Having given Prince Harry the full treatment over what he said three years ago, elevating it to a position way above the pro-Israel demos for example, I see that the BBC are now having a go at Prince Charles, over his alleged use of the name “Sooty.” Looks like it is open season on the Royals, still it helps take our minds of the economy and Mr Brown’s stewardship thereof! Who is next – Prince Philip?
SOOTY AND SWEEP
Bookmark the permalink.
I know this is off topic but I just wanted to say how terrible it was to see the muslims chasing your police down the street calling them cowards.
Oh for the love of allah!
This is such a joke its not even funny.
And to think, I have a friend we call abo…that must make me an even worse racist than charlie!
Mailman
I am sure the BBC loves this as it is absolutely obsessed with skin colour.
I wonder if Sooty calls him Snooty. A tale of Lord Snooty and his pals.
/oops.sorry to be frivolous on such an important and grievous case of racism, foul racism, racism most foul.
God help us if the BBC finds out we used to call some black people ‘chalky’ in the forces.
This is what really gets me – it’s only ever about skin colour (as pointed out by Millie Tant – 6:14pm).
For example, I’ve often wondered why the BBC never picks up on the word “Argie” in reference to Argentinians. I only ever see Argie prefixed by something derogatory such as “cheating” or “smelly” (the same excuse that I’ve heard rolled out for the P-word).
I’m guessing because the typical skin colour of your average Hispanic is “almost white” that any terms such as this don’t count – unless you’re an illegal Mexican in big bad America, that is.
The Brit working class is already alienated, demoralized and dangerous, and your economic woes have barely begun.
If you’re the BBC, there’s little to be lost by flapping a big a red herring — snooty Royals and imagined insults, nice easy story w/ all the usual suspects clamoring for air time to tilt at toffs — in the hope it’ll baffle the peasants enough to keep ’em down a bit longer.
It won’t work because the cupboard is bare. And people know when they are being lied to and played for fools.
Signs of flop sweat and desperation at the BBC at last? Maybe.
Yet more desperate rantings by Vance.
The BBC has, if anything, been on Charles’s side in this non-story which was first cooked up by the Daily Telegraph. Which Vance would have known if he’d ever bother to actually do any research.
Scott,
We are discussing the BBC’s coverage of this. I admire your conviction that the BBC is on Prince Charles’s side. Just doubt the reality of it.
BTW – my name is David and I would appreciate it if you use that when addressing me in future.
“Prince defended by friend ‘Sooty'”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more vicious broadside in the whole history of the BBC.
“Scott: Yet more desperate rantings by Vance.”
If you feel that way, what are you even doing here?
The timing of these revelations are interesting. The Royals must be about to do something positive…
The ‘class war’ attacks on the Royals is a NULAB dog whistle trick, if in doubt bash the toffs eh? Never fails…. er but this time the trick wont work! Too much bad news coming out now, Browns miracle cure turns out to be second hand snake oil and the chickens are coming home to roost all right.
The insanely expensive fight against a harmless trace gas(CO2) has left the UK without affordable power supplies just as we enter a cyclic cold phase, eye watering taxes on the dwindling band of wealth creators, madcap spending sprees with money our great grandchildren will be paying off, the nurturing of terrorist sympathising Islamist colonisers, illegal wars, the degradation of the police and national institutions, giving away of national sovreignty and corruption worthy of 1930s Chicago!
Its all there folks, a greek tragedy of epic proportions brought to you by the sons and daughters of the idiots that brought Britain to its knees in the 60s/70s, history repeats itself.
If you read the article, all the comments about Prince Charles are positive, and there are no negative ones, or any criticism of him. The headline might be better worded, but can anyone provide an analysis of the text which is biased against Charles?
“which shows it to be biased against Charles” would be better.
SJ – doesn’t giving the story that sort of prominence (i.e. any at all) constitute an editorial stance?
The media are desperately pimping this three-year old ‘paki’ thing – and now ‘Sootygate” in an attempt to divert attention away from the abysmal behaviour of British Muslims (mainly Pakistani) in the Gaza events recently.
To illustrate my point, here’s one video that won’t be airing at al Beeb.
Philip | 13.01.09 – 9:38 pm |
Quite – Now if it was a “demonstration” by the Christian Alliance!!!
GCooper – yes but my interpretation is that it is a well-intentioned (which is a bias of its own of course, but ‘good’ bias 🙂 ) but with a clumsy headline.
If the writer wanted to have a go at Charles they could write it with some negative pov from the usual race-card suspects and position it at the top of the article while still maintaining a pretence of impartiality. But it’s not there.
