Andrew Zalotocky writes:
What did you think of “The Christmas Invasion”? It didn’t seem overtly political, which makes me wonder why the BBC web site had that story promoting it as such beforehand. I can think of three plausible explanations:
1) The “peace message” story was a heavy-handed attempt to ensure that the audience got the right message
2) It was the loose cannons at BBC Online giving it their own special spin
3) It was a deliberate attempt to generate publicity through controversy
If it was option 3, we have to ask:
a) Does that mean that critics of the BBC were taken in by a PR scam?
b) If so, was it specifically targeted at them?
c) If so, was it also an attempt to undermine their credibility by getting them fulminating at a programme that would turn out to be innocuous?
I’d be interested to hear your take on this.
So far I have only seen twenty minutes of it. A younger member of the household who had not enjoyed “The Empty Child” expressed a definite desire not to see it and not to be alone while not seeing it. Never let it be said that only having seen a third of an episode of Dr Who is enough to stop me talking about it, though. Based on my knowledge of the individuals and organisations concerned my provisional answers to your questions are (1) yes, (2) yes, (3) yes, (a) yes, (b) no, (c) no.
I’d guess that Andrew Rilestone would not usually be politically sympathetic to this blog, but given that I agree with nearly everything he writes about Narnia, I’m willing to trust him when he writes about Dr Who.
Many of the 45 minute episodes have felt rushed: at 60 minutes, “The Christmas Invasion” felt developed and well-balanced. The story made a great deal of sense, although it suffered from a few examples of R.T.Ds trademarked lazy plotting — there seemed to be no story-internal reason for the killer Santa’s or killer Christmas tree — they were in the story simply because they seemed like a good idea at the time. (The idea that the Doctor is literally revived by a cup of tea was amusing, but had no rational justification.) The papers, bless them, fixated on the idea that the story had a strong anti-war message, but compared with the in-your-face satire of “World War III” last year, it was almost imperceptible.
The papers had some reason for their fixation: Russell Davies’s own words. (And I was told that an issue of Radio Times a month or so back had David Tennant saying something about how he was a socialist because of King Lear, possibly quoting Shaw. Anyone got a copy?) So media folk are pinkoes. Important bulletin about sylvanian ursine habits follows. It doesn’t stop (although it may distract) them from producing good TV. The actors and scriptwriters, I mean; let’s leave the poor bears some privacy.
In the first few seconds of his reincarnation at the end of last season I was embarrassed by Tennant’s goofiness. Him working his jaw and mumbling about his teeth looked less like a Time Lord than like an old geezer unhappy with his dentures. Rilestone argues that Tennant’s childish moments are of a piece with the jelly babies, a foil to his moments of omnicompetent world saving skill, and represent a return to the True Path of Who, cleverly placed after Ecclestone’s “off-the-wall re-invention” had blown away the cobwebs.
My two longest previous Who screeds are here, and here. Click the (0)’s to read the comments. Yes, I know. Complain to Haloscan, not me.
O/T
Well the BBC R4 programme “PM” asked him & got the response that we would expect.
HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging to society, according to Britain’s most senior Muslim leader.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that same-sex relationships risked damaging the foundations of society, and scientific evidence showed that homosexuality carried high health risks.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1969663,00.html
But BBC Online does not appear to want to give these views a wider airing.
Even more O/T but the reaction to Sacranie’s comments are “amusing”
Alan Duncan, the most prominent openly gay Conservative MP, said: “This is an absurd medieval view
Stephen Pound, the Labour MP for Ealing North, said: “It’s a cruel and vicious blow to strike against people who are born the way they are. We are living in 21st-century northern Europe, not 7th-century Arabia.
I wonder whether their outrage at these comments exceed what they were, are & will be, able to expound in response to Muslim terrorist atrocities.
I note the article on Sir Iccie has disappeared ALREADY from the front page and is now only on the politics page…..had it been an old fart Tory whinging about ‘dammed Johnny Foreigner’ it would have stayed on the front page for days…..
I thought that Eddie Mair’s questioning was itself far more revealing than Sir I’s answers (or, indeed, the external responses TO his answers (see above)). With all the many, many problems being caused by, and facing, the Muslim community, why on earth was it so vitally important for Mair to focus exclusively (I think) on homosexuality? Why is THAT the single most important topic? Why IS the BBC so obsessed with buggery? (The correct answer is NOT, “Buggered if I know.”)
Cheers
Dunno. You don’t meet many gay plumbers, though.
Kulibar Tree
I take your point about the BBC obsession with buggery.
Mair suprised me with the difficult questions he put to Sacranie, he drew Sacranie out of the position he was building on “tolerance” and forced his hand. Mair should be congratulated for that interview, the outrage here is that the BBC has not headlined and pushed the story.
