(Realplayer, 224Kbps) spent its first seven minutes covering the Conservatives proposals for dealing with the problem of illegal traveller camps built in contravention of planning laws, both on their own land, and, more often, on other people’s land, often in the green belt.
All the usual leftie hot-button words were used – racism, bigotry etc., with lengthy Going Live! reports from Vikki Young in Essex (with Michael Howard) and John Kay in Worcestershire.
Between 5’35” and 6’58” into the broadcast the following exchange took place:
Anna Ford: “Our Chief Political Correspondent, Mark Mardell, is at Westminster. Mark, why have the Conservatives decided to focus on this issue?”
Mark Mardell: “I’m sure the fact that the powerful Sun newspaper is running a vociferous campaign on this issue doesn’t put them off, but there’s something broader than that, I think a lot of the political parties realise that there’s a sense running through British politics for a number of years now of respectable outrage at, uh, uh, uh, an injustice. Now, we’ve seen this with single mothers on benefit, we’ve seen it with asylum seekers, but the feeling that respectable people who feel that they’ve played by the rules see others really taking the mickey out of society and getting away with it and that’s what the Conservatives are tapping into here, and it also allows them to say ‘we’re listening to you, uh, uh, the Labour government is not'”.
Anna Ford: “Now some people are being extremely critical of the Conservatives policy aren’t they?
Mark Mardell: “One Labour MP has, in the last few minutes, said this policy has, [pause] the whiff of the gas chamber about it. Now those are very serious words indeed, and of course Michael Howard has made it clear that, uh, there is no hint of racism behind what he’s doing as far as he’s concerned, but more broadly than that, as I think we’ve heard already in the programme, the other parties, uh, feel that, er, the Tories have brought this upon their own head or upon society’s head, in that they, in 1994, er, er, abolished the, uh, need for councils to provide these sites and they say the problem is simply there aren’t enough sites legally available.”
Anna Ford: “Mark, thank you”.
My jaw dropped at the emboldened words. How about yours?
Michael Howard’s Grandmother was murdered at Auschwitz, as the BBC well know. To say such a thing about him without a shred of evidence is deeply offensive in a number of ways to a wide range of decent people.
It doesn’t surprise me that a Labour MP is stupid enough to say such a thing – but that Mark Mardell should repeat such offensive tittle-tattle without the decency of at least attributing it to the moron concerned shows, at best, a distinct lack of judgment on his part.
That apart, whilst smearing Howard and the Conservatives with talk of gas chambers, Mardell has a cheek to suggest the problem is all the Conservatives fault for changing the law in 1994. Well hello Mark, but T. Blair esq. has been in power since 1997, so if there’s a problem with illegal traveller camps now he’s had some time to do something about it himself.
On a related note, I’d like to see more detailed coverage of this issue, rather than simple political point-scoring all round. For instance, in Vikki Young’s report she mentions that there are 5,964 caravans on council sites, 4,813 on private sites, 1,855 on land without planning permission and 2,377 on other people’s land, again without planning permission. We aren’t told the origins of the travellers, where they come from and go to, how they make a living and pay taxes, how many of them there are in the UK each year (are there more now than before? if so, why?), how many vacant pitches there are (are travellers being fussy about their location?) and so on. At the moment the broadcast media are reporting this issue as if UK has a responsibility to provide legal pitches to roaming herds of nomadic travellers wherever and whenever they happen to pitch up in the UK, regardless of the available space or the concerns of local residents, which is not something I recall any public debate on.
Update: According to several B-BBC commenters, the above remark has now been attributed to Kevin McNamara – an old-time leftie retread who’s standing down at the next election.
Wasn’t it Kevin McNamara who said that? Well he’s always supported the IRA so it really doesn’t surprise me. If you want to close down a proposal quickly just mention the word RACIST and GAS CHAMBERS. It’s so overused particularly when your opponent has lost the plot; it fails to have any meaning. So Mr Howard stick to your guns.
Mr Howard should distance himself from the policies of national socialism.
The state ownership of people allways makes a certain group “disposable”.