The hype about Harry was far more worthy of criticism eg I am sure a comment about Harry being called names on account of being ginger could have been found. One might also have wanted to point out that actions speak louder than words and this is a young man prepared to put his life on the line defending freedom etc etc All was all a bit crap IMO but I find the lad very likeable and wish the press/media would get off his case.
There have been some valid criticisms here recently eg the demo numbers count but this isn’t one of them.
I’m afraid I can’t quite agree, SJ. There seems no obvious need for the BBC to have run this story so prominently (at all?), whether defensively, or otherwise.
Perhaps not a display of rabid republicanism, true, but a certain sign of the BBC dumbing down its news priorities, I’d have thought.
The BBC never seems to get excited about Muslims calling us ‘kaffirs’ etc…..funny that.
GCooper well it’s #3 on the Ten now, it’s definitely trying to clear the matter up – the package is mostly from the POV of ‘Sooty’ who apparently enjoys it. However they have got the tedious Vaz on moralising blah blah blah
yes dave t it’s all getting a bit pathetic really, definitely seems to be getting worse.
ooops! I’ll get me coat.
Sarah Jane
It’s not bias by writing techniques in this case (though Lord knows al Beeb is extremely accomplished at this) – it’s bias by means of juxtaposition – of a three-years past its sell-by date, puffed-up non-story; with other events which have a far greater significance in terms of race/faith relations in this country.
Philip I agree the Harry thing is a non-story if by three-years that is what you mean.
’23 year old man behaves like 23 year old man’ as they would say in Private Eye.
The Charles thing is different though – seems to have been dug up by the press and we are coming to the rescue 😉
The royals racist?
Surely not!
Scott:
‘Yet more desperate rantings by Vance,’ says the man who has this on his website!!!!
http://matthewman.net/2009/01/04/vlog-1-on-twilight-and-mortality-angst/
Just watched the bBC Evening News and their coverage of this story.
Interesting how the bBC instead of reporting just the story. Instead spend a good third of it demonising people who use such language as relics from a bygone era which has no place in today’s multicultural society.
Yes bBC would that be the one where on the same evening news the reporter covering the Nazis era Newspapers selling in Berlin just had to mention how Goebbels didn’t like the Jews.
The same evening news which while reporting on the stage show of ‘Oliver’ went into great detail into how Mr Rowan Atkinson researched how to play a Jew in which to play ‘Fagin’ conveniently with the song “Got to pick a pocket or two” playing away.
Yup the bBC niggardly with the real news, but hey anything to say how racist the Brits are while berating the Jews. Well that’s the news for you.
Chuffer,
Now THAT was a video nasty! 😉
Odd contrast on the beeb.
Harry mustn’t call his mate a Paki.
Rowan Atkinson and interviewer chuckle about the former’s depiction of a demeaning Jewish stereotype (Fagin) and even agree that it’s OK for Rowan to exaggerate Fagin’s Jewishness to cover up any defects in the depiction.
We’re all Jew haters now.
nah, they’re just distracting attention from Darth Mandelson’s latest dealings. See Guido.
anon makes a very telling point. Guido’s post isn’t mere muck-raking – it’s a genuine news story.
One in which the BBC doesn’t seem at all interested.
Here is the bBC film clip on that Nazis Zeittung article.
I got it slightly wrong.
He doesn’t report on how Goebbels bitchs about the jews.
He reports on how Goebbels complains about the Jewish Press.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7827660.stm
I wonder if that is a dig at the state of Israel. Nah the bBC wouldn’t do that they are too respectful.
pounce: Your point seems to me obscure. Why would mention of Goebbels complaining about Jews be wrong?
I always thought that Sooty took it up the bum
A right fisting I mean.
Much like Mandelson and most of the BBC
Has anyone asked why he is called Sooty? Is there just an assumption that it is because his skin is darker than Charles’ skin? Isn’t such an assumption racist?
Perhaps as a boy he had a youthful attachment to a glove puppet.
It is all so funny coming from the racist BBC which is institutionally anti-semitic !!
Grant – how many Jews would you expect an “institutionally anti-semitic” organisation to employ relevant to their percentage of the population? Particularly in very senior management and editorial positions?
Just askin’
jack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k…in- central.html
This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community.
To view this video or group, please verify that you are 18 or older by signing in or signing up.
Are they now joining the BBC?
Is the video all blood and guts and violence? No sex i presume
If the Beeb are accusing Charles of racism over the use of the word sooty, i wonder why they have nothing to say about muslims posing as jews eating babies on jan 10 in Kensimgton
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/01/uk-blood-libel-horror-jews-eating-dead-babies.html
The BBC never seems to get excited about Muslims calling us ‘kaffirs’ etc…..funny that.
dave t | 13.01.09 – 10:12 pm | #
Apparently it needs pointing out that Prince Charles is a rather high profile figure who has a track record of making a tit out of himself.