I am no fan of PM and have only recently returned to it after a break of about a year, unless I am very much mistaken, Eddie Mair is the most reformed of BBC journalists.
I suppose that what we are about here is Bias, I thought the piece was about as good as it could have been.
Kulibar T:
I remember hearing once from someone I know who worked at the BBC that one of the Radio 4 announcers called Eddie is gay. I can’t remember if it was Eddie Mair, but if so, then that’s your answer. Not having a go at Eddie, I think he is one of the best on R4.
I think it is a great spectator sport to watch two groups (whose lobbyists claim ‘victim’ status and demand ‘tolerance’) going at each other’s throats. If they put some hard-core gay people (e.g. Tatchell) and some fanatic Muslims in a Big Brother-type house, I would watch every night.
The BBC likes to push both the gay and Islamic agendas under the guise of being tolerant, but really for other purposes (i.e. to divide, as a tactic for their overall agenda). However, the BBC generally also likes to keep a tight lid on the fact that these two ‘pet’ agendas are in an implacable conflict with each other. As soon as this conflict gets out in the open, the BBC (and its mates) prefers to shove it back in the bottle quickly.
The Mair interview is clearly a welcome exception to this. And brave of him, in the light of what happened to Van Gogh, Rushdie etc.
I can’t understand why the gay lobby is not one of the most outspoken critics of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK and in the West generally. Have they have lost all sense of self-preservation? They should be shouting their opposition from the rooftops. I cannot think of a group who has more to lose from the Islamic ascendancy. Even the position of women would not deteriorate faster than that of gays.
Flying Giraffe.
The ‘gay lobby’ has without doubt spoken out vociferously about Islam’s attitude towards gays and lesbians and continues to do so.
The ever-wonderful Dhimmi/Jihad Watch has just posted details of one such instance. Try these links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1676429,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1677330,00.html
Even Newsnight reported last year on incident in which Peter Tatchell accosted a pro-Palestinian rally to protest at the treatment of homosexuals in the region and he met with, shall we say, some angry opposition. I shall hunt down an appropriate link.
I believe that Mr Tatchell, Outrage and other gay activists are extremely brave in attacking the more ‘intolerant’ side of Islam.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie’s condemnation of homosexuality on theological grounds seems natural enough. He is entitled to say what this but he must expect some strong criticism in return – and criticism of Islam is not easily tolerated by the fine people of the MCB.
But here in the UK, homosexuality is legal and commonplace, and its practitioners are entitled to equal treatment under the law; they are constitutionally permitted to engage in same-sex relationships without fear of harassment or prejudice. Equality before the law is accepted by most people who have the great fortune to live in a liberal, secular democracy.
This is not the case, and can never be the case, under Islamic law, and the brutal manner in which Islamic authorities treat homosexuals is well documented.
So maybe Sir Iqbal and the MCB should bear this in mind when they demand tolerance from others.
Last year when Ken Livingston was welcoming the much anointed moderate Islamic leader to London, the MCB had one of their chappies interviewed by Nicky Campbell with similar results.
The MCB member (whoever he was) was spitting blood at how he could be asked a question in regards to the much annointed ones stating, viz gay people, that “the only decision is as to whether you stone them to death or push them off a cliff” (paraphrasing).
I was stunned as I have also heard Nicky Campbell beeing spectacularly misinformed in the past.
Related but somewhat off topic, you guys should really take a look every now and then at the BBC ethics message boards.
A particularly vile thread on Gay muslims from a while back:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=1638120
epi-me
Giraffe,
I would suggest that most gays who demonstrate noisily are lefties and hence self-hating liberals. They secretly agree with the BBC and Islam that anything western – even including tolerance of their own homosexuality – is vile and needs to be destroyed.
This might seem suicidal but you’ll perhaps recall that the left had terrible issues with white south Africans oppressing black ones, but none at all with black Zimbabweans oppressing other black Zimbabweans. Oppression isn’t necessarily bad. It depends who’s doing the oppressing.
Thus it’s OK for Muslims to hate gays, but it’s not OK for Christians to do so. This is why al-BBC ensured we knew all about the white Christian protestors against gay marriage in Ulster, but didn’t consult an imam for his views at the same time.
I didn’t hear the show but I wonder if Mr. Mair thought to ask “Sir” Iqbal if he agrees with that nice Mr. al-Qaradawi’s views on rape (Qaradawi is the Muslim scholar and friend of Ken Livingstone who thinks that homosexuals should be killed). Mr Qaradawi thinks that when a woman is raped, she should be punished too if she provoked the attack by dressing provocatively. In the ideal world of the Muslim bigot, a rape trial would result in punishment for the victim.
That’s not a view al-BBC wants us to know about either. Can’t think why.
t_c_c: Either cherry picking or they don’t want to get in trouble with the plumbers union.