In Re travellers
It needs to be pointed out that we have a shortage of land and an influx of bogus asylum seekers and other immigrants.
(And if anyone is thinking of mentioning that there is lots of land space because of Wales or Scottish Highlands or they saw a green field in Essex dont bother,the point is not valid)
“that Mark Mardell should repeat such offensive tittle-tattle without the decency of at least attributing it to the moron concerned shows, at best, a distinct lack of judgment on his part.”
I think that you understate the case. It is outrageous that the BBC report such words without attribution.
McNamara was identified as the guilty man (not in those terms, natch) in the Six o’clock news, anyway. On the debit side, Bridget Kendall assured us that ‘one man’s terrorist is – ‘ all together now, ‘ – another man’s freedom fighter,’ and the Terry Schiavo case was said to be about ‘the right to die’!
Off-topic. But kind of on it, if you know what I mean. 2,000 further Beeb jobs slashed, in programming. Taking our GRAND TOTAL, BOB, to nearly 4,000 embittered, teeth-gnashing liberals. So, no change there then. Maybe a hack like Mardell might have to attribute his quotes a little more carefully in future…TV is set to lose 47 jobs.
Earlier, on BBC News 24, they had Stewart Purves, ex-head of ITN, on – he explained that in the year when ITN had their own night of the long knives (and their girth was nothing by comparison with the BBC’s rotundness!), that they won more awards than ever – he seemed to think that it had something to do with motivating their people to work harder! Perish the thought!
The Terry Schiavo case is not about the right to die. She breathes normally on her own. She needs to be fed to survive — so does a baby.
Taking her food source away from her will kill her. She wouldn’t just die in a few minutes as would be the case if she were breathing artificially on a respirator.
It’s clear to me that her husband wants her to die so he can marry the little chippy he’s been living with for the past few years and nab the lawsuit settlement money too.
The Beeb’s presentation of Michael Schiavo as an altruistic saint just trying to fulfill his poor injured wife’s wishes — pardon me while I wretch. He’s a selfish monster who won’t allow medical personnel to conduct a true assessment of her quality of life because he’s afraid she could be rehabilitated.
The Beeb doesn’t really care about finding out the true facts of the case. All they want to do is use it to push their anti-Chrstian agenda.
I agree with Howard. His final solution for these gypsy knackers is spot on and to put the icing on the cake he can’t be a xenophobe who doesn’t care about their kids poor health or their high infant mortality rate because he’s Jewish.
Brilliant, I’m sure the smelly gypsies will get fair treatment when they put in planning applications. Nod nod wink wink 🙂 Hey, let them camp up at a roadside with their knacker children. Hopefully somewhere near a puddle so I can splash them when I drive past.
As long as they don’t take up their right to council housing and housing benefit. They don’t deserve benefits from the taxpayer.
Re. the Schiavo case:
As usual the BBC are taking the side of the far left. The same people who want to kill Terri Schiavo are the ones who protest against the death penalty. I find that very interesting. One point that needs to be made is this one: as Terri can’t tell anyone how she got into the situation she is who knows that her husband isn’t responsible for her brain being irreperably demaged. Just speculation but it can’t be ruled out imho.
Excuse the typos. Getting late here.
GW Bush speaks of “a culture of life” meaning specifically that the “benefit of the doubt” ought to come down on he side of the person/foetus in question. In sitations like Schiavo, why not show some humanity. Were it the life of a Spotted Owl in question, the BBC would knee jerk to its default position of conservation at any cost. Important here only because, as a publically funded body, the BBC has no business taking positions period.Why cant the bastards just report the news?
Re the “whiff of the gas chamber” remark – no, my jaw didn’t drop, nor did my eyes pop out of their sockets, and I managed to keep my lunch down. I think I’m becoming immune to the lefts idiocy, which is kind of disturbing. Maybe it’s down to all these many months of Hitlerian analogies they’ve taken to flinging at anyone who dares disagree with them. Third Reich comparisons are HUGE here in the States, ya know, we’re on overload. You must have missed the news of a demo ( anti-war? anti-occupation? one or the other) held in San Francisco the other day, where our leftists were accusing ACTUAL camp survivors of being… Nazi’s! The survivors, average age 70 – 80, were counter-demonstrating. Seriously, can you top that? Can even the BBC top that?
