We’ve heard a lot about the Muslim sex gangs in Rotherham and elsewhere and the failure to act by any of those in authority due to concerns about race and culture.
Part of that was of course that the girls were white and working class….they didn’t count quite as much as the nice daughters of the social workers or policemen or media who looked on and who decided to turn a blind eye.
Here a whole class of people has been betrayed and abandoned…to protect the authorities from claims of racism but also the ethnic communities that the sex gangs come from…especially as it turns out that it was particularly white girls being picked on as the Muslims didn’t want to attack girls of their own faith.
The BBC (and other media) must have also played its part in hiding the truth…there must have been complicity with the police and social workers in agreeing what would and would not be reported.
It is remarkable that any of those journalists who ducked the issue and agreed to censorship can now hold their heads up without any shame or remorse.
Maybe those responsible will be brought out into the open in 23 years or so as with Hillsborough.
Their behaviour is of course in stark contrast to that normally at the BBC where working class ‘victims’ of government cuts and inaction are meat’n’veg to BBC anti-cuts agitators with always a ready welcome in a warm BBC studio if you have a tale to tell that paints a doom laden scenario of how ‘cuts’ are affecting you.
Have a look at this, an interview with J.K. Rowling about her new book ‘Casual Vacancy’….dealing with class warfare, drugs and teen sex.
Rowling states that the book is essentially about a girl named Krystal…and it is asking ‘What are we going to do about Krystal?’ (and girls like her).
Clearly ‘Krystal’ is from the same sort of background as the real victims in Rotherham and the book raises all sorts of questions about ‘society’ and of course Middle Class attitudes.
The BBC laps it up….apparently the Guardian and the BBC were given privileged access to the book…so work that out.
However, apart from the interviewer, James Runcie, being a good friend of Rowling, he is pretty keen to bring out all these social issues and start insinuating blame.
I mentioned that Rowling says the book is asking ‘what can be done to help girls like Krystal’…the BBC decided the main theme was something different.
The casual vacancy is a vacancy for a post on a local council…and the majority Tory council want to fill it with a likeminded soul…in order that they can change local boundaries and remove a troublesome council estate from their responsibilities. Boo hiss! Nasty Tories.
Now that is part of the book (and it is a fiction by a lefty writer) …but despite the title it is not its main theme according to the author. The BBC begs to differ.
Funny how caring the BBC can be about the white, working class drug addled girls whose knickers are kept up purely by the power of their elastic in the eyes of the BBC and its ilk when it suits the BBC’s own agenda.
But the really interesting point was made by Rowling in which she said she was fed up with the point scoring and soundbite culture of modern politics…which she blamed on the ‘beauty parade’ that is democracy.
True enough….politicians don’t explain themselves well enough….hence we get working class youngsters refusing to take up student loans because of the fear of ‘debt’….conveniently highlighted by the Today programme this morning, always ready to take the government to task on behalf of the working class!
But who is really to blame?
The media…it is the media that sets the agenda…it decides who gets airtime, how much airtime and on which subject…it then decides the questions, and decides the answers…in the editing suite…if it’s live they can interrupt and cut you off or bring in another guest to quash your point or to take up time.
Politicians have very little say in what they can get over to the public especially in the face of a hostile interview…however subtle that hostility is.
The BBC also fails in its duty to educate….always ready to stake out a student protest about tuition fees but less ready to spend valuable airtime on the basics of informing them about the fees.
Jonathan Aitken stated that the BBC were poisoning the well of democratic debate….he was right…even if he did his own bit towards that himself.
“Where’s the magic in this tale of middle-class monsters?
First review of J.K. Rowling’s VERY grown-up novel”
By JAN MOIR
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209165/J-K-Rowlings-The-Casual-Vacancy-review-Wheres-magic-tale-middle-class-monsters.html#ixzz27mieWBON
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Payment in kind – Rowling donates millions £ to the Labour Party. So the bBC give her free publicity, quid pro quo.
“JK Rowling gives Labour £1m donation.
Harry Potter author gives party financial boost as annual conference begins in Manchester” (2008).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/20/labourconference.jkrowling
JK Rowling had all day free advertising for her new book throughout Wednesday on the BBC. Did Jeffrey Archer, for example, get the same publicity?
No, but Alistair Campbell did.
Funny that.
Jk Rowling is the most popular author in the world. Hardly surprising that there is great interest in her work. And all media outlets have had preview copies as Moir’s sour review proves. Where’s the bias? Archer had lots of publicity once. He’s now about as popular as herpes.
Most popular ? doubt that but heyho anyway I though populist was the new dumb for the BBC millions like X Factor so it is Sh%t but millions buy this woman’s stuff [no idea] and yet she is a god!
I think the ‘bias’ is that we all know what sort of reception the BBC would have given her new book if it was raving about how great the Coalition is and thank God for Maggie Thatcher. What publicity did the BBC give Archer’s books except to mention his diary when they were salivating over his secretary’s tales?
I find Archer’s novels are some of the best I’ve read.
