Just ten minutes this morning into the “Today” programme on BC Radio 4 and I had to turn it off.
Just before the 7 a.m. news we had an item on “social cohesion”and the racial tensions that are evident in places like Dagenham. The spectre of the rise of the BNP was raised by the BBC interviewer and all agreed that this “far-right” abomination was undesirable. The solution to “divided communities” appeared to be “arts-based” social initiatives! Tell it to the Jihadists and those within the Muslim community who support them and who refuse to integrate within our communities. The BBC can’t even see the problem but instead fulminate against “the far right”.
Meanwhile, just a few minutes later and after a weekend which saw John Prescott, Cherie Blair and Lord Levy all expose Gordon Brown’s dysfunctional personality, the BBC then ran an item clearly designed to bolster Brown. The loathsome Denis McShane and Lance Price were allowed to explain why all this tittle-tattle meant nothing and said more about those who indulged in it than it did about the Great Leader. It seemed to escape them that all this invective against Brown was coming from within the Party, from senior figures. Operation Save Gordon seems in full swing and it should prove hugely entertaining to watch the BBC explain away what looks set to be a rout of Labour in Crewe in but a few weeks!
“‘There will be some – even Catholics, I think – who will be thinking, [sigh] you know, if God was really looking after your family, this wouldn’t have happened.'”
More to the point ,if the socialist riff raff had been had been looking after the country,this wouldn’t have happened.
“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s”. The scum on the street are down to the Labour Government.
i dont normally link to the BNP , but this one is from yesterday – and its about the BBC and Common Purpose training
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/05/bbc-confirm-some-of-their-staff-have-received-common-purpose-training/
Kirsty Wark, BBC, Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour Party:-
1.) Kirsty Wark, ‘Newsnight’ preview for tonight’s programme:
Gordon’s future
‘Psychologically flawed.’
“Do you remember when that description of Gordon Brown was attributed to Alistair Campbell? Wrongly, Campbell says.
“It was back in 1998 but the idea that Gordon sat “gathering his brows like a gathering storm nursing his wrath to keep it warm” (apologies to Burns) for the whole of the Blair years has not been dispelled by his demeanour as PM, and certainly not by the trio of autobiographies from Lord Levy, John Prescott and Cherie Blair.
“And we know that his most recent travails over a Scottish referendum on Independence have put him in a very black mood. This weekend the Labour backbencher Frank Field said that he had been at the receiving end of a Brown rage in the past, and that he should not lead Labour to the next election – those closest to him should tell him when is the best time to go. We’ll be gazing into Gordon Brown’s future.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/
2.) ‘Daily Mail’:-
“Kirsty Wark and the bugged email story you WON’T be hearing on Newsnight”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492360&in_page_id=1770
I hope Victoria Derbyshire does not learn the hard way just how ignorant and malicious she is. I hope she’s never in the same position as this mother.
Several thousand years after the Book of Psalms asks question after question of God, demanding to know why evil prospers, and two thousand years after – in Christian eyes – Christ reveals the presence of divinity in a violent and untimely death, reassuring those who live by his example that God is to be found even and especially such an extremity – this petulant, sneering, insensitive little rat of a woman has the gaul and the stupidity to demand of a freshly-bereaved mother how the act of losing a son could possibly be reconciled with the faith that finds strength especially with Mary, who watches the violent murder of her son.
Derbyshire should be sacked for her crass ignorance and bigotry, and sacked again for her staggeringly insensitive and completely needless ideological probing of a grieving mother. Stupid, stupid, stupid ignorant little bitch.
Apologies for anger-driven typos and grammatical oddities. I meant gall, obviously.
Victoria Derbyshire should be charged under the Hate Speech laws or any religious equivalent of racism.
The woman typifies the attitude of the liberal left scum who inhabit the BBC.
Hi Peter,
Wanting someone charged under the Hate Speech laws and following this up with “liberal left scum who inhabit the BBC” sounds a tad hypocritical to me.
But perhaps, I am a tad too sensitive.
Bureau for “British” Cohesion remarkably quiet on murder suspect.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23483968-details/Manhunt+for+Turkish+teenager+after+altar+boy+Jimmy+was+stabbed+to+death+in+bakery/article.do
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Gal. 6:7, kjv).