Saudi offer to fix Delhi mosque
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4581056.stm
Remind me again… how much money did they pledge to the (muslim) victims of the Tsunami?
disillusioned_german,
USD 30m aid package.
disillusioned_german,
Cant say if that was for muslim victims though.
dave t ” I note the article on Sir Iccie has disappeared ALREADY from the front page and is now only on the politics page”
So it is. I looked at front, UK & England before posting my original comment.
Didn’t think to look under “Politics”, seems a strange categorisation.
You will recall that almost ALL aid offered for tsunami etc from Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia was for exclusive use by Muslims unlike UK and other Western nations who offered it without such pathetic conditions to all irrespective of race, religion or political views.
There was a furor in the media for about five seconds before they squashed it though….
OT
This was 1999
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/1999/1102/fro3.htm
By Kevin Rafter, Political Reporter
The Labour Party leader, Mr Ruairí Quinn, has said he does not see the necessity of having an inquiry into how a £28,000 donation to the party was used to clear a loan outstanding from the unsuccessful 1994 European election campaign of a former RTÉ reporter, Ms Orla Guerin.
This is 2006
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/index.php3?issue_id=5444
No personal benefit for Guerin’ from £24,000 loan
A £24,000 loan raised by former Labour leader Dick Spring and close political colleagues for the European election campaign in 1994 was not specifically for the benefit of candidate Orla Guerin, it was learned last night.
camp-commandant
“I would suggest that most gays who demonstrate noisily are lefties and hence self-hating liberals. They secretly agree with the BBC and Islam that anything western – even including tolerance of their own homosexuality – is vile and needs to be destroyed.
This might seem suicidal”
Uh-huh.
Pretty fantastical as well. The warped thinking of a deranged mind that gets twisted in knots while trying to incorporate as much dislike for minorities as possible into one coherent thread (and wildly failing to do so).
On the other hand, if you’re a Chris Morris style troll, top comedy!
Thanks, Rob… and dave t makes my point. Can you imagine the outcry from the Beeb if Western Aid had only been given to Christians…
The concept of a camp-commandant venting his spleen against gays is surely itself evidence of the homosexual self-hating tendencies to which he refers.
Unless of course he’s just a tease.
No one wants to talk about Dr Who, then?
Golly, is that the time?
There was a program on Radio 4 last year about gays in ‘Palestine’. Those who were not killed had to flee to the nearest country where gays could have their human rights respected: they fled to the Zionist Entity where they received counselling and support.
Dr Who?
Yet another wonderful “own goal” in the “Have Your Say” section of the BBC news website. Check out the question “Has political correctness gone mad?” and click on the “Readers recommended” tab. 141 recommendations at the time of writing for a wonderful post by Michael McIver of Hastings who points out that al-beeb is the worst culprit.
Jim, where is the thread? I could not find it on the regular Have Your Say page.
Is it now “Hide Your Say”?
Jim, where is the thread? I could not find it on the regular Have Your Say page.
Susan,
Try this link:
http://tinyurl.com/7tuyw
“I would suggest that most gays who demonstrate noisily are lefties and hence self-hating liberals. They secretly agree with the BBC and Islam that anything western – even including tolerance of their own homosexuality – is vile and needs to be destroyed.”
Cockney and Hank,
Where does TCC show a dislike of minorities in this?
I also don’t think that TCC is gay (not that it’s any of our business either way).
I don’t like the term tolerance as it implies there’s something to tolerate. I much prefer the term reciprocal indifference.
Michael Gill,
Seeing all those recommended really cheered me up!
Thanks, It’s nice to see that large numbers of people see through the BBC.
Brilliant! It’s good to see that a lot of Brits are still sane and see through the Beeb’s agenda…
Reading these comments and those on HYS has improved my gout no end…hurrumph! Well done all!
Regarding Palestine, it’s probably true then that the gay bloke who is desperately trying to hide his sexuality by pretending to be married to four women really is “the only gay in the village”, if the rest of them have fled from persecution.
Wow people are really, really angry on that thread! But why did the BBC hide that thread? Isn’t that a prime example of PC itself?
I don’t think what camp_commandant said was at all anti-gay BTW. However I’m not sure I agree with him on his point about lefty gays being guilty of self-hatred though.
In certain circles people just HAVE to adopt fashionable causes and opinions or else they face ostracism. Plus, there is just this element of wanting to be fashionable that’s always seemed to have been a big part of leftism and leftist causes.
Thus you have the incongruity of Western gays marching for the anti-gay Palestinians and Western “feminists” lining up to support Taliban-like regimes in Islamic countries. They are not necessarily self-hating; they just want to be fashionable; they want to be cool; they want to be “in.”
Signed,
Unfashionably yours.
