The BBC must really hate our constitutional Monarchy and so whilst they cover the pending Royal Wedding – you know deep down they despise our Royal family. So, when they are not sneering about the Syrian ambassador getting an invite, they are desperately trying to get former Australian PM Kevin Rudd to say something very negative about the Monarchy. Good to see he did not rise to their obvious bait and if you listen he provides quite an effective put down to the BBC interviewer.
THAT ROYAL WEDDING
Bookmark the permalink.
You’re right, he did try hard, and over Lybia too. Top marks to Ruddy, I got the impression that with a beer in hand and not on air he would have told the smarmy twat beeboid to eff off
The BBC’s staff don’t despise the monarchy. They just have that contrary teenage attitude towards it like they do to plenty of other things.
But they are mostly just nice middle class home counties types who like the monarchy just like their mums and dads do.
With you DV. I’m sure, after showing initial signs of objectivity, Webb is now ingratiating himself with Humphrys and Naughtie enormously.
Fair point about the Syrian invite though, although put rather too plaintively by Webb, as if his interest is more in discrediting Cameron/Hague than concern for the Syrian people.
Top man Rudd for his performance. A lesson in grown up politics to a member of the BBC bratocracy.
Heard the grandees of the Toady show joshing over who amongst their tribe are invited/covering the Royal Wedding.
To hear Dame Montague climbing up the fundament of an old Royal Flunkie was desperate-and all she wanted to get the old bat to say is that Brown and Blair ought really to have been invited.
This collection of weekend rebels from the Home Counties going all Wolfie on us all-whilst desperate to get an invite themselves in spite of the other 364 days of sneering at all things royal are a pathetic shower of bluestockings and brown nosers!
And in answer tothe Brown Blair controversy that we`re ALL talking about-honestly!-all I`d say is this.
If Prescott was bonking his secretary at a Royal Funeral-if Cherie sees a need to bring her “contraceptive equipment”-to her Balmoral freebies-then it is safe to say that these weirdos really ought to get their jollies by getting their viagara like the rest of we men of a certain age-and not hoping to be invited to Royal events.
Maybe they could blag Jacqui Smiths Blockbusters card for the day-can`t imagine that her hubby is still using it these days!
The bBC understands only too well how quickly its stock would fall if they stood by their guns and openly aired their views about the Royal wedding. Instead they play both sides of the argument by inserting (like the cynical socialists they are) snide remarks about the wedding in which to try and tarnish the happy couple’s big day. Which at the end of the day is just that. Their day.
Which is why the bBC is making a huge song and dance about:
The Syrian ambassadors invite (Now been promoted by the bBC as a sob story from the..Syrain Ambassador)
A Scottish female sex organ of a comedian explaining why he won’t be celebrating the wedding. (bet he takes the day off work thou)
Socialists been allowed to complain about why other socialists haven’t been invited to the wedding.
How non-royalists will be celebrating the day with their own special tea party. (You’d think that if they were against this wedding they wouldn’t be celebrating it by holding an alternative party…pricks. )
Having watched the News and seen the huge presence outside Westminster Abbey , Something tells me, that this wedding is popular. However if the bBC played their cards honestly (But as leftwing female sexual organs they won’t) they know only too well the backlash against them, would result in their downfall. So at the bBC. Surreptitious backstabbing is the name of the game.
I’ve got to say coverage on R5L has been superb. Haven’t caught all of it of course, but truly great stuff when I’ve tuned in and today, I dont think I’ve heard one mention of Blair and Brown not getting an invite.
It’s obviously a notable omission that merits comment, but quite rightly, the wedding itself should override all, and this is how it appears to be getting treated on R5L.
Switched on BBC1’s coverage about twenty five minutes ago. Huw Edwards was talking about Blair and Brown as I switched on. Twenty minutes later he was back on the subject, talking to Simon Schama (who said it was a big mistake). Other than that, so far so good!
