and all was well at the Beeb; anywhere else, they don’t wanna’ know!

When I heard of the BBC plans for the Today Programme ‘Guest Editors’ over the holiday period, I almost knew what coming before the first programme, featuring the Beeb’s favourite M.P., Speaker John Bercow came on air; and I was not disappointed. Every pointed question was never asked, any hint of dissension from the Party line was never aired, and this creeping disgrace to civilised Government spouted his thoughts unhindered by challenge, query or even mild surprise.

But worse was, unfortunately, to follow. We were given a verbal and mental battering, by Today’s ‘guest editor’ this morning, on the true delights of Lesbian, Gay, BiSexual and Trandgender lifestyles by this strange woman; the struggles of the LBGT (or, for more unworldy readers; homosexual) movement as they grasp ‘Equality’, or ‘Diversity’ or whatever they are musing over this weekend. We heard of the struggles of allegedly confused youngsters as they entered their first unsupervised home, and how they abandoned this security because they had not been, wait for it; trained as to the function of ordinary things in a home,and went to live on the proceeds of crime on the streets. We even heard this Charity leader state that all youngsters who were still ‘confused’ about their identity should be kept in comfort by the State until their 25th birthday: and he was being serious!

When I was far younger than today, the adjective ‘gay’ was just that, an adjective. A definition, if one was sought, was to be carefree, happy, unburdened by worries or tribulation. HMS Gay Charger, a fast Motor GunBoat, was actually commanded by Nigel Lawson, a former Chancellor. Listening through the turgid unburdening of ‘how happy’ they were once they had ‘come out of the closet, and embraced their ‘gay awareness’ a common theme or opinion emerged in my mind; which, put rather simply, was that for a group of people who had now, ‘found out who they all were’, and had at last come to terms with their confused ideas of sexuality, etc., etc., and so on ‘ad infinitum’; for such a ‘Gay Group’, they came across, to this observer, as rather sad and silly.

So why didn’t the dog bark in the night?

I write about a strange and almost inexplicable trait present in many British people , a trait which I certainly do not share, nor do I even attempt to either comprehend or  even understand. It is the singular foolishness of risking one’s own life to ‘rescue’ an animal which is perceived to be in danger of dying; either through accident or human action; it is the whole idea that an animal is worthy of the possibility of losing or hazarding the rescuer’s own life to aid that same animal.

Time and again, we watch or read, or hear of some futile rescue attempt of a dog, usually a dog, possibly because they are more singularly stupid than the merest of cats and moggies in general, who seem to have a much higher degree of self-preservation built into their natural DNA; when the dog has either fallen through an iced-up pond or lake, or fallen off a cliff, or else some equally hazardous or extremely silly happening. The rescuer, if still alive, but more often than not is now dead, is referred to as a hero, or a brave and fast-thinking man or woman of moral steadfastness; worthy of the tributes of lesser mortals.

Just think about the strange, and in fact remarkably effective, campaign by some pressure group or other which strove against the killing of baby seals in the Canadian Arctic. It wasn’t the artful campaign photos of a female model dragging a sealskin coat across the floor, the passage of the coat was of course traced with the alleged blood of the dead seals which was the prime mover of the campaign winning: it was the photos of the head of a baby seal with its two large, seemingly soulful eyes staring reproachfully back out off the pages of the adverts and articles which was the crunch kit of the campaign against the use of furs from those dead baby seals. Most viewers simply looked at those two reproachful pools, staring out of an animal’s head; and immediately transposed the eyes into human eyes, and the fur coat trade died away.

And it is exactly the same transference which rules when some ordinary man is hailed as a HERO, by his actions in saving, or attempting to save, some animal; even at the cost of his own life: a  cost which is felt most severely by his dependants, who now have to struggle along without a breadwinner: but he is, or rather was, a hero!