OT
Harry’s place refers to the recent panorama programme concerning the integrity and honesty of the Prime Minister.
Not having watched the programme apparently it was banging on about that old favourite of the BBC’s to do with WMD in Iraq. I suspect a viewer rating of one: John Humphreys.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/03/21/scraping_the_barrel.php
BBC site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4332485.stm
Transcript (a sort of summary of BBC attitudes and thinking over the past 2 years)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/iraqtonyandthetruth.txt
You must have missed the news of a demo ( anti-war? anti-occupation? one or the other) held in San Francisco the other day, where our leftists were accusing ACTUAL camp survivors of being… Nazi’s! The survivors, average age 70 – 80, were counter-demonstrating. Seriously, can you top that? Can even the BBC top that?
What is this? Some actual Holocaust survivors were called Nazis? I did miss this. Gotta link, PamNYC?
Not that it would surprise me. The Left calls everyone Nazis but look who are the ones plumping for killing off the disabled, and beating up on Jews.
Absolutely disgusting.
Susan – Here you go, read it( and see it) and weep:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15133_Moronic_Convergence_Roundup
(You can find it on LGF if the link doesn’t work.)
Thanks Pam. I read the link about the Jewish counter-protesters but I did not see anything saying some of them were Holocaust Survivors.
Susan – I’m not sure that was the original link where I read the survivors bit, I just remembered LGF was one of the websites that covered the demonstration in question. I belive Tim Blair featured it also(?)I re-read the LGF article after I posted it for you and didn’t see any references, either. I’ll keep looking, I just wanted to get something to you quickly. I know it was mentioned somewhere, cause it broke my heart. Truly. If I CAN’T find it, I’ll retract my assertion, in the tradition of honest blogging!
Susan, Pam
People have wondered in the past why I’m so strongly anti-left. Well now we have the www and blogs more and more people are realising that socialism is the natural and historical home of racism and intolerance. They have got away with flinging these words at others for 50 years but it is now begining to unravel for them. I wasn’t surprised at all that (yet again) a member of the Labour Party has insulted Michael Howard using the Jew/Holocaust theme. It’s what they’ve always done and they’ve always got away with it, partly by jumping up and down (often in fake outrage) at the merest hint of racism from others.
Before anyone mentions the BNP, don’t bother. The BNP is a socialist party. Have a look at their policies. Take away the race element and you’d think you were reading a Socialist Workers Party manifesto.
Pete_London,
Yep one of the Lefties largest lies is calling National Socialism Right wing. I tend now not to use the short version NAZI as this lets the lie fester.
The BNP just substitute in the race element for class, who do they think they’re kidding?
The MSM tends to report Labour and Lib Dem policy initiatives in a positive light, almost like a party political broadcast.
But when it comes to Tory policy initiatives they seem more interested in reporting the labour and lib dem reaction. eg the headline will be “Tories accused of desparation”. or “Howard denies racism charge.”
In the Schiavo case, included several times in the BBC reports is the husband’s statement that she be allowed to “die with dignity”. The repeated use of the phrase obviously chimes with the BBC view (as borne out by the 99% let her die position in DHYS).
I look forward to the next of the regular outraged reports on BBC local TV news reports when someone has starved a hamster or parrot. (BBC Look North bulletins are really this bad)
A hamster or rabbit in a permanent vegetative state?
THFC, that can’t be justified in that her husband has ensured she has had no rehabilitation whatsoever. Moreover she is concious and can breathe, therefore the proposal being put forward is that she is starved to death, which is in my opinion completely un-ethical.
Classic example of the point I made above.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4370447.stm
Lib Dem stories are always written in the most positive tone possible.
When people are told that she can
a) breath unaided, so the “treatment” is starvation.
b) her husband has moved on and has a new partner and two children with her.
c) her husband seems to have a financial interest in her death.