The hate filled BBC is fluffing this with great style the wedding is a private event but we on the outside I.e MSM won’t let it be a small one! that’s not Williams fault I’m sure they would have been happy with a little ceremony and no PM.s and why the hell would you! he was all set in The blue and royals for military service and the bloody government got all jumpy and he got punted over to S.A.R still a great job but he was infantry and it’s where he wanted to stay !
and as for Blair/broon sorry but are these the same common man socialist class less down the pub with the union eating chips and pie guys ? why would they want to be there ? wouldn’t that make them class traitors?
Apropos “royal” weddings: last night on BBC2 after the wedding show with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins, the BBC inserted a 10-minute programme in the “Coast” series. It was interesting and showcased the possibility of using osmosis to (indirectly) generate electricity. But this is the BBC: it couldn’t just leave it there – oh no!
The presenter ended the slot by stating that, of course, osmosis has a long way to go before it could be considered a competitor to wind power. Unfortunately for her, during the demonstration of the osmosis machine, in the background you could see a dozen or more windturbines standing perfectly still and silent (and not generating anything except taxpayers’ cash for their owners/manufacturers).
I should add that the inventor of the osmosis generator is Icelandic (and I have no idea where the programme was recorded) so that the taxpayers coughing up may very well be Icelanders rather than you and me.
I could hardly believe my ears when Martha Carney suggested to wee Dougie that the empty chair at the wedding vacated by excluding the Syrian ambassador could now be given to Blair or Brown – can Beeboids not understand that maybe somebody (the happy couple or his grandmother) may just not want either of them invited?
Deborah, Maybe the BBC think Blair and Brown were not invited because there weren’t enough seats ! I notice they did find room for the couple’s favourite barman from Mustique though !
Maybe this is why they were not invited
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479963/Blairs-sinister-campaign-undermine-Queen.html
Actually the non-invite of the architects of the ruin of Britain has rekindled in me some loyalty to the Queen. Not her idiot son of course, he could never earn any loyalty from me.
Apparently the Knights of the Garter have all been invited, this includes Baroness Thatcher and Sir John Major, but not Messrs. Blair and Brown. Not as cynical as the BBC claims, but I do think the political ramifications of this should have been thought out.
However, on refelection, if it had become a policy for all former Prime Ministers to be invited then that would have to include all former PMs of all Commonwealth countries! So restricting it to the Knights of the Garter is probably the fairest way.
Can someone explain to an ignoramus like me how one becomes a Knight of the Garter. How are John Major & Margaret Thatcher Knights of the Garter but Tony Blair & Gordon Brown aren’t?
Have to do some good for the country?
Knighted after their terms of office. They don’t have to be offered a K. nor do they have to accept it. I think Broon refused to offer Blair one and Cameron is doing the same to Broon (unless he’s turned it down of course).
Thanks, Demon. It’s just that so far I haven’t heard an explanation, and I’d have thought it was pretty relevant to the story.
The only think Cameron should offer Brown is a loaded pistol and a darkened room.
Could we risk that? He could miss (and then blame someone else), best to just shoot him.
Span,
Even if he tried to shoot himself and missed, he would blame it on someone else.
The World at One is a farce each and every day.
Martha gets her script from Justins dustbin and just says these things to the like of wee Dougie.
Yesterday she was all ready to slam the Tories for the downturn that was hoped for by the Beeb and Balls etc.
When the figures were improving-ah well,but not enough-surely they`d be higher if not for the “Toricutz”.
No doubt the Syrian ambassador has been sent some tea tree oil tissues from Auntie Beebs capacious handbag by way of recompense.
Oh no…Costing the Earth on next is rather hoping that the plebs can be priced out of buying chocolate bars! It needs to be stored in Thompsons wine cellar,so it seems!
Turns out that our cocoa is not being fairly traded-so the Beeb hacks hope that only they will be able to get it in their canteens-the rest of us won`t even be able to get it at duty free in Magaluf because we`re ruining the planet-they of course are planting poplars in Richmond Park and Mother Nature considers this a more than fair trade off.
Maybe one of Charles plans told them so in the Blue Peter garden!
I`ve heard enough-but not from ONE cocoa farmer funnily enough. Only from the hideously white cherdidee activist and Euro businessman-and of course lots from the BBC canteen! I`m presuming that the poor souls out in Ghana aren`t as articulate ,or are unaware of what the BBCs mesage to us all is to be. What would THEY know anyway?
