Is it just me, or is the BBC’s current ‘It’s all in the database‘ money-with-menaces ad wonderfully Orwellian ? The background siren, the dog barking, the knock on the door ?
This site has an interesting video of a licensing official stepping perhaps beyond his remit.
The local elections are tomorrow,do as much damage as you can.After the results write to your MP and tell them if they don’t put the BBC on a lead,they are going into that dark night of proper day jobs.
Talking about covered, I’m sure Ms Short would look really hot in a burka.
That and a ball-gag would mean I never have to listen or see that irritating, appalling woman ever again.
Does she still pop up on the BBC? I imagine she’s a Question Slime moonbat regular.
Peter – absolutely.
BJ – thanks, and commiserations to you too.
Anyone who throws around the word “facist” in their arguements is a loon.
Same goes for those nutcases who believe we live in a police state.
Mailman
Also those who can’t spell ‘fascist’.
mailman, I take your point. These wild overstatements frustrate me too. The truth is irritating enough without dressing up as something it isn’t.
The fact that a licence fee exists and that the people who collect it are scumbags hardly indicates that we live (or even that we are heading towards living) in a fascist state.
I think that risks rather belittling the experiences of those who have or do live in fascist states. A thing is what it is, not what it might be like. We are a secular democracy with an archaic television licence fee collected by unpleasant fools on behalf of smug unpleasant fools. Fascism is something else.
“We are a…. democracy.”
Let’s not get carried away here.
LOL, well, maybe I’m an optimist.
I disagree, ghargad. That’s how these things start (but please, please, let nobody quote the ‘They came for …’ saying. Thanks so much!). We are the most closely monitored people in the supposedly free world. Our sovereignty has been surrendered to other countries without the right to vote on this. We have a state broadcaster who feeds us blatany
lies day in, day out. Etc etc etc. Believe me, I probably have more experience of living in fascist states than most people on this blog, and I mainatain that we are well on the way to one.
I’m in two minds about that, N-Oxf – either we can agree that it’s not strictly pertinent to this blog, and likely to produce more heat than light, or we can at least define our terms if we intend to argue the case seriously.
We need to decide what we mean by “fascist”, because although CCTV cameras may indeed be a tool that an aspiting fascism would use, or they may merely continue as they are now, observing us excessively while we go about our business as free citizens. I don’t have a crystal ball any more than you do. Fascist states have managed without CCTV, and states with CCTV sometimes manage not to become fascistic.
Sorry – nervousness about tonight’s match is playing havoc with my grammar and powers of concentration! š
Since no free country has ever had such a degree of CCTV surveillance, gharqad, I am not sure what you base your last statement on.
“Since no free country has ever had such a degree of CCTV surveillance, gharqad, I am not sure what you base your last statement on.”
That is true, but applies equally therefore to anything you might choose to extrapolate from the fact.
Since this is an entirely new thing, how can you so confidently assert that it is a sign of impending fascism in the UK?
Listen, I’m not interested in pursuing this unless you decide to come out and state a) what exactly you mean by a fascist state, and b) what evidence you have that we are “well on the way” to that in the UK.
Fair enough?
A fascist state can exhibit any number of identifying traits, but the underlying features for me are that the state is deemed more important – in principle – than the freedoms of its individual citizens, and that the group in power is identified with the state and therefore that group’s agenda is deemed more important – in principle – than the freedoms of its individual citizens.
The methods used to impose this ideology can vary, but perforce include close surveillance/spying on citizens as a method of instilling fear and ensuring obedience; ditto police powers used to counter what we have used to call ‘freedom of association’ and ‘freedom of expression’ and taken for granted (even if not necessarily used to counter actual crime); powerful state propaganda machinery that individual citizens and even associations of citizens are almost completely unable to counter; and the like.
I believe that all these have grown immensely since 1997. Peaceful demonstrations against foreign politicians have never before, in my lifetime, been suppressed by police as they are now. BBC propaganda has never before been so shamelessly one-sided in favour of the party in power as it is now and geared to preserving that party in power. Surveillance and data-gathering methods have never before been applied so thoroughly and without discrimination. I call all those fascist methods, and they are used to bolster a system that is moving towards fascism in its core beliefs.
It’s because the BBC is so wonderful that we must be forced to pay for it by such sinister means. It’s for our own good.
Now, who’s shagging who in Eastenders this week?
Pete,
It’s the two blokes turn.
“Any number of identifying traits”?
Convenient, to say the least.
