The BBC’s report of the resignation of Lord Pearson of Rannoch as leader of UKIP makes drearily predictable reading. The stress in commentary by Ross Hawkins is totally on what the BBC perceived he did not do well, most notably that he regarded a question about banks as “minutiae”. But what Mr Hawkins fails to mention is that Lord Pearson was by this time deeply frustrated by the BBC’s systematic avoidance during the election campaign of raising anything that would cut across the desire by the three main parties to avoid the EU as an election issue. Note, too, the choice of the picture of Lord Pearson. Not his best side, as they say. The corporation hate UKIP and everything to do with it, so yet again, this is seen as an open goal to knock the enemy.
KICKING A MAN WHEN HE’S DOWN…
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC played a big part in smearing and sabotaging UKIPs campaign, they took great delight in it.
Having said that the big three ‘debates’ was a cynical trick to crowd out the smaller parties as the big three were very concerned about holding onto their tripartite dictatorship.
The rigged debates were nothing more than an attack on democracy and it worked like a charm for them. I have often said that the BBC is spiteful and cruel as only socialists seem able to be, they seem to exhibit the very worst human failings and display them without fail towards those they view as the enemy.
The BBC seems to revel in its role as the poisoner of modern political life, they seem to revel in their own base cruelty and spite as though it pleases them to be that way.
The BBC do not believe in democracy, full stop.
I heard Lord Pearson interviewed by Eddie Mair during the election. It was toe-curlingly awful.
Again its the BBC not allowing free speech. If you look at the support UKIP has we should see and hear much more about them on the BBC, but we dont because they do not agree with the BBCs policy on Europe.
Their defense is always going to be the same: no MPs, no air time deserved.
I admire him for his forthright and outspoken views on islam but he did come across badly in the one interview I saw him take part in during the election. It would be good if they could find someone else as charismatic as Farage within their ranks, if he has to lead the party and be their EU parliamentarian they’re going to look like a one man band.
Its a shame but lets hope UKIP find someone up to the job as their next leader. I joined and voted UKIP in the last election and guess what, we came last behind the BNP. I must point out though that I live in a S Wales Labour area full of voting sheep.
Democracy really does appear to have fled this once great land to be replaced with immigration re-enforced authoritarianism.
The BBC continually badgered UKIP for being a one policy party in the run up to the election, then bashed Pearson for not knowing all UKIP’s policies in detail. When bashing a party the BBC don’t like they want it both ways, anything will do so long as the BBC can help the EU superstate project.
BTW Did the BBC ever interrogate Gordon Brown on the Lisbon Treaty that he had so much knowledge about? No they did not, they let him say whatever he wants to say.
But in many regards, that is the art of a good politician, to flannel his way through, not lay up hostages to fortune. This, as Lord Pearson seems to be admitting, isn’t his forte. He was one class act though. I think he did a lot to enhance UKIP’s standing with his gravitas and decorum.
There’s another, similar article on Lord Pearson. It includes the subheading “collapse in support”. However if you read the section, rather than skimming headlines, you find it refers to this paragraph:
“In 2009, Lord Pearson’s predecessor Nigel Farage was one of 13 UKIP politicians who became MEPs, as the party came second in the popular vote. That was after many forecast a collapse in its support.”
Not quite the same impression, is it?
Well spotted!
Ross Hawkins’s other piece today Lord Pearson says UKIP needs a better politician certainly does seem to put the boot in:
Not only does Lord Pearson of Rannoch say he is poor at his job, he adds that he does not enjoy party politics, and believes UKIP deserves a better politician than him at its helm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10997481
But Lord Pearson hasn’t said, has he, that he was “poor at his job”?
His resignation statement reads:
But I have learnt that I am not much good at party politics, which I do not enjoy…UKIP deserves a better politician than me to lead it and show the country how liberating and enriching life would be outside the EU.
To say “I am not much good at party politics” is not the same as to say “I am poor at my job”. The harsh-sounding word “poor” seems to be Ross Hawkins’s own invention.
And the BBC also hate Pearson because he has had a real job in the real world and created his own wealth, unlike most politicians and Beeboid parasites.
Yes Craig, when you write what someone says you directly quote what was said without spin. Ross Hawkins is poor at his job because he cannot simply quote what someone actually said.
Or poor because he deliberately misquoted Pearson.
I thought the report was perfectly fine but Ross Hawkins’ commentary was a bit snide in tone. I’m not sure ‘ex-Conservative peer’ really was a dreadfully relevant part to the story of Lord Pearson resigning.
I hope Lord Pearson is given some title such as ‘President’ of UKIP. He was a great figurehead, a true gentleman, the type we’re not breeding anymore.