“But perhaps, I am a tad too sensitive.”
Probably,but you can’t say that people like Derbyshire haven’t earned it.
Perhaps you should get another job?
Oh look ! More “Social Cohesion”
Hi Peter,
Seriously, do you not see something wrong with wanting someone to be charged under the Hate Speech law and calling that person in the same breath “scum”. Is that coherent?
What do you mean by “Perhaps you should get another job”?
The BNP obviously need to work hard campaigning even between elections if they want to keep up with the attacks on them which they are not allowed to respond to.
Gunnar,
Derbyshire challenged a newly bereaved mother on her beliefs at a time when the poor probably needed something to hold on to more than anything in her life.
That deserves the epithet “Scum”.
The first thing the BBC should have done apologise and suspend Derbyshire.
Would Derbyshire have questioned the faith of a Muslim mother who’s child had been killed.
Yes definitely another job,you are too sensitive for that shirt.
[b]The BNP obviously need to work hard campaigning even between elections [/b]
In the last round of local elections the Labour candidate here was very nearly defeated by the BNP, who didn’t even bother to campaign other than word of mouth. This is about the safest Labour area you could possibly imagine, former pit village.
The only campaigning was negative, the Labour party shipped a load of ” Hope not Hate ” leafletters in who went round stuffing letterboxes at 2am so they didn’t actually have to meet any of us indigenous working class types ( I think we emit fumes which are poisonous to middle class liberals or something )
I’m sure Labour rationalised their near defeat by some delusion such as ” Labour voters stayed at home because they were angry about the Iraq war ” but that really wasn’t the case.
No-one here gives two hoots about Iraq, what they do care about is having the crap taxed out of them, job losses to immigration, crime and the contempt shown by NuLabour for traditional white working class values.
Hi Peter
Derbyshire is asking the grieving mother why her god had let this happen. To some, this is a valid question and might help the mother coming out of denial. Obviously, you have a different take on it.
What makes you believe to want to charge Derbyshire under the Hate Speech Law while calling her “scum”. With this, you should be sitting with her in the dock. Or not?
And again, what job?
Gunnar, what nonsense you do talk. Calling someone ‘scum’ because she behaves like scum is not yet forbidden in this country, under any law. Attacking a religion on a state broadcasting programme is.
Derbyshire is guilty of rank hypocrisy and gross insensitivity,and shd be castigated for it in no uncertain terms (not that she will be). On the other hand, & in general terms, I am all in favour of “attacking a religion (NOT a bereaved mother, I stress) on a state broadcasting programme” – there shd be much more of it. The problem is, of course, that we know precisely WHICH religion is relentlessly attacked on OUR state broadcaster – and which other religion gets an entirely free pass.
Nearly Oxfordian,
Where exactly has Derbyshire attacked religion?
“Calling someone ‘scum’ because she behaves like scum is not yet forbidden in this country, under any law.”
Is this really your line of argument?
“I am still waiting for someone to tell me the vile nasty policies of the BNP.
Easy to say something against someone and deny them a right of reply.”
Massively counterproductive as well.
There is absolutely nothing in the BNP manifesto that is remotely ‘offensive’.
Economically fossilised (and left wing), yes. Full of pie in the sky aspirations rather than much that’s practically implementable, yes….
It might be correct that BNP members are pretty thick and incompetent and some of them individually are dangerous – that’s been partially evidenced by the ‘performance’ of their Councillors and various media exposés. But if it’s the case across the board why not give them enough rope to hang themselves.
Media refusal to let them speak? Supporters banned from public service jobs?? People refusing to sit next to the (elected) London Assembly member??? Who looks like the child there????
Thank you, Gunnar:
‘To some, this is a valid question and might help the mother coming out of denial.’
This phrase quite beautifully captures the insufferably trendy, arrogant, machine-thinking that afflicts the Beeboid mind.
“It might be correct that BNP members are pretty thick and incompetent and some of them individually are dangerous – that’s been partially evidenced by the ‘performance’ of their Councillors and various media exposés.”
Let’s transpose that, shall we?
It might be correct that Labour ministers and MPs are pretty thick and incompetent and some of them individually are dangerous – that’s been partially evidenced by the ‘performance’ of their Government and various media exposés.”