I’ve read the odd Archer book and enjoyed them but wasn’t overwhelmed. However, he is not nearly as bad as the BBC tell us he is.
he’s OK, some are excellent others so-so. His ‘First Among Equals’ set him on the road and it’s a cracker.
“JK Rowling has turned her back on the culture that made her great.
The Harry Potter author made a fortune from the provincial life that she now so clearly despises”
By Charles Moore
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9573579/JK-Rowling-has-turned-her-back-on-the-culture-that-made-her-great.html
“Left-wing she may be, but what JK Rowling is really saying to the poor old provincial England that made her is, like Harry Enfield’s famous creation, “I am considerably richer than yow!””
she’s just another left wing hypocrite and i don’t at all believe her once upon a time living in poverty bullshit
Read her wiki entry, head girl at school, her biggest setback was being rejected by Oxford and having to put up with Exeter. Boo Hoo!!!!!
Yes, she made a big thing of being a ‘single mother’ struggling to pay the rent, knowing the images this would create…the truth is a long, long way from it.
Her lifetime heroine is the ultra lefty Jessica Mitford. She even named her daughter after her; a good indicator of her leanings, she confessed she wrote ‘Potter’ while living on social security. She was happy to live in Portugal and teach English as a living; so she could have got a job as a teacher back here, no social security was more appealing.
I doubt she had the right qualifications.
TEFL is only a valid qualification for teaching non-English speaking adults. It has limited applications here and the expected standards are higher than in Portugal.
She couldn’t, for example, teach English to school children without the requisite qualifications and without paying Labour’s ‘Teacher Tax’ .
Absolute nonsense, there are thousands of private language schools in Britain, including Edinburgh, catering for foreign students and would be immigrants who work part time while enjoying ‘student’ visa status through attending such schools (some of which are willing to be very lax about attendance too).
There isa high turnover of teachers at such schools as many do go abroad as well, and many into state sector teaching.
Rowling suffers “Annie Lennox Syndrome”. Multi-millionairess expains how she came from poverty; remains commited Socialist to avoid any guilt over riches. Gives million to Labour, keeps £639m in bank, for herself. I’d believe her only if those numbers were the other way around.
Yes, and if they lived above a Halal butchers in Croydon.
That would be much more convincing.
What are we going to do about Krystal ?
Make it very clear to her and her parents that getting knocked up at 16 is not going to lead to her getting a council flat on a priority basis, with bonus payment top ups for each sprog she produces, by differing , non permanent relationship partners.
BBC sinecure egghead Will Gompertz has strayed off message:
“The problem with The Casual Vacancy is that it takes 500+ pages to tell us that we already know: local politics aren’t that interesting”
Whoops. Expect Will to get a dressing down at his next Islington dinner party. How dare he criticise the work of St JK.
The BBC is just aping the celebrity obsessed media it affects to despise. I ignore it as do large numbers. I have no idea whether this book is any good. I hear and see the hype and assume not. It usually seems to work like that.
Personally I don’t see Rowling as a significant writer, though you cannot argue with her sales. And her fanbase is quite a phenomenon.
.
Then again, I don’t think her sales are the reason for the unnecessary amounts of attention the BBC give her. She hardly seems (to me) to be a philosopher, nor someone who tells us new things about what it is to be a human being, and I never found her stories to be as well constructed as those so many great writers.
.
My personal theory as to her popularity is of a kind of snowball effect, particularly in the US. I’m sorry if this seems unkind – but it’s what I think. Good writer, yes. Wonderful success story, definitely. But worthy of free advertising from state broadcaster? Nope.
.
But the big secret magic spell is this – she’s of the left, gives donations to the Labour party, gives exclusive previews to the Guardian and BBC. A fairly obvious pattern emerges.
And I well remember U” week-or as good as in February 2009.
Weren`t the BBC told off for their uncritical perpetual puffery of St Bono and his aural sacrifices to the Great Gods Nike and Diana…and , in fact all of them save for God Himself or that nappy-clad lad of his!
But no-clearly Rowling has a book out and some chunk of the porceeds will end up in Dromeys Dip Baskets with Ed Miliband and George Entwhistle hopeful of a windfall.
Not read a word this ladys ever written,,,why would I when Charles Moore does it for me?…bless his cotton socks!
Oh Lordy-U2 Week ,I meant!
“Why does JK Rowling hate the middle classes?
Harry Potter author says inhabitants of affluent fictional setting based on her hometown are racist and unfriendly.
By ROBERT HARDMAN.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210276/Why-does-JK-Rowling-hate-middle-classes-Harry-Potter-author-says-inhabitants-affluent-fictional-setting-based-hometown-racist-unfriendly.html#ixzz27rIqzMsT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Her success with Harry Potter owed an awful lot to clever marketing. Keeping the books under wraps, the midnight releases, etc. etc. But I genuinely thought the first two or three were decently written, but they grew steadily more self indulgent and flabby. She needed a good editor. The last ones I found unreadable.
