The Telegraph joins in.

The bandwagon is gathering momentum. Yesterday it emerged that a BBC executive, Ann Davies, has questioned whether the corporation should “help break the constraints of the PC police” after audience research found it was out of step with much of mainstream public opinion. Another BBC boss, Richard Klein, commissioning editor for documentaries, told staff it was “pathetic” for the BBC to pride itself on being “of the people”.

They’re all spot on. It’s high time the debate moved on from narrow notions of political bias. Far harder for the BBC to gainsay is that it has a liberal cultural bias, one that envelops pretty much all programmes, not just news and current affairs. If you want to find the most solid evidence of partiality, look at the BBC’s entertainment output – its dramas, comedies and arts programmes. This is where its guard is down, where the BBC editorial police are not watching out for “balance” weak points. And it’s also where, arguably, the partiality is far more subversive.

I wouldn’t know where to start in tackling the political correctness of BBC drama, but I think the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves would go to Spooks, BBC1’s flagship series about impossibly right-on MI5 agents. The series was originally praised (by the BBC) for its accuracy about the real work of the Security Service. So what did it kick off with on the first episode? A pro-life extremist bomber out to cause mayhem. Come on, you must know about them! No? Well, what about episode two, which tackled the equally pressing issue of racist extremists in league with Right-wing politicians plotting mass murder of immigrants? I lost interest in Spooks, but tuned in again a few weeks ago for the start of the fifth series. It was about homegrown al-Qa’eda terrorists taking over the Saudi embassy and murdering innocent people. Except that they weren’t British Muslims at all, but undercover Israeli agents. Once again, the villains are a million miles away from the ones you might expect, and top-heavy with the forces of reaction.

Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to The Telegraph joins in.

  1. Schoolboy Error says:
    Looks like someone’s already/just twigged to the need for a ‘Newswatch’ format.It says he worked for several MPs–I wonder what colour??


  2. Richard says:


    Any vicar cancelling the Rememberance Sunday service as “…not multicultural enough…” is not only bigotted, but also pig-ignorant.

    By wearing a poppy, and on occasions attending a service despite my atheism, I remember all the soldiers who died fighting with us, many of those were from very different cultures. If I as an atheist can attend, then surely anyone else not anglican who does not wish to attend is themselves lacking in multiculturalism for objecting to an anglican service. Surely by refusing to give one, he is also reducing he cultures by one, namely anglicanism.

    Are the French, the Slavs, the Italians (WWI), the Scandinavians, the Sikh regiments, the Gurkhas, the Hindus of Indian regiments, the First-Nation People of North America (to be politicially correct), the Chinese and the Mulims who fought with T.E. Lawrence not enough for him? If not there are plenty more, so how many cultures does he want to remember?

    If on the other hand by multiculturism he means that a service can have multiple cultures, then he is just a fool. Multiculturalism that way is a meaningless platitude.

    There are so many ways in which this man is an idiot.


  3. DennisThe Menace says:

    With examples like this it is little wonder tha people are deserting the CofE and Anglican faiths in droves.

    Another (small) nail in the coffin of christianity ??


  4. Allan@Aberdeen says:

    From JBH:


    We need to meet up.

    please forward my e:mail details to JBH and CC me on the message.


  5. billyquiz says:

    This site seems to cover most aspects of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949:


  6. Natalie Solent says:

    Jonathan Boyd Hunt sent me his contact details in an email, Allan@Aberdeen hasn’t yet. I’m not quite clear if Mr Boyd Hunt meant me to send his details on to Allan@Aberdeen immediately, or if I was to wait until Allan@Aberdeen has sent me his details too.

    Either way, I’m quite happy to do this – but I hope no one expects much more organising from me. I wish you guys luck but legal campaigns are not at all my cup of tea, I’m afraid.


  7. Jonathan Boyd Hunt says:

    Alan @ Aberdeen:
    Natalie Solent:

    It’s possible Natalie doesn’t have your e-mail address to hand. Send her a basic e-mail that she can forward to me and once she receives it she’ll no doubt send us each other’s e-mails.

    Nat’s e-mail address is:

    nataliesolent AT aol DOT COM

    I don’t need all of Alan’s details. Just his e-mail address.

    Sorry to put you through the fag but hopefully it will be worth it.

    Thanks for your help,



  8. Natalie Solent says:

    ‘Tis done, I think.


  9. Allan@Aberdeen says:

    Received, Thanks. Now the fun can begin. I’ll e:mail to JBH my initial thoughts about how best to proceed. As our ideas develop and the need for pledges increases then others who are willing to support JBH, as I am, can be brought in. There are many other sites whose contributors would be willing to join our crusade against what is now, and beyond any doubt, the enemy.


  10. Tim says:


    Whilst working for an intelligence gathering company (Diligence LLC) in London, I met the writer of Spooks and during the first episode some of the guys from our company met the actors. They wanted to meet ex Special Forces guys and real life Spooks – Our two bosses were ex MI5 and CIA.

    Nick, the ex MI5 guy use to be their advisor, terminoligy and methodoligy mainly.

    The first series was great, but now it’s comical, I must look call Nick who now works and Washington and ask him if he realises what a load of left wing drivel the show has become.