Various media exposes? Has the BBC ever run a current affairs investigation into Labour’s incompetence and anti-British malice? How about the Olympics fiasco, or Brown’s sell-off of our gold reserves, or Brown’s destruction of our pension funds, or the crime cover-up, or their MPs snouts in the trough etc. etc. No! All we get are ‘investigations’ into the BNP – a minor party which has the temerity to point out (correctly) that the LibLabCon’s multi-culti delusions are destroying the country.
Gunnar,
What do you call the denzins of an organisation which runs fake phone in programmes,which steal the money from Children in Need,an organisation which counts in its staff rapists,drug addicts,where stiffs seem to part of the scenery?
No it isn’t the Goodfellas,it is the British Broadcasting Corporation.
What do you call the BBC employees who subvert the Charter for partisan political ends ?
“Derbyshire is asking the grieving mother why her god had let this happen. To some, this is a valid question and might help the mother coming out of denial”
That isn’t Derbyshire’s business.Is she a trained psychologist are you? Certainly you are not very sensitive,either of you.
“we know precisely WHICH religion is relentlessly attacked on OUR state broadcaster – and which other religion gets an entirely free pass.”
One can imagine Derbyshire asking the mother of one of the perpetrators of 7/7
“What kind of God is it that demands a young man kill others and commit suicide”? “Are you certain martyrdom will gain him entry to Paradise”?
The day something like that happens on the BBC I will buy a license,I might even buy a TV.
“Operation Save Gordon seems in full swing”
It certainly does. Even the BBC admit it:
“The counter-attack by ministers had begun with Health Secretary Alan Johnson on the BBC’s Today programme.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7396796.stm
The “impartial” Today programme – “can I just say, as you give me the opportunity” – always available for counter-attacks.
Expat In New York:
Let them in fight! – Let them continue with the delusions that Gordon Brown is capable of winning the next general election.
Alan Johnson? – That’s the ex branch official of the Communist party of Great Britain.
Now we know where New Liebour pick up their ideas for both leadership and fare and free Lisbon treaty elections from!!!
“Alex:
I don’t see the bias David. First you complain that they mentioned “social cohesion”. And then, when a subject came up that pretty much all mainstream politicians agree on, the BNP, you’re outraged that all the contributors agreed.”
All mainstream politicians dislike the BNP – so that’s reason enough for condemning them then. On the same basis we should condemn the Liberal party because both the Tories and Labour dislike them and outnumber them in support. Naturally we should dislike the BNP. After all, they intend to pay immigrants to encourage them to leave the UK if they want to – the same policy that has existed in France for over ten years, and extended under Sarkozy.
The current Labour Party is on the moral high ground here of course. They have actually killed at least 250,000 people and still rising, with little in common other than they are foreign. Nevertheless the Beeboids continue to treat the BNP as some kind of pariah party when the Labour Party, steeped in real blood, is beyond reproach.
gunnar:
“To some, this is a valid question and might help the mother coming out of denial”
Could you tell me in what way you think the mother is “in denial”?
“All mainstream politicians dislike the BNP – so that’s reason enough for condemning them then.”
You’ve misread me. My point was then you have a selection of guests from the mainstream parties, and the mainstream parties are generally united on an issue (in this case the BNP), it’s by no means a sign of bias if all the guests agree.
“My point was then you have a selection of guests from the mainstream parties, and the mainstream parties are generally united on an issue (in this case the BNP), it’s by no means a sign of bias if all the guests agree.”
Oh yes, that is exactly what it is. If you ask the question of a bunch of people whose response is inevitable and negative, then the question is effectively loaded. That is exactly how the BBC can present itself as unbiased whilst actually being heavily biased against one particular political party.
In this case, the BBC suspends its infamous moral indifference (as shown in the Falklands war) to make a particular moral judgement about the BNP. It isn’t even fair to make such a moral judgement, given that the current Labour Party has ACTUALLY killed more foreigners than Nick Griffin has had hot breakfasts! As far as the BNP is concerned, the BBC should treat it as “just another political party” and the opinions of other political parties about the BNP should be considered as inherently biased.
This is typical of the BBC. It considers itself as being morally indifferent when reporting Iran or enemy fighters attacking our troops, but then suddenly decides it can make a moral judgement when discussing the BNP. This is the Orwellian manner in which BBC bias actually works.
