I see that Andrew Marr was able to provide gay activitist and luvvie Ian McKellan with a soap-box this morning. McKellan is able to spout all sorts of imagined “homophobic” allegations against our society in general without any challenge from Marr. The BBC is an established forum for the advocacy of gay propaganda.
MCKELLAN ON MARR
Bookmark the permalink.
Marr was perhaps cowed by Labour’s impending state censorship, courtesy of Trevor Phillips:
“Equality chief threatens BBC after ‘kill gays’ debate”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6962896.ece
I see towards the end of your linked article a reference to John Wadham. That presumably is the Wadham who used to be the director of Liberty. Oh, how they do recycle them!
QUOTE:
John Wadham, the EHRC’s legal director, defended Phillips’s move, saying it was designed to remind the BBC to bear in mind its duty not to foster discrimination.
“It’s not about policing websites to check their contents and restrict freedom of expression. It’s asking people to ask themselves sensible questions about equality.”
==================================
Liberty, eh? Yeah, baby.
Speaking of Mr. Marr’s awesome ability to hold people to account …
Did the Home Secretary really try and get away with that facile attempt at an analogy/justification comparing shooting innocent people outside with defending one’s home from intruders within? All just to further excuse the inexcusable. Looks like he did.
Tried to ask that question of the show:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8379560.stm
Emailing now seems to be off the menu unless the post button is well hidden.
So I tried to let ’em know:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8099425
404 – Page Not Found
This might be because you typed the web address incorrectly
Or your system is not as great as £3.5B might suggest, or maybe you just don’t give a rats about listening and are really just stuck in broadcast mode.
As are the other lightweight makeweights that the BBC invites on to simply spout from a sofa.
Pa…blooming.. thetic.
what particular allegations would they be, David?
Perhaps McKellan should take a trip to a London or Bradford Mosque and try to engage in a debate about homosexuality there. Or Iran, oh hang on there are no gays there are there?
Martin — Can’t do that old boy.
They may get angry and threaten to do a Van Gogh and chop off a body part.
And I don’t mean ear.
Good lord, Sir Luvvie would much rather rail against those nasty Salvation Army types.
Martin
Quite so.
Bob
Did you listen to the interview??
nope – I unfortunately don’t catch everything the BBC puts out – and I may not agree with everything you find outraegous so it helps to know what you specifically take issue with
Last time I saw an interview with Ian McKellen, he was giving it some of the old ‘z0mg teh Thatchur hatez teh fagz!1!!LOL’ routine. Was he doing it today, too? I don’t know because I don’t watch the hideous jug-eared cocksmoker’s Sunday morning right-on left-fest. I’ve got better things to do.
Actually Sir Ian Luvvie — I’m boreaphobic — I can’t stand bores.
And boy, are you one humungous bore on this topic.
Sir Ian — have you ever thought of returning to your former silence on the homo topicanus when you were in the jolly old closet?
I guess you never “came out” until the 90s because of the well-known discrimination in the theatre and Hollywood against gays.
I watched the interview, struck me as a little dull.
What ‘imagined’ allegations are you referring to Mr Vance?
On the W orld Service I heard the BBC interview a Ugandan politician about a bill which is going through their parliament which would impose severe punishments on those who practice homosexual acts. The interviewer could hardly conceal his contempt for the man.
On certain subjects the BBC knows what is right and celebrating a diversity of opinion, rules and practices is not allowed.
Yes how dare they; clearly what this country needs is a law that enacts severe punishments on those who practice homosexual acts….
No Peter G – the BBC needs to reflect both sides of an argument and not just one.
And this country needs less laws and not more – dictatorships tend to have more laws than democracies. Now find out how many laws have been introduced in this country since Labour came to power and tell me that Britain is still democratic.
Both sides of an argument about….killing gay people? Yes that is necessar in the interests of balance isn’t it? I’ve got an idea – let’s have a discussion about the holocaust, or rather why it was a good thing. I don’t believe that of course, but in the interests of balance….
Oh wait, maybe some things don’t need to be adressed in such a way.
They could for once discuss the one hundred million that were killed under communism in the 20th century, but as the BBC is staffed by the far left it is their default position.
In the interest of balance..
I think the TV licence fee forced upon me is more abhorrent than some African tin pot dictator hanging a few gays. You won’t hear that opinion on the biased BBC yet they are meant to be impartial.
Well I think executing homosexuals is rather beyond the pale. Even for a black man.
Ugandan discussions indeed.
Even for (D)HYS the number of comments rejected or simply not published was extraordinary. We have no way of checking but I expect the imbalance was caused by the large number of people in favour of execution.
Total comments:633
Published comments:190
Rejected comments:205
Ask a rhetorical question and expect foolish answers.