You have omitted one trait that is considered of prime importance under almost every definiton of fascism: the one-party state. Fascism is hamstrung without it. We don’t have one. We would never put up with one. I see no signs even from Brussels that any such mode of rule is on its way. Don’t like CCTV cameras? Form a political party or pressure group and try to get rid of them. You’re allowed to. You wouldn’t be under fascism. Am I worried by the unaccountability of Brussels? Yes I am. Seriously. Do I take that as a sign that fascism is around the corner in perhaps the most Eurosceptical country in Europe? No. Not even nearly.
Under the circumstances you describe, the least we could expect of this compliant mouthpiece of fascist government is that it would broadcast propaganda supportive of the government at times of war. The BBC’s coverage of Iraq proves that the BBC are happy to viciously attack the ruling party when they want to. In other words, they are not part of any “system”. They choose to be culturally biased towards one party (actually towards two parties at least – they love the Lib Dems too), but they are not an instrument of government, as you will see once the Conservatives return to power. That’s a crucial difference between a media you merely dislike for its bias, and a fascist-propaganda media.
“BBC propaganda has never before been so shamelessly one-sided in favour of the party in power as it is now and geared to preserving that party in power.” – Yes, that’s to say nothing other than that the BBC now supports Nu-Labour by instinct, and wants them to win. And if they don’t win, what will the BBC’s opposition to the governing party say about our fascist state? It will say that we don’t have one.
Sorry. I appreciate greatly the courtesy and civility of your response. I just don’t see signs of impending fascism. I don’t recognise the country I live in, in the country you describe.
I am not sufficiently old that I remember too much about the policing of visits by foreign dignitaries pre-1997, but I am quite prepared to agree that this is something unfair and unsavoury in any case.
I would be interested to know who you believe to be the prime movers behind this “system” that shuffles inexorably towards tyranny. You cannot mean the Labour Party, because they, after all, stand a reasonable chance of being voted out of office. No fascism in that. So who are the fascists guiding us ineluctably towards totalitarianism?
Listen, we disagree I hope respectfully. I actually admire people who think about what freedom means and are wary of anything that threatens it, so please don’t view this disagreement in anything other than a friendly and positive light.
-“Any number of identifying traits”?
-Convenient, to say the least.
Sloppily worded, yes, because of the late hour š
What I meant to say was this: the underlying features that I am just about to describe (and believe I did describe further along) can be manifested in practice in different ways, or different combinations, under different specific circumstances (country, era, …).
-You have omitted one trait that is considered of prime importance under almost every definiton of fascism: the one-party state. Fascism is hamstrung without it. We don’t have one. We would never put up with one.
I hope not, but am not convinced. We ARE putting up with things that would never have been tolerated 25 years ago. Indeed, with things that we could not have imagined would be tolerated here – they were the lot of pathetic and spineless foreigners.
OK, if I said that we have a full-blown fascist state here now, then I am guilty of poetic licence. But we are moving that way. Labour may not be calling out the troops to stop an election happening in 2010; but believe me, 20 years ago peaceful demonstrators on the streets of London were not being assaulted by police or by Chinese state security thugs. Saying ‘It can’t happen here’ seems to me a little complacent.
One party and EU: the Brussels machinery is only nominally accountable to elected representatives even now. Check the powers of the Council etc. And it’s been all one way for years. Do you know how long it’s been since EU accounts have been signed off by auditors?
Anyway, g’night.
Now, who’s shagging who in Eastenders this week?
Pete | 30.04.08 – 10:59 pm | #
No idea. But I do know that conservatives are always being screwed by the BBC.
Next decade ‘may see no warming’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7376301.stm
Just like the last decade? Ya don’t say.
‘No warming’. Is that ‘global cooling’ then?
Can someone get a screen grab before the enviro-loons force a re-write?
Given the increasing similarity between the main parties, one could argue that we are well on the way to a one party state.
And why are the parties so similar? Because they can do very little that isn’t controlled by the ultimate one-party state, the EU.
“And why are the parties so similar?”
Because the electorate has been through the 70s and 80s approaches, is fully aware of the flaws in both and has concluded that they want something inbetween. Political parties are pointless if unelectable so end up fighting over a scrap of political ground in the middle.
Those ‘enviro-loons’, aka sensible people who have studied risk analysis and know that prevention is better than cure, have not been saying for some years now that climate change necessarily means ‘relentless warming every second of every day, with no episodes of instability and cooling a-tall a-tall’. You really do need to keep up.