Ryan, the BNP opposes the multi-culti, pro-EU agenda shared by the LibLabCon and the BBC. How on earth can you expect the BBC to remain impartial and unbiased about the BNP?
The words “political correctness” – (this time around) are derived from a self righteous Marxist ethos.
No bias there then!!!
It’s a form tyranny, but it isn’t even a recent phenomenon. In the middle Ages the threat of being called a ‘Heretic’ stopped discussion and paralysed thought. So for leftist purposes, words such as ‘Racist’, ‘Bigot’, and ‘Xenophobe’, and of course, B.N.P., only serves to halt any argument and conversation that is opposed to their despicable plans, for fear of being called “racist” yourself.
We Know that the B.N.P.s roots come from an extreme ideology!!! – We can work this out for ourselves!!!
But why is “Marxism” in all of it’s guises, now so widely accepted into the mainstream, by the BBC and their sycophantic “guests”??
Could you tell me in what way you think the mother is “in denial”?
ThinAndBritish | 13.05.08 – 3:20 pm |
And Gunnar fell silent!!!
“But why is “Marxism” in all of it’s guises, now so widely accepted into the mainstream, by the BBC and their sycophantic “guests”??”
Watch this. It will become clear: diversity training, consciousness raising, the proliferation of spurious “phobias”.
“In denial”
Pyschobabble for “You refuse to agree with me”.
“Calling someone ‘scum’ because she behaves like scum is not yet forbidden in this country, under any law.”
– Is this really your line of argument?
Yes. Is it really your argument that you will try to stop me saying this?
WoAD:
If our Nation has always rejected the foul stench of Marxism in all of its forms, then why do we placate this c””p in the modern day???
This odious government and their minions have GOT TO GO, and the sooner the better!!
2.7 billion quid to rig a by-election in the safe New Liebour seat of Crewe – and we the British tax payers will, no doubt be picking up THEIR bill, sometime in the very near future.
It’s Utterly shameful!!!
Sorry, busy day.
@ Nearly Oxfordian
It is really getting tricky now. My recap:
“Calling someone ‘scum’ because she behaves like scum is not yet forbidden in this country, under any law.”
– Is this really your line of argument?
Yes. Is it really your argument that you will try to stop me saying this?
My answer: No. Please yourself. Just wanting to charge someone for Hate Speech while calling that person “scum” is for my taste hypocritical. But since you insist, let’s agree to disagree on this one.
@pseydwatch, ThinAndBritish and others:
“Could you tell me in what way you think the mother is “in denial”?
ThinAndBritish | 13.05.08 – 3:20 pm |
And Gunnar fell silent!!!”
Terribly sorry. Little time today.
Here is what I have written at the time:
“Derbyshire is asking the grieving mother why her god had let this happen. To some, this is a valid question and might help the mother coming out of denial. Obviously, you have a different take on it.”
There will be pretty good reasons for the killing. None of them will have anything to do with the mothers religion and her believe in god. To ask the question “why a god would let this happen” is pretty obvious to a non-believer and may help the mother re-evaluate her position.
Whether this was a sensitive thing to do at this stage is a completely different matter and I would say it was not. But this is my opinion.
However, if VD is not allowed to ask religious people those kinds of questions, then we may as well close shop down. This site seems to go this way anyway.
“To ask the question “why a god would let this happen” is pretty obvious to a non-believer and may help the mother re-evaluate her position.”
If you read the book of Genesis you will find that God created man free, and not as a mindless puppet.
Your comment is decorated in what you hope is conciliatory language, you actually end up pompous and presumptuous.
Then there is this:
“There will be pretty good reasons for the killing.”
There will indeed be good reasons for the killing Mistah Kurtz.
But really, these utterly inadequate and self-defeating ethics you espouse are now taught in state schools:
Charlotte Iserbyt – The Dumbing Down of America, an account of the ruining of American state education with Cultural Marxism.