Which brings me to the main point of my writing today. Readers will no doubt have read and heard of the saving of some 150 dogs from a blazing inferno at a Manchester dogs’ home, while some fifty other animals died. Two of the men who rescued some of the dogs were being interviewed by the BBC pillock on the Today Programme, and they had been retelling how they had seen the flames from their own homes, and had rushed over to try and save the dogs, despite the fierce temperature of the fire and the flames. They were suitably modest about their ‘heroics’, and said that anyone else would have done the same. But the BBC clown then said, “You must have heard that the fund to rebuild the dog’s shelter has already reached over a million pounds. Are you surprised that people have donated so much money to a dog’s home, when OTHER CHARITIES ARE FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO HELP STARVING PEOPLE OVERSEAS?”

Now, if some wet, liberal, lefty BBC clone had asked me, or someone like me, why I had donated cash to some bloody burnt-out dogs’ shelter instead of the starving f***king Ethiopians, or the Sudanese, or the Ebola victims, or any other of the myriad causes placed forward so piously by the multitude of bloody charities which have sprung up like weeds, my answer would have been a tad more robust, and to the effect that “IT IS MY BLOODY MONEY, AND I WILL SPEND IT, OR GIVE IT AWAY, TO WHOM I BLOODY WELL PLEASE!”

 

Am I sad? Not really.

This morning, I attempted to re-tune my radio, as I came to the conclusion that my choice of broadcaster, namely the BBC and specifically the Today programme; had been usurped by some strange spectral radio station bound to repeating, at least fourteen times during the first hour, and many more times after that, a smiling and sunny eulogy for Robin Williams the American actor.

Now most sentient people in Western countries where humour is allowed will admit freely that humour is subjective. What is literally that which one man or woman will keel over in near hysterics over, will obviously leave his or her neighbour wondering what all the laughter is about, which is why I, personally, would not describe Mr. Williams as a comedy genius. His rapid-fire chanting, his manic approach to his job, his anarchic approach towards other people, left me stone cold; but equally obviously made him millions of fans.

But perhaps the real reason why the BBC and their Today team made quite so much of the death of Robin Williams, and brought quite so many clips of his work onto the morning’s programme, is primarily because of their admiration for his long-term hard drug use, not giving it the true term of an addiction, and his often-spoken confessions for his disgusting habit, and a complete disregard for the fact that many impressionable people were probably drawn into the snares of the drug dealers because of his open affection for the death-dealing properties of these substances.

As a film actor, he gave some performances which were both muted, substantial and completely worthy of high respect and accolade; as a comedian, he deserved total anonymity and despair; but, there again, that’s just me!

It all depends who is talking about what

Listed to  a slot on BBC Today this morning where this retired policeman was quoted that he was certain various senior colleagues frowned upon his attempts to prosecute the killers of Stephen Lawrence, and alleged that these attempts probably were also corrupt.  These remarks, first aired on Newsnight,  were broadcast in every half-hourly news bulletin, and of course, as he was attacking the Metropolitan Police, and also were in aid of one of the BBC’s favourite people, a black youngster who was struck down by white men before (sarcasm alert) attaining approximately the same status as Martin Luther King (black awareness), or Fillipo Brunelleschi (architecture); they were given the widest publicity and scrutiny.

Not too much publicity or notice was given by the same BBC editors of the earlier part of the same interviewwhere he stated that he (the retired policeman) been removed from a earlier enquiry into abuse in Lambeth childrens’ homes as he was asking too many questions about people in ‘high places’.

The thing which puzzles me is the query as to why Retired Detective Chief Inspector Clive Driscoll didn’t raise seven sorts of Cain in an attempt to gain justice for the children who were, allegedly, being abused, instead of meekly keeping quiet and looking after his own skin and, of course, job?

Compromise? They don’t know how to spell it, never mind what it means.

Listening on the Beeb’s Today Programme to what must be considered a true favourite of the BBC’s way of group-think. The woman being interviewed had a son who had been kidnapped by the Nigerian Boko Haram bunch of criminal terrorists, and he had been killed during a rescue attempt. The woman was being interviewed as she had personal knowledge of these muslim killers, but she was saying that the Nigerian government should ‘open a dialogue’ with these fanatics, they should explore ‘areas of compromise’; and if necessary her son’s killers should be released as part of a deal with the Boko Haram bunch, who hold nearly three hundred girls from a school in Northern Nigeria.