Hope that Traidcraft etc know that the more the BBC talks this pish-the more I`m going to Tescos!
“Justin’s dustbin “, love it !
No one from the government on The World At One, but lots of questions from Martha Kearney inviting her guests to attack the government. Surprisingly (probably not least to Martha), all of them – the Syrian ambassador, Labour’s Douglas Alexander and a former UK ambassador to Syria – refused to play ball. She kept trying though.
The final guest, talking about the two new aircraft carriers, was Brown’s security minister, Lord West. He said that the Labour government had made some “big mistakes. One of them was that the programme was delayed by two years. This happened about two or three years ago. That’s a terrible mistake. Whenever you delay a programme like this it just costs dramatically more and that added about 1.6 billion to the cost of these ships.” That’s quite an admission though, strangely, there’s no mention of it in the BBC’s online write-up of the story. (There’s more background on this story here.)
Interesting that the BBC allows ol’ Justin to state on air that a crisis for Australia is “a nation falling in love with William and Kate”, as if it’s a problem that needs to be used as an election issue.
Webb’s interview with Rudd was curious given that support for Australia to become a republic is at a 20 year low.
BBC delenda est.
At 8.15 or so, the Toady Shows main interviewee was the good old Jumpin` Jack Straw-bag carrier for Barbara Castle no less. That probably was the political high of his career, given the rest of his squalid wingman cameos in Pinochet,Yuman Rights, Iraq and of scary ladies in burkhas wanting his advice-on Lord alone what!
I thought the House of Lords was where we parked such nonentities, yet here he was getting his tummy tickled by Justin-ah,the days when he was blagging croissants daily must have been stirred!
Anyway Justin asks him about why neither Mike nor Bernie were invited to the wedding-after all they`d done for the country too-and Wor Jackie said that the refusal to invite either of them “surprised” him…bit like his expenses maybe!
No surprise then for the BBC to front up their hourly bulletins with this “surprise” now being a constitutional crisis/split in the coalition etc.
Don`t think I`ve seen a more contrived and fatuous gobbet of banality finding its way to The World at Ones kite tail within four hours like this. The BBC hate now to report the world as it is-they would much rather make up their own news for us.
Wonder if Martha might try and give us two minutes of news as opposed to the twenty nine minutes of comment that she hopes might appear to be news to Sir Machael and Markie Boy.
Presumably when Kevin of Oz didn`t give Martha her soundbite for 1p.m, poor old Jack had to get a blanket wrapped round him before the trundle to the Beeb to give an “appropriate” messaage to the oiks that pay Justin,Martha and Polly.
Is it me?
Has the BBC decided that a cringing Celtic lilt is needed to show the cottage burning community-and the Bravehearts -up north that we are truly one nation ,despite Donald Dewer and Ron Davies way back?
Why else do we get shoespitting flunkies in mellifluous tones like Naughtie or Hu to put us in mind of glens and valleys respectively? Has the Beeb no English voices anymore for such brown-nosing anymore?
I bet they`re glad that they have kept Posh Ed on the payroll now for his unique access to the Abbey. No other journo has been so privileged so I understand…not that the BBC would go on and on about it!
Expect a cameo from Ray Winston as the gels get a bit giddy on the sherry-and let`s hope that THEY`RE paying just this once!
BBC website has heading “Balcony kisses seal Royal wedding “. My God, they have only been married an hour and they are kissing a balcony. It bodes ill !
Thank goodness for the snooker.
Reminds me of a joke by the late, great , Bob Monkhouse about the Pope ( I think it was the Polish one ) who used to kiss the tarmac at the airport when he arrived in a new country.
” I get desperate sometimes, but not that desperate… Mind you, I suppose if it was warm and lumpy…. “
Have to say that even as an anti-royalist United Statesian I’m enjoying the sheer number of ordinary Brits who keep telling the Beeboids on air that they love the monarchy. Kind of shows up the constant stream of anti-royalist opinions the BBC has had on all week as the biased groupthink/disconnect from the public it really is, rather than impartiality and balance.
David P
Fair point David, but without the Queen , we would have had President Blair followed by President Brown, a sobering thought !