N-Ox: I appreciate and share your concerns re EU unaccountability and financial incompetence/fraud/secrecy, and the way in which they railroad populations by simply renaming and repackaging any step “forward” that is not approved by the people, and then declaring that this “new” package is technically different and does not need ratification by the people of Europe. If what you are saying is that this process is highly worrying, and has the potential to become something truly undemocratic, then we are in total agreement.
If you are likewise claiming that we cannot trust a media organisation that gets funding from the EU to tell us the truth about the EU, then again we couldn’t agree more.
Nearly Oxfordian:
… sensible people who have studied risk analysis and know that prevention is better than cure, have not been saying for some years now that climate change necessarily means ‘relentless warming every second of every day, with no episodes of instability and cooling a-tall a-tall’.
Nearly Oxfordian | 01.05.08 – 2:26 pm | #
Yes, many have. I tend to agree with them. And hence you, at least in what is quoted above.
Sadly, I do not think such sensibly balanced and often cautious views have been how ‘Global warming’ (or probably man-worsened negative climate change as I prefer to think of it) has been shared with the viewing public by such as the BBC.
Hence, when dire predictions are made, and republished without much thought or context, for whatever reasons (ratings, agenda… sincere, if misguided attempts to scare up action… who knows?) as part of an ’emerging truth’, it can prove difficult if things do not pan out as has previously been shouted from the rooftops.
This is ‘a’ study, with the magic word ‘may’ in it, just as a zillion other studies before have equally unsatisfactory qualifiers. And, in the great geo-physical scheme of things trends can rattle around a bit in the blink of an eye that is decades. That doesn’t work out too well with 24/7, spin and hype hungry news machines, especially ones which see the audience as in need of guidance from on high. And can often see merit in toeing if not pushing a line as it suits.
I’m sorry, but on top of seeing a story recently harraBINNED as it didn’t suit the narrative, the BBC and others need to ask some serious questions when a single story like this already being touted as the killer counter to AGW.
And it certainly doesn’t help when I see quotes from our esteemed Enviro Analyst that ‘we in the know always knew this’ in such a manner. It has patently not been broadcast in anything like this way to date. So, frankly, a 10+ year hiatus to get back to where it should be doesn’t look to good, nor will it play too well with a public being fed a bunch of serious personal sacrifices in terms of taxes, reductions etc on the back of the theory.
I am not debating AGW here, just the woeful way it has been reported to date, and how this has made things even worse for those who would advocate caution and mitigation… ‘just in case’.
Today I was rung by the TV Licensing Authority to ask why I had not paid my TV Licence. It is due today, 1st May! Is this a record, and does it cast any light on how close we are to a ‘fascist’state?
Peter, I think we are in agreement.
Bernard, please tell us just how you told them to eff-off (I hope).
I said that the issue closer to my mind was their offensive TV advert which I have complained about to the Adverstising Standards Authority ( my caller claimed to have no knowledge of it). He asked for my card details and said I should not use my television until the charge had been paid. Red mist then put paid to the conversation.
Nearly Oxfordian
I see that myself and yourself are not too far apart in the way we now see things. However it will not take long for us both to be completely on the same level.
We DO already live in an effective one Party state IMO. This because our political parties take their orders from groups such as The Bilderburgers and have been doing so for much longer then we can imagine.
Left and right politics are working for the same people to more or less destroy tradition, traditional values standards and assumptions, and most of all independently gained wealth and individual liberty. They do this to keep us impoverished, confused, at each others throats, and therefore under control.
More concisely described as, Classic Divide and Rule.
Its not nice but it is better them how our ruling elites used to do it. Now they create wars in other continents, before they created them closer to home.
The worlds international and national political agendas are set at a much higher level then national party politics. Brown, Clark, Healy, Major etc, none of them could or can take a shit without permission from the bankster owned and funded covert world governing organizations.
Party politics can still make a difference but not much of one and every election that gos by, the differences become more and more insignificant.
A post war pattern has emerged. The left collectivize the means of production and important essential services. Then spend their efforts bankrupting the nation running these things as badly and as inefficiently as possible. Then The Conservatives get in, sell it all off to corporate power and at the same time pay off the countries debt to the International banksters. Then the cycle repeats.
All this going on while small independent enterprises and small amounts of personal wealth are ‘inflated’, ‘red taped’ and/or are straight forward taxed virtually out of existence.
The real reason why we still have dialectic party politics at all, is because the results of it are far easier for our ruling class to control then we generally imagine. The BBC and the rest of our controlled media having of course much to do with all of these things taking place without the people suspecting that they are being manipulated beyond an ordinary persons belief. While of cause paying for their own disinformation and to me at least, obvious FASCIST establishment BBC propaganda.
