I would have thought that most decent people would feel that Wootton Bassett thoroughly deserves the Royal In it’s title, as announced by David Cameron today. However what to make of this piece from the BBC which instantly goes to a REPUBLICAN group for a reaction?
ROYAL WOOTTON BASSETT
Bookmark the permalink.
And there’s only one sidebar quote from the story and its from the Republican guy.
It’s an insult to the people of Wooton Basset and the respect they have paid our fallen.
I don’t see any bias in this one. It takes nothing away from Wootton Bassett to think that awarding it a royal title is a bit stupid especially when our queen has done nothing about our soverenty being given away. I’m not a fan of the royals any more.
Marky, I too sometimes wish that Her Majesty the Queen could ask one of her Corgis to fetch the button for her so she can launch a nuclear strike against Brussels, but sometimes we just have to accept that we can’t have everything we want in life.
Brussels is not the problem our politicians and our monarch are. Until they stand up for the will of the British people and safeguard our sovereignty they are worthless. Our armed forces will be singing the EU anthem and pledging allegiance to the EU one day but they cannot have everything they want in life.
Maybe the Queen has looked at the voting patterns of her subjects and come to the conclusion that they’re quite happy with the EU.
She’s not going to press the button on the basis of blogs like this, much as I’d like her to. People should make their wishes clear by voting for UKIP and stop putting the blame elsewhere. It should be obvious by now that the leaders of the so-called main parties are more concerned about securing future career prospects in Brussels than protecting our democracy.
But strangely they do not go to an alternative voice when reporting this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12745846
But they rush to a Sinn Fein voice here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12762597
a pattern is emerging
*sigh* Sometimes I think the BBC is biased and deeply infuriating.
But, occasionally, the word “scum” springs to mind
springs to mind occasionally ? The word scum springs to my mind increasingly often, the BBC is actually getting worse.
I thought the article might have been a parody.
If the PM makes a statement, it is right and proper that the BBC should record any comment made by Her Majesty’s Opposition, plus maybe the local MP and the leader of the local council. But “Republic” ? Who the hell are they, I have never heard of them. How does the BBC know how to contact them instanta ?
This report will have been vetted by paters of BBC editorial control. Don’t they have any sense of how ridiculous they appear ? The seem to be immune to any self-criticism, let alone criticism by us hoi-polloi who pay their wages.
In fairness, the article does feature a video of the prime minister’s statement, followed by quotes from several people supportive of the move – including the mayor of Wootton Bassett. Only then does the republican guy make his point, and his statement of respect for our armed forces is stressed.
The problem lies (as Hippiepooter points out) with the use of only the republican’s words as a sidebar quote, and also with the particular quote they choose – one that doesn’t also mention his respect for the armed forces but merely makes what reads like a cheap point.
As a monarchist, I can’t say I particularly enjoy hearing republican opinions. As a democrat though, I need to hear them and, in the interest of impartiality, the BBC must allow them to be heard.
There’s a later video piece from John Kay on the BBC website that makes amends for any flaws in this first piece – and it’s rather moving and republican-free:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12766722
Are they now going to ask the bnp for their opinion on midsommers race policy to give balance?
Next time there Is something Islamic in the news are they going to ask the opinion of evangelists?
Or even more unlikely are they going to ask a Tories opinion on the cuts?
Indeed Paddy, and that’s the problem with the BBC’s selective sense of balance. They use it when it suits them.
I don’t think it’s going to further B-BBC’s aims to show pretty well balanced articles as part of the BBC’s bias even if we think it’s part of a “selective sense of balance”.
They could have mentioned how the people of the town have touched a nation (and the US’s) heart.
The respect given by this small town is legend all over the world.
They could have given the town the chance to bask in the glow for one short day but no, they try to drive a big whole in the compliment and perform a giant BBC buzz kill.
Thoughtless pointless worthless BBC scum.
Oops hole
Quote [Republicanist]:”The country can be proud of its armed forces without tying them up with royalty”
because as of yet the Army don’t a Royal connection do they:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queens.guard.buck.palace.arp.jpg
where do they dig these idiots up from ?
On this planet adding Royal to the title is an honour and mark of recognition. Those of us who don’t have much time for the Royals accept it graciously and with tollerance. Something the English are supposedly known for.
On another day, these idiots would be crying out for tollerance when the cuture of an ethnic or relgious group encroaches on that of its host nation.
Where do they dig these idiots up from?
Same class at art school
Significant others
Fellow beeboids
Easy to find when you come from the BBC cesspit gene pool
Obi-wan Kenobi was thinking about the beeb when he said
‘ You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.”
— Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
That reminds me, I stumbled upon this little snippet the other day:
“BBC spends 86% of its recruitment advertising budget in the Guardian”
http://order-order.com/2010/09/07/bbc-is-the-guardianistas-broadcasting-arm/
(original source http://biasedbbc.tv/2010/09/advertising-bias.html)
Sorry for repeating old news but I was shocked when I saw that.
Your right scooby. This is a story familiar to regulars here but it is still worth retelling.
The GrauniAd are fellow travellers with aunties minions.
Without our coerced telly tax pounds the graun would go the way of all flesh.
Search old threads about those commie sleepers at guardian media and you will be shocked at how deep the relationship is.
Guardian medias two main titles which are national publications sell less than the Sunday post which is effectively a regional paper.