When I state ‘true favourite of the BBC’s way of group-think’, I believe that this is what has been a total ‘belief’ tenet of the Corporation for decades. We must, in the eyes of the BBC, always compromise, always defer to others, never ever stand on principle, never ever argue or stand up for what we, as a nation, used to believe in or argue from a moral standpoint.

The woman whose son was murdered by these muslim killers is, of course, tragically mistaken in hoping for dialogue or compromise with any group who operates under the shadow of terror, or the bullet. The Nigerian government must, in my own view, organise and operate a policy of ‘search and destroy’ against the shadowy terrorists who seem to operate with impunity in the north of that burdened and corrupt country. They must operate as we, in Great Britain, singularly failed to during our own terrorist struggle; they should operate on a ‘shoot to kill’ policy, they should operate on the fact that ‘the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist’ with no bargains, no cushy prisons, no cosy deals, and they should never, ever, offer a place in Government if the terrorists would only promise to ‘disarm and place their weaponry beyond use’; mainly because we all know how weasel promises like that end up!

and here is the news, from the BBC; as we see it.

We were once more regaled this morning on the BBC Today programme with the dark and dangerous stories emanating from the Syrian War, with reports from the ‘rebel’ side of the battleground which the city of Aleppo has become. The BBC reporter described the horrendous effects of the Assad forces weaponry which has been cosily christened the ‘barrel bomb’ which is either an oil drum dropped from a helicopter, which is stocked with home-made explosives and the regulation shrapnel, designed specifically to rend and tear human flesh, or a reinforced gas container, stuffed with the same explosive mix, plus detonator of course; the explosive force generated when detonated would of course shatter the steel containment shell, producing even better shards of shrapnel to injure or kill, well, anybody in its explosive path. The reporter described the areas he was standing in as a war-zone beyond imagination, blaming all this destruction on the Syrian dictator, as well as his Russian-supported military, alongside the really efficient murderers of Hezbollah, whose intervention helped save Assad’s forces from defeat in the Lebanese border towns. Everything which had happened to this once-bustling city was ascribed to the Government’s forces, but there was the routine disclaimer that ’rebel’ forces had also conducted killings of civilians.

All the froth, all the verbal fury, was there for one purpose and one only; to remind us all of our disgraceful (in the BBC’s eyes of course) decision not to join in Obama’s proposed war against the ‘red lines’ of Syrian use of chemical weaponry. To remind us that all these people were dying, or suffering, because we, as a Nation, had not stepped forward when the clarion call came to once more send our Armed forces into harm’s way, to remove this upstart dictator who was punishing the people who had rebelled against his rule! To remind us that it still was not too late to send our soldiers, along with what missiles we still have access to, into yet another sandy deathtrap where we would never, ever, be even able to make one iota of difference.

I think the sad situation in that nation, where the only problems used to arise when Assad wished to reinforce his friends in Hezbollah’s Lebanese camps with Iranian rocketry to be used against Israel; can best be described as one where we in the West have no dog in that fight; where it would be best left if the combatants, with Assad’s Russian-supplied forces did battle against the Jihadi-bent terror gangs who are all fighting with treasure sent from the Saudis and Qataris, and they can fight on, and kill each other, until they grow tired of the bloodshed, and just stop.

As a footnote to my words, and as a further judgement on the stealthy philosophies of the Beeb, I would ask just a few pointed questions for you to ponder:-

  • When was the last time the BBC told of the terrible starvation and suffering of the North Korean people, and asked what Britain should do about it?
  • When was the last time that the savage torment placed upon the Zimbabwean people by the geriatric dictator Mugabe, along of course with his Zanu-PF thugs, was even discussed on the BBC airwaves?
  • When was the decision by the Botswana Government not to stop the forced removal of the Kalahari Bushmen to the resettlement camps, so that diamond mining can carry on without these pesky Bushmen wanting a major share of the profits; ever criticised on the BBC?
  • When was the fate of the people who once lived quite happily upon the island of Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago, but forcibly removed by British government agents so that the whole island chain could be leased very profitably to America as a base for carriers, submarines and equipment ships, ever taken up, or even championed by a supine BBC?

it all depends on your ‘Point of View’

It is, unfortunately, a fact of life that anyone in Great Britain with even vaguely ‘centrist’ or ‘right-of-centre views’ perceives the BBC as an organ of the Left;  a broadcaster with a built-in bias against anybody, any politician, any Party, which views political life in this country in opposition to its own, narrow, egocentrically left-wing, liberally-biased viewpoint.