All they have to do is have THEIR PEOPLE ( common Purpose ) on both sides of the political divide and especially in the top spots in the military, media, educational establishments, civil service, and public services, among other places. Then create an all powerful undemocratically accountable body (ie The EU) to fund and govern over them. JOB DONE.
The job IS now DONE IMO.
So over the next few years expect the agenda, or what is commonly known as the Great Conspiracy or The New World Order, will finally show their hands.
My guess by then it will be a Royal Flush, backed up by 4 Aces. in other words. The UN backed up by 4 competing continentally defined, subsidiary pan national, undemocratically accountable, bankster dominated governments.
I suggest we pray for mercy, stock up on food, basic essentials and transfer any spare wealth directly into precious metals.
Things will seem darker then dark for several years. When eventually we are allowed to see the light again, the world will seem like a strangely different place indeed.
A bit like a mass joining of the Freemasons one might say.
A free internet, it gos without saying, will be a thing of the past. As will free elections, or any talk of democracy changing anything important, either from the BBC or anywhere else.
There is a common purpose behind Common Purpose. Which is Fascist in absolutely every way imaginable, but name.
Fascism has got very little to do with jack boots and goose stepping. But it does have much to do with absolute corporate power, concentration camps, and slave labour. Only the names and methods used by these things will have changed slightly.
Some may call people that use the word FASCIST a lot, and can spell it, paranoid fools. People still have a right to be completely ignorant of what is going on around them every second of every day.
For some the truth never is acceptable, they just cant handle the true reality of the powerless situation, and the personal role the have in it. So as they say for some IGNORANCE IS BLISS. I say, let them keep it if they so wish. Soon a retention of your personal ignorance may be one of their only choices available.
Please take my word for the fact that I use the word only when it should be used, and I know EXACTLY what the word Fascist means.
I make no predictions as to how good or bad the outcome will be for the common man, there is a degree of subjective observation about these types of matters. Other then to say that it will be fundamentally different from anything most of us would have hoped for.
It will however be champaign medals and slaps on the back all round, at the BBC. For a long hard job, very well done indeed.
Atlas: your arguments are 100% convincing. I am buying several hundred pounds worth of silver tomorrow and stocking up on sausages, bog-roll, and frozen chicken nuggets.
I take it you’ve done the same? Good.
Do you really suppose for one minute that anyone will be convinced that you’re serious when your arguments consist almost entirely of shouting I KNOW THAT I’M RIGHT I KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT and on the other hand PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME DO SO BECAUSE THEY ARE IGNORANT!!
So how much do the BBC pay someone to come here and make the site look demented?
Ā£5.99
Out of Ā£3.2bn?? Tightwads.
LOL.
Don’t tell me you stayed up all night? I went to bed, knowing full well that the national picture will be worse for McLiars than the polls suggested.
Not all night – I had to go and lie down after reading Atlas’s take on the grand lizardoid conspiracy.
Yes, it looks like they’ve taken a bit of a battering. The Mayoral vote might be the icing on the cake of Labour humiliation.
A good article by Andrew Gilligan on the Mayoral race here:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23481539-details/Tired+old+Ken+deserves+a+permanent+holiday/article.do
He says something interesting about the progressive consensus presumed by Guardian readers et al – which includes the BBC, naturally.
I was hoping Livingdead would go out like Mussolini. A more than fitting fate.
Now I assume he’ll be tapped on the shoulder by her madge as he becomes Knight of the Livingdead.
A bit of a battering? š
Interestingly, the Mail is headlining the ‘worst result in 25 years’. I wonder what time they put the paper to bed.
OK, I take your point, but “a lot of a battering” just doesn’t sound right…
I only pray that Brown doesn’t do something crazy like step down and let someone less unattractive to voters take over. Not that I can think of anyone in Nu-Lab who would fit that description right now.
Harriet Harridan, maybe?
It’s a Friday, N-Ox, please don’t say such depressing things. It kills the weekend spirit.
Sorry š
But surely nothing can kill the weekend spirit after this total hammering MacLiars are getting?
“I only pray that Brown doesn’t do something crazy like step down and let someone less unattractive to voters take over.”
Ed “Let them eat shit” Balls,Gollum Milliband or Jacqui “Househounter” Smith,et all would be ideal,sink Labour for a couple of generations.
I’m not insisting on a couple of generations – after all, we don’t know how competent the Conservatives would be this time round. A viable opposition is always a good thing for democracy. A lack of one is partly what killed Thatcher I think. In the end the Conservative party started fighting itself because there was no-one else worth fighting until Labour rebranded.