The reason she had difficulty selling the first Harry Potter was because it was set in an old-fashioned public school environment. It was not about pregnant 15-year-olds in council blocks. I admired her for going against the trend. When I found that she had slipped a million to the war-mongering Marxists, I was stunned. And as for the new book – she’s back to following the pack. It’s a funny old world…
I’m not sure this article makes a coherent point, seems like a lot of rambling to me. I think you will find J K Rowling doesn’t need any free advertising either. The Harry Potter books were a phenomenon that spawned 8 blockbuster films, making her new book newsworthy I would say. Not particularly relevant if she’s a good writer or not. The 50 shades series got plenty of coverage in the press despite being aweful because the sold an immense amount!
This article does not make a coherent point. Utterly bizarre.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Unlike the complete garbage in your post, Peter. No-one mentioned advertising; the point is the ‘meeting of mindsets’ that is guaranteed to get you a prime time slot courtesy on the Beeb to push their/your shared agenda.
You also expose – unwittingly I’m sure judging by your axiomatic dunderheadedness – the classic BBC hypocrisy and favoured ‘get out of bias free’ ploy of: ‘We ran this item because everybody else is running it’ or* ‘we ran this item because nobody else is running it.’
* Use as required in order to push leftist planks as objective truths.
For a woman who doesn’t need any free advertising… she sure got a lot of free advertising.
As Mrs Merton would say, what was it about the millionaire socialist’s class war screed that attracted the BBC?
“Rowling’s so wrong to sneer at her readers”
By AMANDA PLATELL
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2210228/Rowling-s-wrong-sneer-readers.html#ixzz27swxKaMb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
You say that politician failed to get across the message regarding student loans and debt.
Well Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 has brought up the subject many times during this last year with his money saving expert Martin Lewis. Despite Mr. Lewis patiently and clearly explaining that the loans are not like a mortgage and that they do not necessarily have to be paid back, Vine kept going straight back to the ‘right-on’ narrative that the poor students will be saddled with crippling debts for the rest of their lives. If a neutral commentator like Lewis can’t get his point across what hope does a Coalition minister have?
I’m certainly no Jeremy Vine fan – but Martin Lewis (who is normally a sensible bloke) seems to be taking a bit of an odd line on student loans i.e. don’t worry about them because you probably won’t earn enough to pay them back.
Loans actually kick in at earnings of £21k which is about the national average wage and certainly not a huge salary especially in London. As well as that, the govt have done some classic goal post shifting on the interest you are racking up: from being a nominal below inflation rate they have now moved to RPI plus 3%…..
Just make sure you don’t get moved into a high paying role in your early 40’s when 20 years of interest will have been racked up….
Don’t worry about Martin Lewis – he’s centre-Left in his thinking. He may try to push an impartial, factually-based line (something the BBC doesn’t) when appearing in the media, but it’s simply to protect the reputation of his site and, therefore, his lucrative media fees.
Lewis is more than happy to share a platform with Labourites, especially Ed Balls.
As for the points you made: the minimum monthly repayment is set at a very low level, to ensure you can still afford the essentials, like rent, food, car payments, etc.; and the interest may be RPI +3%, but this is still a very low rate, compared to what the rest of us have to pay, whilst not being too low to create a false sense of what real-world loans cost – a nice balance.
If you want to be disgusted, try considering the preferential interest rate applicable to graduates, whose parents are poor. Two graduates with identical degrees, working for the same company and earning the same wage, pay different rates of interest, purely because of their background. This is Left-wing ‘fairness’, apparently.
Yes, I specifically heard Lewis and Vine discussing student loans once, and Vine came out with the line “Do you know what I think? It sounds like a mortgage to me.” I was driving in the car at the time but desperately wanted to phone in and find out from Jeremy Vine which Banks are offering a mortgage on those terms.
Quite revealing is that in the middle of a post, which starts off by mentioning the sexual abuse of young girls, Alan decides to insert a comment about “girls whose knickers are kept up purely by the power of their elastic“.
And what does that ‘reveal’?
Your posts are becoming more and more esoteric by the day, Dez. Although your clearly disturbed sleep patterns may explain that.
The purpose of the book is surely not to engender sympathy for ‘Krystal’ or her class (or why the mockingly misspellt name?) ‘Krystal’ is simply a useful tool to enable her to attack middle class Tories.
The comments from author Bidisha in today’s Guardian are telling – and she is loving Rowlings stereotyping!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/30/jk-rowling-novel-middle-class-nastiness
No hesitations about ‘stereotyping’ from her either of course as she tells us:
Vernon Dursley, Harry Potter’s uncle, is a middle-class bore, social climber, hothead and snob. He is (like Simon Price in The Casual Vacancy) an abusive man who represents himself as a decent chap. There are millions of Vernons and Simons out there: they are the ones who bully their wives and children, who read the Daily Mail, who think that poor British people are lazy, that migrants are coming over to fiddle the benefits system, and that, if everyone bucked up, the country wouldn’t be in such a mess.