The Biased BBC blog, edited consistently by ATW’s David, gives graphic illustration of that built-in bias against anyone who does not share, whole-heartedly, the BBC’s viewpoint.

Peruse, if you would, the following comments following a Guardian report on a statement by Eric Pickles on council propaganda news-sheets:-

He will have to close the BBC down, that spouts Tory propaganda on every news programme.

Well said, couldn’t agree more. I can barely watch the BBC news these days, it’s so full of Tory propaganda.

You’ll enjoy this headline.

Rising wages change terms of debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27048545

My 85 year old Mum mentioned the BBC tonight. She said she had stopped watching the BBC News because its a Tory party broadcast.
She’s switched to Channel 4. I might do the same.

My query is quite simple: are these people on the same planet as the rest of us?

The BBC, otherwise known as ‘No right-wing views here; please!

When we read or hear something broadcast especially when it is in a  political context; from a National broadcaster such as the BBC, the ‘more alert’ amongst us have to bring into use (in computer and phone parlance) an App. In a thousandth of a second, we have to a) remember who is talking, then remember b) what they have said in the past, then we have to c) decide if their built-in left-wing and liberal bias is firing at full blast, then d) decipher the news and determine how to approach the item to determine what has actually happened. If I were such a composer, I would name this App. as ‘The Searching the Haystack Syndrome’.

I write on this well-known problem mainly because it should be both well-known and acknowledged, but somehow is not. The BBC seems to bask in the glow created during its formative years, which was reinforced by its operations during the Second World War; and the manner in which its World Service broadcast arm seems to have avoided the dreary group-think adopted by just about all of its national and local broadcast stations. I think the problem is best described by an interview between a mildly right-wing commentator and members of the BBC journalism staff. They interviewed him, and seemed (to the interviewee) to be satisfied with the recorded clip, but it was never broadcast. When asked why the clip was silenced, the communal reply was that although the man was perfectly polite and sincere, he was also quite obviously mad for holding and propagating the views he held so steadfastly!

As background to that which I am about to write, we must examine the reasons behind the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian President. For many centuries, Egypt has been a country with a Muslim tradition, but one lightly applied. Orthodox and Coptic Catholics have lived and thrived, there has been no tradition of Theocracy, or religious rule; the mullahs have had their place, but have never been allowed to interfere with how the Nation is run, as it should be. But ex-President Morsi intended to grab even more power than that handed to him through the electoral process, and once he commenced meetings with Iran’s swivel-eyed leadership, and installed former terrorists as Provincial Governors; and pushing for ever-more Islamic rule and diktat, the People, in their tens of millions, said ‘Enough is enough’. Fortunately, the military were and had been listening, organised their ranks against their old foe, and kicked him out.

When Jim Naughtie of the BBC’s Today Programme was broadcasting this morning on his travels through Cairo, and of the Egyptians whom he met and spoke with, he told of a man who approached his car and attempted to sell him a photocard featuring General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the leading general and author of the military take-over. Jim Naughtie did not say how he turned down the offer of the photograph, but left the listener in no doubt as to his (Naughtie’s) opinion of that courageous military soldier who had acted in Egypt’s best interests. At every opportunity, we are reminded by all the BBC’s reporters and commentators, that Morsi had been ‘elected’ and as such should have been regarded as akin to a minor god, instead of the scheming and obdurate political and religious cynic he so obviously was.

To give you further insight into the very way this influential broadcaster’s mind works, I recall he was doing a small clip with a Scotswoman who was retailing how she had trapped and despatched some small rodents. When she told him she had killed around twenty, his reply was a shocked “but thats murder!”