With regards to Prince Harry, it does seem rather strange to me, given all the po-faced huffing and puffing here of late, that the board seems to be giving a guy who dressed up as a Nazi rather a lot of slack.
I thought the Oids were all supposed to be lined up on behalf of something they like to call “proportionality”.
My experience of living in a city with a very high Pakistani population is that racists do not have friends belonging to other races. No way.
On the contrary, openly using a phrase like “Paki” can be a sign that the person is completely at ease with the situation and confident of his/her own lack of prejudice.
But then I suppose that is the last impression that the BBC wants to convey.
With all that’s going on, why am I even bothering with this?
Some good points in yesterday’s DT letters which drew attention to http://www.paki.com and how Pakistanis are called Pakis in the Indian press.
With regard to the BBC and Prince Charles I think their coverage can be classified under the no smoke without fire principle particularly where after absorbing the “headline” the vast majority have little further interest in the detail. Hang on a minute that sounds like the policy being adopted by the government of endless headline grabbing announcements whereas the devil is in the detail.
With regards to Prince Harry, it does seem rather strange to me, given all the po-faced huffing and puffing here of late, that the board seems to be giving a guy who dressed up as a Nazi rather a lot of slack.
Richard Lancaster | 14.01.09 – 10:18 am | #
i’d like to think unlike the majority of pc type bbc hypocrites,most of us on this blog can see the wood for the trees.
Just a typical beeboid smoke screen ,to deflect attention from the real story, the inevitability of mandelson being caught with a third resigning offense, another inexplicable mortgage .
Anyone outraged about a few phrases from Prince Harry’s mouth has never held a real job. As such they’re just too completely unfamiliar with the banter that comes with it.
Isn’t it obvious. I see the Hand of Mand and the noxious reach of the Campbell creep pulling the strings of the BBC puppets and selected journos.
These “Royal” stories have been held on to for several years. And then…hey presto! they appear….just in time for Harpersons assault on middle England, yet again.
Nothing like a “Royal” spoiler story to build up late 19th century syndicalist class hatred all over again.
Grant – how many Jews would you expect an “institutionally anti-semitic” organisation to employ relevant to their percentage of the population? Particularly in very senior management and editorial positions?
Just askin’
Sarah Jane | 14.01.09 – 9:34 am
Surely that would depend on whether the Jew in question was pro-Israel or not. Jews who attack Israeli policies, like Alexei Sayle and Michael Rose are obviously welcome.
Perhaps you could provide a list of Jews employed by the BBC along with their expressed views on Israel. Now that would be interesting!
BioD – I had a bit of debate about this with David P the other day – after he accused Robert Peston of being anti-Semitic. He didnt really have any evidence of any comment Peston had made to back it up, it was just a crass accusation based on not knowing much at all about the UK media. I think he backtracked to a self-loathing position. Clearly he has never met Peston 🙂
I understand that some Jews are not exactly pro-Zionist but still struggle with the notion of institutional anti-Semitism. Surely the mark of an insitution being something-ist is that there is little representation in the staff and particularly in senior management?
I’d rather not post a list as it might get picked up by the kind of cretin who put lists of ‘Jews in the media’ on nazi and islamo-fascist hate sites and their lists are not comprehensive.
I hope you appreciate that is not me trying to weasle out of it, but you are a dab hand with google etc so I am sure you can research it yourself if interested.
Surely the mark of an insitution being something-ist is that there is little representation in the staff and particularly in senior management?
In this case it’s more subtle isn’t it?
There is no lack of anti-Israeli Jews (I don’t really like to call them “self-hating” or “self-loathing”) out there, and they are the ones most seen and heard promoting the Palestinian cause; “Jews for Justice for Palestine” and the like. In fact the MSM in general love nothing better than to be able to present a fervent critic of Israel as a Jew him/herself. It’s kind of an extension of the antisemite’s “some of my best friends…” ploy.
In fact I’d go so far as to suggest that while there’s no proof that a Jew will not be hired by the BBC because he’s Jewish I’m quite sure that an anti-Israeli Jew would be more likely to get a job. His anti-Israel feelings being seen as a plus by the BBC mindset.
I’d rather not post a list as it might get picked up by the kind of cretin who put lists of ‘Jews in the media’ on nazi and islamo-fascist hate sites and their lists are not comprehensive.
Quite. I agree. I just wanted to point out that are Jews, and then there are “those of Jewish origin”. 😉