I see that that the BBC have managed to take an alleged private comment from Carol Thatcher and use it as one more assault on the Thatcher brand. As you may know, Carol Thatcher is supposed to have used the word “golliwog” in reference to some Tennis player. However the point is that IF she did say this she did so off-air in the green room and so it is a private matter that the BBC have ruthlessly turned into a public affair. I’ve been in BBC green Roomsrmore than a few times and I could raise eye-brows about some comments made in my presence if I so chose. But why would I break confidence in this way? Even if I was diametrically opposed to another person’s point of view, what they say off-air has to be private. Clearly Carol Thatcher should be much more circumspect in what she says, but for me the greater crime here lies in the BBC’s blatant breach of confidence. Ultimately, the BBC hate anything that has the Thatcher imprimatur, a fact Carol should have been more aware. Your thoughts?
Those who would like to join an opinion-pollilng direct democracy website and vote on this issue, ie
Should Carol Thatcher have been dropped by the BBC for using the word “golliwog”?
Should visit:
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=128
Who on earth was the PC BBC harridan who was interviewed on the Today show this morning ? Bombastic, utterly self-righteous claptrap.
And why didn’t the interviewer tell her bluntly that most people think the BBC is making a fool of itself ?
Ah what a wonderful morning.
The world enveloped in pristine snow and the vile, disgusting, treacherous, grasping, nepotistic, boring, London-centric, bigoted BBC getting a fantastic kicking!
Bliss!
Apprently the harridan on the Today show this morning is Controller of BBC 1. She obviously had her act together – seems like the BBCrealises it needs to defend itself on the Thatcher affair. But I reckon her domineering PC tone will actually have put a lot more listeners off.
Jay Hunt, the BBC1 controller, was on the Today programme this morning, confirming what many of us have suspected for a long time – that the BBC has a covert “diversity” agenda.
This further reaffirms the fact that we cannot trust the BBC to maintain impartiality on a whole range of issues, particularly the most pressing cultural and ideological ones.
What a pity Carol Thatcher wasn’t on to put her side of the story. Does anyone know if she was invited to do so?
To be honest, she was pretty daft to say what she did but the witch-hunt is, to coin a phrase, disproportionate. No doubt some people were offended by her golliwog remark, but I find the toilet humour of the likes of Jonathan Ross offensive. However as a white male my offence doesn’t count.
Andrew sachs was a white male.
Yes, but the remarks were on air and still the offence was only worth a suspension.
White male yes, though of course he is Jewish. But I don’t think Jews get quite the pro diversity reaction that other minorities get from the BBC do they.
‘Mail’
Melanie Phillips:
‘Controller gives a chilling insight into the totalitarian universe of the closed BBC mind’
[Extract]:
“If the BBC had intended to convince the public that it had departed altogether from reality and common sense and resided instead in some alternative Stalinist universe, it could hardly have done a better job. Ms Hunt was unrepentant.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1136091/Controller-gives-chilling-insight-totalitarian-universe-closed-BBC-mind.html
‘Mail’ Comment:
“A floundering giant with no moral sense”
[Extract]:
“Unlike Ross’s apology for an apology, the BBC rejects hers[Thatcher’s], demanding that she must publicly humiliate herself.
“But then in the warped world of the BBC – in which terrorists are ‘freedom fighters’, love of country is ‘bias’ and truth lies permanently to the Left of centre – there is no crime more evil than saying anything that might be interpreted as a slur on a racial or sexual minority.
“Otherwise, anything goes. Ross, Jo Brand, Adrian Chiles and the rest can joke to their smug, PC hearts’ content about bodily functions, the Christian church or the elderly.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1136004/MAIL-COMMENT-The-BBC-floundering-giant-moral-sense.html
Hunt’s interview on Today was an opportunity for the BBC to display itself in all its self-righteous priggery – and it did. If the BBC wants to “explain” (ie give both sides) this particular item of news through Today then there is no point having a BBC employee interview her employer – or, as in this case, a senior employee of her employer – and expect to get a rigorous, informed and (above all) fearless interview.
This was an occasion when competent journalism (as if!) would have required, at the very least, someone from outside the BBC (preferably from outside the BBC/Guardianista cadre) to be on the other side of the discussion. That individual then could have put the questions or commented on Hunt’s remarks (which BTW sounded, to me, as if she was reading them).
Umbongo
I too thought Ms Hunt had a prepared script.
Disgraceful to have no counter-view. Stalinist is perhaps the right word. The BBC is getting more and more like Pravda.
Roland Deschain | 05.02.09 – 10:39 am |
Yes, but the remarks were on air and still the offence was only worth a suspension.
Yet the Beeboids were outraged, cried about feelings of betrayal, and pulled a childish (albeit harmless, I admit) protest stunt on the air, when one of their colleagues was fired for knowingly and repeatedly lying to and stealing money from the public.
And now they get all Maoist about apologies. Creepy.
I have always seen the purpose of the British monarchy insofar as it gives the British a right royal real-life soap opera that runs and runs.
However, The Queen’s decision to withdraw the sale of golliwogs from the Sandringham Gift Shop is a very bad move indeed, and will arouse Republican sentiment far more than any misbehaviour on the part of the other royals.
In fact, this instinctive knee-jerk kow-towing to Political Correctness can be seen as a political gesture and will have the effect of politicising the owning and buying golliwogs, and in effect banning them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7871193.stm
A pang of regret that I no longer have my childhood golliwog – he had black woollen plaited hair, thick red smiling lips, a blue jacket and red and white striped trousers – deepens my gloom at PC totalitarianism, which it seems Her Majesty is bent on fueling.
I like to think that HM Queen has been badly advised – as was Prince Harry when he apologised for using “Paki” to describe his Pakistani colleague – and wonder if the pusillanimous advisers to the Royal Family are perhaps to blame.
It is well known that the Royal Family have not been very fortunate or wise in their choice of royal advisers over the decades.
If it was indeed her own decision, then I very much fear that, for the very first time, Republican wrath stirs within my breast.
If none dare buy and sell golliwogs, then I predict it will not been too long before the BNP Merchandising Department will be selling BNP golliwogs in defiance of this ridiculous fuss over a child’s toy.
Why, it might be just the thing to ask for, this Christmas coming.
Andromeda | Homepage | 05.02.09 – 3:11 pm |
A pang of regret that I no longer have my childhood golliwog – he had black woollen plaited hair, thick red smiling lips, a blue jacket and red and white striped trousers – deepens my gloom at PC totalitarianism, which it seems Her Majesty is bent on fueling.
I was going to say this must be a joke, meant to be used as evidence that this blog is really full of BNP racists who agree with you because nobody called you out, but you’ve posted this over at your own blog, haven’t you?
Please go back there and ruminate about how the Holocaust probably didn’t happen like they say it did, and how you’re angry about not being able to say that without raising eyebrows.
Good spot David.
Oh dear. David Preiser, all the way from the USA is trying to silence me and tell me to go away.
Perhaps he would like to visit:
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=127
so that he can see for himself the terms of the debate.
I have no idea whether this site is full of BNP members or not, but are you telling them, all the way from America, to shut up and go away too?
Perhaps you would like to come over and bomb us and impose regime change, in the grand American Way that you do so well?
Bring it on!
(Gosh, don’t I sound just like a mockery of your ex-President!)
David Vance
You might wish to check out if Andromeda is a Holocaust denier. Looks like it.
Thank you, David Vance, for raising that question.
How would you check that sort of thing?
How about visiting
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=127
to see if I tick all the boxes?