“the well-being of mankind and the stability of this world and its institutions depend on the rule of law, then the 1940s and 1950s will be remembered as the commencement of the unraveling of civic order in the United States of America and throughout the world. The rule of law is usually based on concepts of right and wrong, grounded in some very widely accepted values that have been laid down since earliest times, and even spelled out in Roman law. Since the end of World War II, instead of the concept of law nations have been basing their actions on the United Nations’ humanistic (non-absolutist) situational ethics ”
“This overloaded “lifeboat in crisis” represented
a dramatic shift in education. The exercise—in which students were compelled to choose which humans were expendable and, therefore, should be cast off into the water—became a mainstay in classrooms across the country [Note. I myself–WoAD–was taught something similar to this at primary school] Creative solutions? Not allowed. Instructions? Strictly adhered to. In truth, there is to be only one correct answer to the lifeboat drama: death.”
However, if VD is not allowed to ask religious people those kinds of questions, then we may as well close shop down. This site seems to go this way anyway.
gunnar | 13.05.08 – 11:42 pm | #
Indeed Gunnar. And as Peter wrote:
One can imagine Derbyshire asking the mother of one of the perpetrators of 7/7
“What kind of God is it that demands a young man kill others and commit suicide”? “Are you certain martyrdom will gain him entry to Paradise”?
Well Gunnar, can you see that happening? If not, why not?
gunnar | 13.05.08 – 11:42 pm,
As they say, when in a hole stop digging. I listened to that Derbyshire ‘interview’.
Your denial comment is quite extraordinary and numerous people here have picked that up. A mother who has just lost a son in a brutal murder and yet has the courage to come on the radio and talk about it is in denial? And Victoria Derbyshire is going to be the one to help her out of it? Please, give us a break.
Derbyshire demonstrated a breathtaking lack of decency and plain common sense in that interview. She is also evidently in total ignorance of Christianity. She is probably an atheist or a Muslim. Who else would treat a grieving Christian mother with such insulting and callous disregard for her faith?
It’s got nothing to do with being an atheist, Bryan, and I am gob-smacked that you can say something quite so stupid. There are plenty of Christian shit-heads about.
“She is probably an atheist or a Muslim. Who else would treat a grieving Christian mother with such insulting and callous disregard for her faith?”
I don’t think either of those ideologies would have produced Derbyshire’s insensitivity.No,what you heard is the true voice of a liberal left grandee,secure in her superiority,moral ascendancy and rightness.There was a lot of it about in 1788.
OK guys, I thought that might have provoked a response. I’ll do some more thinking on the issue. No time right now.
Gunnar:
“To ask the question “why a god would let this happen” is pretty obvious to a non-believer and may help the mother re-evaluate her position”
Why would she need to re-evaluate her position? What’s wrong with her present one?
By your argument, perhaps we should take the same approach with any Muslim Palestinians whose families have been killed by Israeli bombing. We can bring them out of denial and help them re-evaluate their positions by asking them the rhetorical question: “Why should a god let this happen?” Perhaps then they’d see the light and stop being Muslims.
… and to be objective, perhaps we should ask any atheist family members of murder victims (preferably soon after the murder) whether maybe there is a higher spiritual reason for the killing, in the sense that e.g. Allah has ordained that it’s good in the long run. This might help them re-evaluate their position in favour of a more spiritual outlook.
Or are you claiming that the atheist position is the superior one? In that case see my last post. Every Muslim on the planet, in that case, definitely needs to be “brought out of denial”.
“By your argument, perhaps we should take the same approach with any Muslim Palestinians whose families have been killed by Israeli bombing” –
who are these ‘Palestinians’?
Without wanting to go on too much (damn I already have), gunnar you might be taking a logical, even compassionate perspective from your point of view but the fact is that talk of something like “denial” or “re-evaluation” when it comes to Christians gets a lot of people very nervous and wound up.
It would be fine if the BBC were willing to discuss religious issues in an open, balanced way, but the fact is that VD would never have asked the question if the woman had been a muslim.
This causes Christians to feel (justifiably, I think) that they’re being victimised, and also alerts anyone of other persuasions (I am an atheist by the way) who sees this victimisation process going on and doesn’t like it, even though it doesn’t directly affect them.
N.O. :
who are these ‘Palestinians’?
Ah, I don’t know… Is that a political question? I’m very ignorant on the Israel / Palestine issue so I’ll shut up!
Is Gunnar a new name for Hillhunt/John Reith?
Not Hillhunt – Gunnar can string two sentences together.