  11. Robin says:

    Lorry drivers would be fined for the actions of that Iraq cameraman.
    What stance does the BBC take on that?


  12. Nick Reynolds says:

    Thia excellent article from Mark Thompson from today’s Mail on Sunday is worth reading. It answers many of the points recently made on this blog.


  13. Otis says:

    From Nick Reynold’s link:

    “But a DG who loves Top Gear – or A Seaside Parish for that matter – doesn’t fit the stereotype of an utterly politically correct BBC and is therefore air-brushed out of the picture.

    So too are Jeremy Clarkson, Libby Purves, John Humphrys, Terry Wogan and Ian Hislop and all the other patently politically incorrect broadcasters with whom the BBC’s schedules are full. ”

    Come again? Humprhys and Hislop not biased? And has he ever heard Wogan defending state-funded public broadcasting?

    Wrong planet, Mark.


  14. TPO says:

    Nick Reynolds:
    Thia excellent article from Mark Thompson from today’s Mail on Sunday is worth reading. It answers many of the points recently made on this blog.

    Nick, If I didn’t know better I’d say you were brown nosing.
    I’m waiting with baited breath to see if jr follows suit.


  15. TPO says:

    For those who aren’t aware, Nick Reynolds has admitted to working for the BBC


  16. Nick Reynolds says:

    Sorry that I forgot to put in my comment that I work for the BBC. I usually do.

    As for brown nosing, Mark Thompson has no idea that I even exist.


  17. TPO says:

    I’m waiting with baited breath to see if jr follows suit.

    He has in another thread.


  18. TPO says:


    Have a look at the reader’s comments from the Mail.
    It seems that not everyone shares your view on the article.

    PS. You don’t by any chance know jr do you?


  19. will says:

    Nick Reynolds “It answers many of the points recently made on this blog.”

    Except our main objection, i.e. that we are forced by law to provide the massive funding for the BBC. In return the BBC provide very little that is distinguishable from programmes shown on other channels.


  20. Geoff says:

    How refreshing to know there are so many people out there that are aware of Jonathon Boyde Hunts work. I marvell at its acuracy and content. I will pledge £100 to the fund! Lets go!


  21. chevalier de st george says:

    The BBC has always been the hidden propaganda arm of the British elites and establishment. but it has to act in far more subtle ways than the propaganda arms of totalitarian regimes.
    Those “Stalinist” totalitarian regimes use violence, intimidation an threats to enforce themselves to the public.
    Such means are forbidden in western democracies and must be enforced though ‘soft coercion’ of public opinion via the intellectual educational elites , the media and the educators.
    The primary aim of the BBC, whether those at the top realise it or not is to manufacture consent or dissent to suit the policies of the British government, so that its policies remain at one with the mindset of the BRITISH PUBLIC.
    Only when such harmony is reached can policies be implemented without public dissent and political harm to the policy makers.
    If the BBC is strongly anti Israel, then it is because this is what has suited the elites in the Foreign Office since even before the days of Israel’s creation.
    Long ago those elites had decided that the birth of Israel was a terrible mistake, caused in part by the intense public sympathies over the european engineered Holocaust.
    It was a huge hindrance to the elites’ political and financial ties to the Arab Countries and the supplies of energy required to fuel British industry.
    in a short period of time, around the time of the seventies oil crisis, it became vital to alter the sympathetic views of the Public towards Israel as a tiny democratic state surrounded by barbaric regimes intent on its anhillation, to Pariah state preying on harmless palestinians.
    The obvious patsies, for disseminating this ideolology to the British Public are those with strong ideological and emotional views as always – the dissentive left. All they needed was the metamorphosis of Arafat to the status of a freedom fighting demi god, by the Government elites, to run with that sacred cow and milk it for all it was worth. This was good for oiling the wheels of big business.


  22. Verity says:

    Chevalier – Loved your post until its last, senseless, sentence: ‘This was good for oiling the wheels of big business.’

    This is all about oiling the wheels of the islamics. If big business could get out of the desert kingdoms, they would leave their citizens squatting on the dunes stat. But just now, it’s easy as you go.

    When the West invents another energy source, or the West finds another, plentiful, source of oil, we’ll skive the desert kingdoms off without a second thought.


  23. Bryan says:


    When the West invents another energy source, or the West finds another, plentiful, source of oil, we’ll skive the desert kingdoms off without a second thought.

    Untrue. A major part of the West has a love affair with the Arabs that runs a helluva lot deeper than oil. Part of the reason for this, of course, is the wholehearted support of that part of the West for Arab enmity towards Israel.

    Have a look at the Arabist US State Department or the Labour party (with the exclusion of Tony Blair.) And let’s not forget about the BBC.


  24. Lopakhin says:

    Well, what about episode two, which tackled the equally pressing issue of racist extremists in league with Right-wing politicians plotting mass murder of immigrants?

    Yeah, that’d never happen in real life.


  25. TPO says:


    Where in the article you quote does it say that he was plotting mass murder of immigrants.
    Its possible he was planning to blow up parliament on 5th November.


  26. Solroni says:

    Excellent work all. I wish you well on your campaign. I am sure that the ensuing press release should have wonderful potential for MSM.