecast with almost crystal clarity that absolutely nothing will have changed, is about to change, or indeed has ever planned to be changed in the field of Immigration.

The Pakistanis, the Bangladeshis, the Nigers from Nigeria, the muslims from all the slum-spots of the world; they will all be still flooding in, along with all the family friends and sidekicks who are given entrance to this Country, and the British will still be waiting to be asked if they like it!

So are you black british, black welsh, or just ******?

So when we read of this, many of us expected the knee-jerk banning of private ownership of guns, but we did see semi-automatic weaponry banned.

When a madman struck in Dunblane, the hand-gun ban was introduced very quickly.

When Derrick Bird ran amok, shot-gun rules were looked at, but it was thought that you cannot legislate against a madman.

But when a black man shoots a black girl, is the resultant furore because

  • of the weaponry held by the killer
  • the skin colour and possible future of the dead girl
  • the skin colour of the killer
  • the fact that there are 22 gangs in Hackney alone, carving out ‘territory’ by postcode
  • the possibility that nearly all members of these gangs are black, whether Carribean from Jamaica, or Nigerian or from yet another black-ridden slum pit
  • There are seven times more black people, by population proportion, than white people in prison today.

So can we now accept that Enoch was not only right then, but he is also equally right now?

Those whom the gods wish to destroy…

Listening to the Farming programme on the BBC this morning, I suddenly realised that not only have we been Governed by a clutch of morons until the Election last year; that same Governance has continued with the present bunch of spineless idiots, place-men, and chancers.

The farming programme, itself lasting fifteen minutes on weekdays and thirty at the weekend, is a snapshot of essential lives within our country, because they talk about the ways in which life itself is sustained within our cities and towns. The farmers produce the food which sustains us; the milk which makes our cups of coffee and tea to our tastes, the vegetables which help provide such variety of tastes and textures to satisfy our need for sustenance, the meat which provides the protein which serves the vast majority of Britons as the fuel by which we survive. There are some amongst us who do not eat meat, but as I am not of their ranks, I am neither qualified nor competent to comment upon their lifestyle choices, but the overwhelming majority do not share their viewpoint. But my comments today do include them as consumers of British produce, because it is on the produce of Britain’s farms that todays diatribe is targeted.

Farmers are being pushed into planning patterns, methods of animal husbandry  and crop trialling which they would never voluntarily have moved, bevause they are being told ‘change here, and here, and here,’ because it is essential that they play their part in the so-called fight against ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’, or whever the bloody buzzword is this morning!

Along with all the rest of British Industry, and farming is an industry, they are bound by LAW to reduce their “Greenhouse Gas Emissions” by 80% of 1990 levels. Apart from those of us who regularly but seemingly futilely rave against the monstrous charges which have been placed upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer, has anyone else sat back and considered exactly what the effect of the Climate Change Bill of 2008 will have upon our Nations, our children, their children and their children’s children? Alone amongst the Nations of the world, the last Government loaded us with a comprehensive catalogue of debt, vast and stupendously expensive change in virtually the way and manner in which we live; all because the Labour clowns, along with just about every other politician in Westminster, listened to a parrotted clump of pseudo-science from a set of alleged scientists, and believed every lying word that they said! We will be subsidising wind-turbine electricity from now until doomsday, and the amount we shall be receiving from these useless windmills is approximately one-tenth of what was promised because not only are they inherently inefficient, they can only operate when the wind blows!

Reminder to self: what actually happened to all those expensive turbine windmills during the coldest winter spell in thirty years? They were all slowly revolving! True; but they were being powered by ELECTRICITY because they have to be kept moving during extreme cold spells otherwise the insides glue up! Why were they being turned by electricity? Because the bloody wind wasn’t blowing, because it was so bloody cold!

Better that the many listen to the few, who spoke such words during debate as If the Bill’s intent is taken seriously, the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible.”, or “The Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament as a whole as ever had to examine”.

As a reminder that we have not yet seen the promised ‘Warming’, and in fact are watching Nature once again make fools of us all, check out the reports of ‘Heavy Ice in the Gulf of Finland,’ as well as the earlier trauma of all those ‘ships caught up in two metre-thick ice in the Sea of Okhotsk’.

However, as a final thought on the true stupidity of Government, as well as those who advise Government, I would reccomend a slight deviation to read this particular gem and especially the ‘bullet points’on Page 16. I do wonder sometimes where they find these advisors, and if the said ‘advisors’ have ever tried to convince, say, a Muslim man, of the inevitability of their thinking?

tell me the old, old story!

I have often wondered when a list will emerge of the items, activities and indeed places which will not cause cancers in the human body. We have seen such illusory activities as ‘secondary’ or ‘passive’ smoking included on the killer list, as well as diet, genetic characteristics and the use of harsh hair bleaches.

However, after prior advice that a glass of red wine a day will help stave of a heart attack, we now read that ANY alcohol use, over an unspecified period, will cause cancer and death within your body. The only good news is that your chances of survival grow exponentially if you are female; but apart from that: WE ARE ALL DOOMED!

Don’t know about you, but I’m gonna have a drink to celebrate beating the odds by reaching seventy years of age whilst smoking like a chimney for thirty years, drinking when and what I felt like for just about all my adult life; all whilst holding two fingers in salute to all the ‘experts’ who only preach of doom and gloom in order to get some exposure for their silly, stupid and often grotesquely wrong theories and statistics.