Even with this abysmal performance the bbeb places most of it’s adds there.
They say it’s because the broadcast media Market advertises their. But the ARE theBROADCAST MEDIA MARKET, accounting for most of the jobs. They would do better advertising on their own website, it would cost them buttons and naturally all job hunters who worked in the media would check it out.
Look at the columnists at the graun. They are either past or present beeb employees or regular ‘experts’ appearing daily on beeb news bulletins. The beeb is the life support keeping the guardian alive. Just think no more auntie no more graun. Two turds with one stone.
I’ve been following BBBC for several years now Paddy so few of the BBCs antics really supprise me. I missed this story though and only recently picked it up on ‘guido’.
It seems to me that when state broadcaster that is or (should be bound to be) impartial is allocating such a large proportion of its recruitment budget to a left wing rag (masquerading as a broadsheet newspaper) it should be a huge story as it is a serious breach of trust.
Why hasn’t this been all over the news?
When such a huge unelected organisation with so much political sway extorts money from virtually every wage earning member of a supposedly democratic society regardless of their political choice, it is fundamentally unfair and unconcionable.
Why should I pay support leftwing (and often looney) political and economical views.
(I’m off to lie down in a darkened room now :0)
For the full humbuggery, recall that another chunk of the BBC’s advertising budget goes to ‘The Voice’, the demented black nationalist rag. They claim this is because their need for a ‘workforce that looks like Britain’ means they need to advertise in black media to recruit blacks.
In other words, the BBC claims that when they spend their advertising budget on black media, that’s because they want to recruit blacks, but when they spend money on leftist media, why, that’s just a savvy of choice of where they can get most bang for their bucks.
ahh yes, ‘blacks’ don’t read white supremacist newspapers like the Telegraph and the Grundyog.
Lets see:
The Royal Engineers
The Royal Logistic corp
The Royal Navy
The Royal Airforce.
Tell you all what. If the bBC would like to arrage a meeting for myself with Graham Smith . I will ensure he gets a right royal telling off from little old me in which to show him that not everybody in the UK supports his pathetic aims. As a coloured bloke whose genes comes from India (You know Mr Smith that country which was oppressed by the British Crown) I have more reason to hate the Royal family than anybody else. The thing is, I don’t, I see more benefit from having a Royal family than anything you propose Smithy.
If you do find this message please do get in touch as I am sure you would love for me to tell you my side of the story.,,,Something tells me you won’t ,yer lightweight.
The British Army is one of the few institutions in this misgoverned land that still deserves the prefix ‘British’. I hope this continues, but I have my doubts. There are too many other forces at work, intent on the total transformation of the UK into a land fit for people like the fragrant Rageh Omaar to tell us all where we’ve been going wrong for centuries – unlike Somalia. The BBC is at the forefront of the ‘great reconstruction’ that, oddly enough, very few of us seem to want.
The Beeboid production line is fed by institutions like Balliol College, Oxford, which provides a stream of suitably indoctrinated, painfully naive young fools who have no understanding of the world outside their privileged undergraduate existence. Nor do they have the humility to go out into the world & learn, before they swallow all the far Left poison. They have been spoon-fed all the politically correct cultural Marxist postures by smirking Red lecturers, who then see their rather dim protogees enter the Beeboid/Guardianista fold, from which there is, of course, no return. And so the ghastly process continues.
When I began to listen to the BBC, it had reporters like Charles Wheeler; an experienced, intelligent man who’d ‘knocked around the world a bit.’ Now we have onanists like ‘Lardy’ Mardell, Jeremy ‘Dusty Bin’ Bowen & scores of other hopelessly, tediously, biased drones. It’s why I gave up listening to Radio 4. In the end they just bore me to death.
I don’t have a dog in this fight.
What does the Royal prefix give Wootton Bassett?
The same kudos having the Union Jack in the Australian flag gives Australia.
😛
Nothing. It changes nothing. It’s just a mark of recognition from a token head of state which some will accept with pride and that others can choose to ignore if it doesn’t fit with their views. It hurts no one. To make such a song and dance about it is just childish intollerance.
I am pleasantly surprised that the BBC managed to give a voice to supporters of the move before they went to a Republican; it’s more than they managed when the Queen’s upcoming visit to Ireland was announced – http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2011/03/queens-visit-to-ireland-bbcs-choice-of_14.html
Over the last hundred years or so our government on behalf of the peole have been careful to remove from the Monarch any residual effective powers. The last monarch who tried to influence political action was Victoria (her bedchamber ladies) and she came out of it chastened.
If any of our royal family even mention a topic which is faintly political they are castigated quite publicly about taking a stand ‘on something they have no right to comment on.” As per Princes Charles and Andrew.
Which being the case, I cannot see how people can claim that they dislike the Queen because she has signed away our soverienty – she has done nothing of the sort. Once the bill has gone through parliament she has no choice but to put her signature to it; any refusal would create a constitutional crisis which would not be in any of our interests.
Slightly OT – every member of the defence force takes an oath of allegience to the monarch, in this case ‘to Queen Elizabet the Second her heirs and successors’ – and bestowing the title ‘Royal’ is the Queen’s gift, possibly one of the few remaining things that she has a right to do.
The BBC should know better, the handling of this shows either a complete ignorance of the constitutional situation; or a complete disregard for the facts of the case in pursuit of their own agenda. I suspect the latter.