Monthly Archives: July 2009

ENGINES OF SOCIAL MOBILITY?

By | |
Comments Off on ENGINES OF SOCIAL MOBILITY?

I see that class warrior Lord Peter Mandelson is to call on our Universities to become “engines of social mobility” later today. The BBC covered this here, with an interview with Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group which represents the 20 top universities. Sarah Montague was relentlessly pushing the patronising idea that Universities should accept a lower set of “A” level results from those from a “disadvantaged” background, although Piatt gave a decent enough defence. However what worries me is that the Universities will go along with the Mandelson line so long as they get to hike tuition fees. The BBC, like Labour, continually pushes the “All must have prizes” Dodo mentality and it rarely gives time to those who advocate that standards must be maintained at all costs and that the primary role of a University is to educate – not to facilitate the creed of socialism.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

IF I COULD TALK TO THE TALIBAN…

By | | ,
Comments Off on IF I COULD TALK TO THE TALIBAN…

Like a latter day Dr Doolittle (and he really does do very little) Foreign Secretary David Miliband is to announce today that UK strategy on Afghanistan should now revolve around getting the Afghan government to speak to the “moderate” Taliban. The BBC interview wee Dougie Alexander about this and the usual references to the Northern Ireland peace process are thrown around to approving murmurs from the BBC.

Let me put this one straight.

Firstly, the Taliban are an Islamic malignancy with a Dark Ages mindset. The idea that there is a “moderate” section is like suggesting that there were some “moderate” Nazis. It seems to me that the BBC, in line with it’s Nulabour masters, are determined to pretend that some of those Taliban chaps will see sense if they are taken in from the cold and reasoned with.

Second, the comparison with Northern Ireland is lunatic. The British Government created the fiction here that there were “good” and “bad” terrorists – little consolation to the next of kin of their victims. “Good” terrorists play along with the fiction, “bad” terrorists don’t. This was served up as a “peace process” which enabled the Government to reward the mass killers in the terrorist establishment, betray their victims , disembowel the force of law and order, and win the plaudits of the liberal intelligentsia in the process. This depravity is the template that Miliband somehow seeks to impose on the Taliban. The head-cutters and limb amputators that make up the Taliban elite do not think in the way the IRA did, except when it comes to murder. They will take all concessions offered, of course, and then look for more.

Appeasing evil is pretty much all that Miliband and his ilk are capable of doing and they can be assured of a sympathetic hearing from the moral relativists that infest the BBC. There is, as Sir Winston Churchill once put it, NO point of compromise between the fireman and the arsonist.

As a final reference point, did you read THIS about the Taliban’s new terror chief? Why, he makes Butcher Boy Martin McGuinness seem like an almost decent cove.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

GOODBYE SARAH?

By | |
Comments Off on GOODBYE SARAH?

Have a look at this slideshow from the BBC marking Sarah Palin’s exit from Alaskan office. The commentary under each slide is interesting. The BBC did nothing but mock Palin and it seems to me that their snobbery remains to the end. I like the line being peddled that she “may” have contributed to McCain’s defeat. I hope Palin stays in US politics if for no other reason to annoy the BBC, CNN, the New York Times and the rest of the left wing cultural and political elite. Personally I think she is great!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

DARLING AND MARR

By | |
Comments Off on DARLING AND MARR

Anyone catch Andrew Marr “interviewing” out lamentable Chancellor Darling this morning? I think the thing that most struck me was the gentle treatment Marr afforded this wretch whose period of tenure in his role has been characterised by serial disaster and poor judgement. (Albeit overseen by McDoom) Darling even got to claim that he thought Labour “could” win the next election without Marr expressing much surprise! Yes, and Darling also sees green shoots of recovery wherever he goes!

The main point here is that the BBC must know Labour is a busted flush and that it will be excised from power next June. So like good little comrades they go through the motions for McDoom and his followers but the strategic point for the BBC must be to box in Cameron in order that all our ever so vital public services – like the BBC – continue to escape the cold chill of economic recession and public accountability. Perhaps Cameron knows this since he wiggles around the subject, as in the interview Marr also carried out with him this morning. This worries me. Either Cameron is afraid of the BBC, or he is afraid to admit that the axe will have to be taken to the grotesque state sector, or he plans no such thing.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

PEACE OFF!

By | |
Comments Off on PEACE OFF!

Right, I will admit that I am a long term critic of US former Senator George Mitchell. Met him during the Northern Ireland peace process talks, figured him as a smooth-talking appeaser of terrorism, and told him so. Not that he could care less what people like me think, after all, we don’t kill people who disagree with us. It’s Georgie-boy who is now leading efforts to appease the thugs who run Syria and who support terrorism against Israel. This glowing BBC report does mention, in passing, that Boy Bashar supports the Palestinian..ahem… “militant” group Hamas, backs Hezbollah in Lebanon, and has close links with Iran. But hey, apart from that, surely he is an ideal partner for peace. That’s what Mitchell and US State reckons and that’s what the BBC pushes. In truth, Syria is a pro-terror tyranny but in this golden age of Obama, it is now seen as a beacon for hope and change.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

SHOULD GREAT APES HAVE RIGHTS?