Please let me make amends…

When ‘Our Dave’ states that Britain was responsible for many of the world’s problems, he isn’t far off the truth. Well, not only not far off, not even close, really.

We might have scuttled out of India, leaving a tinder-box of religious and political issues and attitudes left unresolved, but we didn’t suddenly make Hindus and Muslims hate one another with a deadly vengeance.

We might have arranged the partition of a sub-continent without thinking every detail through, but we did not arrange the trains arriving in India from a newly independent Pakistan with words of hate painted on the sides of carriages filled with the dead, dying and mutilated bodies of the Sikhs and Hindus who had fled from the terror.

We arranged the Partition along the lines of a population majority in a State deciding which Nation would claim its fealty, we did not ensure that a Hindu King in Kashmir would swing his State into Indian rule, despite a solid Muslim majority because the Indians promised him a better deal.

We might have ruled India through a pattern of divide and rule, through propping up princelings and maharajahs, but we didn’t commence or fight three wars between the nuclear-armed States of India and Pakistan.

We have many things to be proud of in our sojourn within a greater India, some regret, but very little to be ashamed of. True, not many occupying armies had a General Dyer amongst them, but with a massive population and unrest escalating, our eventual Partition arrangement, if all had stuck to the terms of separation, could have worked without bloodshed; but there had been too much blood shed already not to inflame already tender temperaments, and flashpoints boiled over into murder and chaos.

Don’t apologise on my behalf, Prime Minister; just keep your word on domestic issues and try and appear like a Tory; even if you don’t believe in the things which we do!

Religion; accountancy style!

I place this rather special video to commemorate the hundreds of lives ruined by a class of people who thought that they, and they alone, knew what was best; what was ‘acceptable’ and what was to be done with girls and women who had ‘sinned’ by becoming pregnant out of wedlock within the Irish State not that many years ago. I am of course talking of the ‘Invisible Government’ of the Irish Republic, which ruled with an iron fist concealed within a velvet glove; I am talking of the Catholic Church.
Some short time ago, I wrote of the injustice, cruelty, sexual and physical abuse suffered by thousands of the more ‘invisible’ exports this country of ours has piloted, which in time was commemorated by the Canadian Government’s dedication of 2010 as the Year of the British Home Child; commenting that at least they could rejoice with the issue of a Commemorative Stamp. Unfortunately, this post disappeared when ATW was hacked, and as I did not copy across to my own site, my text, dipped in concentrated sulphuric acid, was lost. Fortunately, my memory is still fairly active, and I found a previous post about the grievous crimes committed against thousands of innocent children by Charities, Local councils, Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy by callously shipping them off to Australia, Canada and Southern Africa.
But now we hear of new revelations from Spain, that once most-Catholic of countries, with news that Catholic nuns and religious communities, under the guise of medical care during birth, have colluded with other sectors of their religion to secure newly-born babies immediately after their birth, conceal or lie about the fact that the child still lives; and then to SELL that innocent baby to a couple who can afford the price. ANADIR’s 41-year-old president, Antonio Barroso, says he found out only about three years ago that the parents who raised him were not his biological parents. He said he learned he was sold at birth to another family for 200,000 pesetas, the Spanish currency that preceded the euro. At today’s rate that is about euro1,200 ($1,600) although at the time it was a worth a lot more.
In the time of the Medici Popes, prayers and priestly titles were auctioned off for money to fight wars, but at least this was openly known about. What says the Catholic Church today, when it is accused not only of systematic abuse and near slavery conditions, pederast and paeadophile priests given sanctuary behind a wall of indifference and silence; but now of the abuse of the most innocent of us all, new-born children, harvested from the very wombs that gave them birth, and sold off with precision for profit?
What was that saying I was taught so very long ago in that Catholic Grammar School? Ah, yes, I remember it now!
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam….translated is….To the Greater Honour and Glory of God.
I wonder if He appreciates the ‘honour and glory’ of those sacrifices in Spain?
X-posted from A Tangled Web


“Just Lucky, I Guess!”

Sue Vincent, Camden Council’s cabinet member for the environment has been rehoused to a very desirable location in Covent Garden.

Of course, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with her being on the management board of Seven Dials Housing Co-operative, the housing association who evicted the family who had lived there for 25 years.

Then there may be some who think that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, and tastes fucking great with orange sauce then it might just be a fucking duck.

H/T Ranting Penguin

Yes, but the money is ‘great’!

I note that Michael Buerk has come out with all guns blazing in support of his buddy Peter Sissons’ autobiography. He comments vitriolically on the BBC and its journalists
and ‘warns that they read the left-wing Guardian newspaper as if it is ‘their Bible’’. He goes on to say that the BBC is warped by the prejudices of its staff, his fellow reporters have ‘contempt’ for business and the countryside – and that a left-wing culture means the national broadcaster has been cast ‘adrift of the overriding national sentiment’ on issues such as climate change.

Whilst heartily agreeing with Mr. Buerk on the totally-biased stances of his erstwhile employer on such things as ‘Climate Change’, and the pre-eminence of the Guardian as a ‘journal of influence’ within the BBC; along with all the Lefty-luvvies who prance around the corridors of  our national broadcaster, I would however ask one very simple question.

If he disagreed with the political, moral and ethical stances of his employer, who must have paid him large anounts of money over the years; if his beliefs were so compromised, why did he not resign early in his distinguished career from an organisation which he disliked so very much?