People tend to think the case may need another look due to the conflict of interest…
Pete_London
Your remarks re Socialism being the home of Racism and intolerance are absolutley correct. If ever you found yourself in Legal, Medical or Moral extremis who would you rather have as arbiter of your fate? a social liberal or a conservatiive? Who is currently standing up for habeas corpus and minoity rights? It aint the Left and it aint our National State Broadcaster, both of whom are in bed with Islamofascists and Anti Capitaliists.
Why do I suspect that the same people who are now baying for Terri Schiavo’s blood would shriek with hysteria at the idea of capital punishment for mass murderer Saddam Hussein?
Criminal mass murderer of millions = “All human life is precious, even that of a mass murderer.”
Disabled housewife and beloved daughter who never hurt anyone in her life = “Let the bitch starve to death.”
Alex:Who is currently standing up for habeas corpus and minoity rights? It aint the Left and it aint our National State Broadcaster, both of whom are in bed with Islamofascists and Anti Capitaliists.
And who stood steadfast against Adolf H. when everyone else wanted to kiss his ass, including Uncle Joe and his fellow travellers in the West?
The “reactionary” grandson of an English duke!
BBC2 is now running “Inside Israel’s Jails”.
And of course they will follow that up with “Inside Arafat’s Jails”. NOT.
Gypsies can be a real nuisance, especially the reprobates who latch on to their mobile lifestyle, but we have to be careful not to generalise them. That Labour MPs comments were over the top, but we mustn’t forget that Gypsies were murdered in the gas chambers in larger numbers (percentage wise) than even the Jewish people.
“Criminal mass murderer of millions = “All human life is precious, even that of a mass murderer.”
Disabled housewife and beloved daughter who never hurt anyone in her life = “Let the bitch starve to death.””
I believe you have mischaracterised the viewpoints of people who disagree with the death penalty.
If my mother was brain damaged to the extent of Terri Schiavo, I’d want her to die with dignity not kept alive artificially with a tube stuffed down her throat. If my mother was to be convicted of murder, I’d not want her to be given the death penalty, just in case she was innocent. Sometimes people are mistakenly killed (it has happened here in the UK repeatedly), and that is why I oppose the death penalty.
joekinnear,
I was merely pointing out the ludicrous inconsistencies of those who argue that a mass murderer should live while baying for the blood of a harmless woman who did nothing in her life to deserve it. You have to admit the irony/inconsistency of this position is remarkable. If the truth hurts, maybe you should reconsider your position?
If my mother was brain damaged to the extent of Terri Schiavo, I’d want her to die with dignity not kept alive artificially with a tube stuffed down her throat.
If you know how brain-damaged Terri Schiavo is, you should contact the Florida court system ASAP because you have vital knowledge in this case that no one else has.
Teri Schiavo’s husband has repeatdly refused to allow her to have an MRI scan to determine the extent of her brain activity.
An article from a Right wing perspective on the BBC?!?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4368095.stm
Some things look rather murky about Terri’s husband :
http://kasobs.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-breaking-terris-nurse.html
(a nurse claiming he harmed Terri (with a link to an interview with the nurse)
and some serious worries about how Terri suffered some injuries shown on a bone scan :
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co_1.html
The refusal of the judge to order reinstatement of the feed tube pending the expected further hearings suggests a closed mind ? This woman is NOT on life support – merely a feeding tube.
Joekinnear,
If Terri Schiavo was braindead and hooked up to a respirator and unhooking her meant that she would die peacefully within minutes, I could understand letting her die. However, that is not the case here. She’s breathing on her own and looking at people who see her. Who knows what she’s able to think or feel, yet unable to communicate? If her feeding tube is removed, it would take her about two weeks to starve to death.
“If her feeding tube is removed, it would take her about two weeks to starve to death.”
But joekinnear repeats the BBC line that she would “die with dignity”
I repeat:
Saddam Hussein, psychopathic mass murderer of millions: Must be given all human rights concessions and considerations.
Terri Schiavo, innocent human being: Must be forced to starve/thirst to death over a tortuous two weeks while her parents and loved ones watch her slow decline.
What’s wrong with this picture?
I agree, Susan.