By | |
Comments Off on SHOULD GREAT APES HAVE RIGHTS?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/nowyouretalking/3529311.stm
Great to see Nicky Campbell’s “The Big Questions” debating that momentous issue of our times, namely should Apes have rights? The usual vacuous drivel from Campbell although the choice of the panel was surprisingly pleasing, with Peter Hitchins and Douglas Murray on it. That said, the audience were the usual moonbats that the BBC specialises in assembling. There was a bit of a class warfare discussion on “social mobility” and the use of grammar schools in achieving this. Naturally most of the audience were howling against the return of the grammar schools. We then had a discussion on the great issue of the Apes and finally a debate on why “downsizing” is good for the soul. It’s liberal faux anti-consumerism to the core, of course but in a way I agree. Let’s start by downsizing the BBC. Nicky Campbell, you are the weakest link, goodbye!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The Right Approach

By | |
Comments Off on The Right Approach

The latest BBC headlines – Britain ‘should approach Hamas.’

Is that a fair representation of the conclusions the Foreign Affairs Committee has come to? Or is it that the BBC has selected the juiciest bit to emphasise?

I can do that too.
If you can download huge PDFs, have a look at the report.

section 2.8

“Hamas is not a member of the PLO, and does not—under the terms of its Charter—accept the existence of Israel on any of its current territory; it is an armed movement engaged in attacks on Israel and proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK, EU and US.

and in a later section, re Gaza:

For his part, Mr Blair told us that for Israel the position was “very simple […]. If it is subject to rocket attacks on its civilians over a prolonged period of time, it will respond at some point.”23 He stressed the role that Israel’s status as a democracy played in its decision to take action: “in circumstances where you have rocket attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, believe me, there is no democratic Government […] that will not act.”24

So, we should approach Hamas?

Do we blame the message or the messenger? Probably a bit of both. But since this is about the BBC I would like your views, preferably after studying the report more thoroughly than I have.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

IN THE LINE OF DUTY?

By | | ,
Comments Off on IN THE LINE OF DUTY?

Always nice to see the BBC giving prominence to those in our armed forces who desert their post.

Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is being charged with desertion. He went absent
without leave in 2007 after a particularly unhappy period in the army and having
been told he would have to go back to Afghanistan. It is said he “has
problems” with the military operation in Afghanistan.

The BBC is inherently anti-military and is thus attracted to those who desert their comrades in pursuit of their own moral equivocations. Lance Cpl Glenton knew the terms of serving his country and the fact that he then decided to run away from the battle does not make him a hero or a cause celebre except through the eyes of the BBC. He is a common deserter and should be made to pay the price.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Invisible UKIP

By | |
Comments Off on Invisible UKIP

In the first comment to David’s post about the Norwich North by-election, an anonymous commenter said:

I caught the commentary on The World At One. The report included the returning officer reading the results for the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party, Green Party, Conservative Party and …. no, that was it.

As a listener, I got the impression the Greens came fourth. No mention of UKIP beating the Greens in to fifth place (and coming pretty close to the Lib Dems).

This was backed up by a comment from GCooper who said:

JeffD’s report was more or less the same as the one on the BBC R4 6pm news roundup I listened to a few minutes ago.

With one exception. The announcer said ‘….Labour were beaten into second place, ahead of the Lib Dems and the Greens…”
Used as I am to the shocking political bias routinely displayed by the BBC, even I was poleaxed by that.

Again, see this post from Bishop Hill:

I was just listening to the BBC coverage of the Norwich by-election on Radio 4. The reporter was talking about Labour holding on to second place, “ahead of the LibDems and the Greens”.

The problem with this is that UKIP were in fourth place, 600 votes ahead of the Greens.

Can’t mention UKIP on primetime, can we?

Update on July 24, 2009 by Bishop Hill
I notice that UKIP are complaining that the BBC froze them out in favour of the Greens during the run up to the election too. There’s a clear pattern emerging isn’t there?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

HOT AIR

By | |
Comments Off on HOT AIR

For some odd reason, I figure this is a story the BBC won’t be running anytime soon! You see, it appears that a new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims.

The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. Oh no! But I thought “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”?

Expect the BBC to remain mute on this – doesn’t gain the same ratings as “End of world due any day now”, does it? Nor does it fit the narrative! No, THIS is the relentless pro AGW line the BBC peddles.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.