Scorpio, Cockney
how about joining in the essence of the debate, which is so much more than the comments in this section
surely the issue of (alleged?) bbc bias merits your comments and reactions to the main allegations on the blog, as opposed to your expending so much energy merely reacting to the reactions of commenters, no?
I think it was Susan who used the term “moral equivalence” when describing the comments that usually come from the left of the political spectrum… I think that’s what is behind what Scorpio and Cockney have to say. In order for them to keep their view of the world alive they automatically need to take an opposing stance. I generally find the discussion refreshing though.
I’ve always thought that the band of trendy queers who demonstrate to the max, are so self-obsessed with their own little cause and trying so very desperately to convince us how “normal” they all are, that they fail to look at the bigger picture at all.
Most of the homosexuals I know are so “normal”, you would be hard pressed to tell they were gay. But I have one or two gay friends who’s gayness is the be all and end all of their existence…and don’t we all have to bloody know it !
“Jim, where is the thread? I could not find it on the regular Have Your Say page. Susan”
Jim? Jim? New glasses needed!
Seriously, call me cynical but strange how the PC thread disappeared so quickly from “Have Your Say” while other older ones still remain…
Natalie, I think that we ought to have a Clause Four Moment.
Lets agree to dump Dr Who.
OT
This was 1999
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper…9/1102/ fro3.htm
By Kevin Rafter, Political Reporter
The Labour Party leader, Mr Ruairí Quinn, has said he does not see the necessity of having an inquiry into how a £28,000 donation to the party was used to clear a loan outstanding from the unsuccessful 1994 European election campaign of a former RTÉ reporter, Ms Orla Guerin.
Don’t forget Ms Goering’s Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orla_Guerin
Wot, no ‘Dr Who’ enthusiasts here?
Perhaps you waited too long before posting on this, Natalie; most of our memories of the Christmas Day episode have been blanked out by subsequent alcohol consumption during that week! I got my tuppenceworth in quick, before the booze took full effect:
http://tylertinkertailor.blogspot.com/2005/12/i-might-have-to-start-watching-tv_27.html
(scroll down to the final section of the post, unless my interminable waffling is your idea of a good read).
O/T
No plumbers at Holocaust Memorial Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4582736.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4580110.stm
Frei up to his usual ruhbarb. ‘the usual divisions of the United States’ – honestly; the most cosmospolitan nation on Earth and all Frei can do is whinge yet again. He thinks he is being clever but merely shows his shallowness yet again. Twit.
Orlas husband
Reuters’ Angry Iraqi
The aggressively neutral news service always manages to find Iraqi men-on-the-street who hate America. Coincidence?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/164jnzjb.asp?pg=1
I thought my right to make un-PC jokes about the camp commandants pseudonym would be applauded by you free speech types.
I totally agree that there are lots of clowns who will fall over themselves to support any fashionable ’cause’ without even understanding what they’re supporting. However, I think it’s possible for concerns to be a bit more specific than some of your comments suggest.
i.e. a gay person/feminist might criticise Israeli policies on international law, human rights or poverty alleviation grounds (nb illustrative purposes only before I’m subjected to hysterical abuse) without approving of Palestinian terrorism, homophobia, female oppression etc etc. As my mum always says – two wrongs don’t make a right.
If I saw someone getting a completely unprovoked kicking outside the pub I wouldn’t ask him 20 questions to establish whether he was a t*sser or not before trying to break it up.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4583234.stm
Delighted to see this.
Am also glad to see Cameron challenge the unhealthy sale of chocolate at cut prices, when Britain faces an obesity crisis.
Now unlike others, that is leadership and responsibility..
Thanks again BBC for covering it.
Ian, lets not get into the habit of turning to government for answers to whatever it is that gets our goat.
Ian Barnes,
Was your last post sarcasm?
I certainly don’t see the need for state intervention to make chocolate only for the rich!
I hate “Right”-wing coerced collectivists like Cameron even more than lefties.
When are we going to have a conservative Conservative party?
Rob and co.
listen gang, Cameron is discussing issues that most people agree with. pitty you can’t see that.
It shows how out of touch labour are, as they dont even use public transport or trains, i’ve been to various stations over the past year and each time when buying a paper at WHS, have been encouraged to buy cheap chocolate despite declining, being asked time and time again, see for yourself and go to WHS at a train station. Why not try?
I think Cameron has a point, and i think the real weak and shallow argument comes from No.10 hiding as they do so well behind their bullet and bomb proof shelter.Using Jamie Oliver as their mouth piece on healthy eating, whilst doing nothing themselves.
Its called ‘spineless’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4582818.stm
Charles Clarke has the audacity to call Cameron ‘rubbish’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UUJAOQZTKG4VJQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/01/05/uorange.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/05/ixportaltop.html
i think his policy on Cannabis is nothing short of irresponsible and he should resign.