It’s a messed up world we live in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/22/do2202.xml
Another superb Mark Steyn article, this one focusing on matters of life, including Terri Schiavo.
Choice quotes:
“America this Holy Week is following the frenzied efforts to halt the court-enforced starvation of a brain-damaged woman for no reason other than that her continued existence is an inconvenience to her husband”
“In practice, a culture that thinks Terri Schiavo’s life in Florida or the cleft-lipped baby’s in Herefordshire has no value winds up ascribing no value to life in general. Hence, the shrivelled fertility rates in Europe and in blue-state America: John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest birth rates; George W Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest.”
The bearded buffoons’ article is absolute rubbish as usual.
Wealthy and successful people are having less children not because of ‘ascribing no value to life’ (in a way that can be thoroughly unconvincingly linked to the Schiavo hysteria), but because of increased thoughtfulness about the quality of the lives they want for their children and themselves – i.e. ascribing more value to life. Given the inevitable decline of religion people no longer feel obliged to fire them out from some sense of obligation to reproduce, but prefer to procreate at such time and to such an extent that they can provide appropriately for the resulting offspring.
One can write 10,000 words of abysmal waffle about this or one can accept that it is the inevitable consequence of our success in achieving a society where a large percentage of people live in an exceptional standard of comfort. Short of prodding people into procreation with cattle prods we’re going to have to rely on a the human ability to adapt to changing circumstances which Mark alludes to in respect of oil drilling but doesn’t seem to think applies to declining populations.
Abotions in the UK are not generally required by those with the intelligence to put on a condom but by the multiplying underclass created by an unpleasant mixture of politically correct teaching and education cuts. Exponentially increasing this section as a proportion of the community by banning abortions will give no net benefit to the economy or society, quite the opposite. Sorting out the education system to instill the intellectual ability not to get pregnant at 12 is the only hope.
Re Schiavo, aren’t people approaching this the wrong way? Doctors have concluded that the woman is in a persistant vegetative state with no hope of further consciousness or rehabilitation. Those jumping around about the husband cynically denying her the opportunity to recover and run marathons are letting their politics obscure all sense of reality.
Surely the issue is how the husbands opinion on what his wife ‘would have wanted’ despite a lack of any tangible evidence legally completely overrides the opinion of the rest of her family?
Cockney
SOME doctors have one view. But this patient has been denied the tests that would demonstrate PVS one way or the other. That is one of the things that the woman’s parents have been asking for.
Many of the judges who have dealt with the case are Clinton appointees. The only grounds for withdrawing feeding would be if the patient had previously indicated this would be her wish – a living will. There is no good evidence she ever expressed such a wish in any formal sense – merely the word of her husband. Surely where there are doubts like this, there should be a presumption of life rather than death.
Mark Steyn can’t be a total buffooon if he gets work from newspapers all round the world.
Cockney, you do realise that your attitude embodies the death of your civilization? As Steyn highlights, children are a luxury item today and as unfortunate as it may be, too few children equals devastating social and economical consequences. These are facts.
Adapting to changing circumstances is one option, unfortunately there’s little evidence that anyone wants to deal with this issue. Can you imagine Europe dismantling the welfare state anytime soon?
John, I agree completely that a living will should be required. This kind of makes the doctors point immaterial and her husband appears to be behaving like an arse, but a previous scan has shown that ‘her cerebral cortex, the upper part of the brain, has largely atrophied and been replaced by spinal fluid.’ That’s not the sort of thing that can be treated or will correct itself no matter how many tests one does. I just think that the phony ‘denying her the chance to get better’ angle detracts from the winning argument that the individual’s family as a whole (and them ideally) should decide.
Re Steyn, I wasn’t trying to argue declining fertility rates aren’t a problem. My criticism is that he’s rambled on for umpteen words and made several dubious links to pet causes without ever coming up with a remotely feasible solution.
Increasing working hours or retirement ages, decreasing social welfare, cutting employment regulations, raising taxes to fund pensions, lowering taxes to stimulate growth, investing in technology to raise worker productivity, increasing child care options, giving tax or other incentives to have kids, encouraging immigration to fill jobs. These are all potential parts of a solution. Babbling on about abortion and George Bush isn’t.
[i]I was merely pointing out the ludicrous inconsistencies of those who argue that a mass murderer should live while baying for the blood of a harmless woman who did nothing in her life to deserve it. You have to admit the irony/inconsistency of this position is remarkable. If the truth hurts, maybe you should reconsider your position?[/i]
And if you’d read my example you’d have understood that the inconsistencies exist only in your portrayal of the motives behind people who support those two positions, and not in the people who hold those two positions themselves. An example of a real inconsistency is a vegetarian who supports unfettered abortions. Try to read what people say before responding with the exact same argument, otherwise you run the risk of looking like an idealogue repeating a mantra.
Although I used my mother as an example, my father really is currently suffering from brain damage. While he is not at the level of Terri Schiavo he could not survive without someone to feed him, and his degenerative state means that he almost certainly will be some time in the next few years. This makes this issue particularly real to me, so it irks me a bit to be preached to by people whose only concern is political.
Would I want him to be starved to death now, by not having someone feed him, even though I know there is virtual 0% chance he will ever get better? No fucking way. While he can still recognise me and communicate with me I want us both to enjoy our last few moments on this earth together while we can. When he gets to the stage where he only has a feeding tube keeping him alive and he hasn’t even registered that I am even in the room for months? That’s a very hard question which will likely only get harder to answer as the day gets nearer.
Whatever I decide, I will be absolutely livid if any of you political activists (pro or anti) get involved in a purely personal and private matter.
joekinnear,
I am sorry to hear of your personal trials re: your father.
Regarding this particular case, the decision lies not with a blood relative (as with you and your father) but with a “husband” who has another partner and whose motivations are suspect to say the least. Terri Schiavo’s blood relatives don’t want her to die.
Why are the left trying to cover up Michael Schiavo’s questionable behaviors and motivations, and present him as some kind of saint? Why portray the parents as unreasonable religious fanatics?
IMHO, the Saddam Hussein analogy stands. I don’t understand why the Left is so all-fired determined to see Saddam or some other murderous criminal live, while also being so all-fired determined to see innocent Terri Schiavo die.
Really, the question is so simple: Why is Saddam Hussein’s life “worth something” while Terri Schiavo’s life is not?
No one on the Left here has answered that question at all satisfactorily in my mind.
And that includes you, sorry.
I also don’t understand why the Beeb is so hostile to Terri Schiavo’s parents who seem to be acting from sincere religious convictions, when they practically went into orgasmic contractions of awe over the “religious convictions” of Shabina Begum, the Muslim girl who wanted to wear extreme Islamic dress to school.
The religious convictions of a Catholic couple who doesn’t want their own daughter to be starved to death is to be held up for sneering at and ridicule, but a Muslim girl who merely wants to wear a potato sack over her entire body deserves to have her particular sartorial whim treated as inviolable, sacred holy writ?
What gives with that?
Once again, the Beeb shows its hypocrisy, double standards, and fanatical, anti-Christian hatred.
Susan,
“Really, the question is so simple: Why is Saddam Hussein’s life “worth something” while Terri Schiavo’s life is not?
No one on the Left here has answered that question at all satisfactorily in my mind.”
I’d guess I’m to the left of you, politically speaking, so I’ll try to give you an answer (from my point of view, at least).
I don’t agree with the death penalty, so I wouldn’t execute Saddam Hussein – despite him being a murderous scumbag. In this sense his life is “worth something”. To throw up one minor reason for letting him rot in gaol: it stops him becoming a martyr.
As for Terri Schiavo, I don’t care how brain damaged she might be. Nor do I care how much cash her husband stands to gain from her death. If her life functions were being maintained by machine I could see an argument for switching it off. However, she is a mostly functioning human being and withdrawing her food and allowing her to starve to death is, frankly, barbaric. Michael Schiavo, his legal team (and, I suspect, the insurance company footing the bill) are effectively trying to sanction her murder. And a slow, grisly one to boot. I for one don’t agree with that.