Didn’t mean to get into the royal argument, Grant. I’m just saying that as someone who is on the same side as most Beeboids on the issue (for once), I can see the bias.
David P,
Channel 4 News just had a piece with all the people who had got up early to watch the wedding on big screens in Times Square and they were yelling and clapping. Are you sure you weren’t there ?
By the way, I and a client deliberately timed a business meeting for 11 am our time in a hotel here in Edinburgh. It was very quiet, but they did have the wedding on a big screen, but with the sound low. I laughed when I saw 4 muslim women watching it intently. That’s multicultural Britain for you !
Started with the BBC coverage of the Royal Wedding, unfortunately my girlfriend decided that Huw Edwards was not informative enough so we switched to Dutch TV which I have to say had excellent commentators!
I wish the married couple much happiness and hope that the BBC and Guardian go easy on them.
Tomorrow is Koninginnedag (Queens Day) in the Nederland, this a national holiday to commemorate the birthday of the country’s (former) Queen. It is by far the most widely celebrated holiday in the Netherlands. I will be wearing orange and drinking copious amounts of beer, and will do so with the entire population of Holland, and with no sneering reports from left wing broadcasters such as the BBC or the Guardian.
Joseph,
You mean you don’t drink Jenever ? Last time I was in Holland years ago I did and am still recovering ! Have a lovely day tomorrow.
Ha!, I know what you mean, to many instances of drinking Jenever with a dish of Bitterballen has turned me off the spirit. Luckily I have a Polish girlfriend who has turned me to the wonderful drink that is Żubrówka, which will be drunk alongside the beer, Slivovitz and frikendals.
Pas goed op jezelf!
Wearing Orange! The BBC will not like that.
“Royal wedding: ITV trounces BBC in the TV battle”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8484263/Royal-wedding-ITV-trounces-BBC-in-the-TV-battle.html
And ITV costs us nothing!
For the first time ever on a big occasion Mrs Bug and I opted for ITV from the start, and I’m glad we did.
I channel-hopped. The BBC’s coverage of the event was lamentable. Fearne Cotton? Words escape me. ITV was excellent, but Sky won it by a considerable distance. Alistair Bruce was at the helm, and he has oodles of gravitas. See Harry Mount:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100053184/huw-edwards-hasnt-got-the-historical-knowledge-for-royal-commentary/
Work to do now at the BBC. And urgently. How it must have grated on most of the beeboids to have to cover what was a very English ( forget about the British bit for once ) and very conservative ( in the old correct meaning of the word) event. The Church of England, The Monarchy, William Blake and Charles Wesley, marriage between a man and a woman- all those things a dedicated beeboid is sworn to undermine and replace with their very own twisted version of England’s future.
A flavour of which was to be found on the whiners of Newsnight although some of the guests were not on message thankfully.
Just go away BBC this country does not need your sort any more.
Though more a mildly content observer as opposed to obsessed participant, as a British event it all seemed to go off pretty well.
The BBC played its part, frankly, but in a case like this ratings were always going to trump agenda.
But having had my morning surf of the MSM blogs, plus a few off-
Broadway ones too, and twitter, the weasels seemed to know enough to stay under cover but still could not resist the odd squeak.
I do wonder if it is has sunk in with some of the minority ‘elite’, such as Peter Hain, Ms. Toynbee and others given near unfettered access to the airwaves by their tame PR provider, just what is important to and celebrated by ‘this country’, and what seems merely tolerated… at best… from their sour lips and pens the rest of the time.
I, for one, am getting vexed and more than weary by the dominance of mindsets and views that I do not think are representative… with the added injury to that insult of having, for some odd reason, to uniquely co-fund the sorry charade.
My site,
I reckon I mix with a fairly representative, although small, selection of the population and none of them seem to have the views of the “minority elite” including the BBC. Quite frankly, they have other more pressing concerns in their lives
Martha Kearney, on yesterday’s Royal Wedding edition of The World At One, discussed the future of the monarchy with a monarchist (William Shawcross), a Left-leaning historian (Richard Weight) and a republican (Graham Smith).
One of the questions she put perhaps reveals the BBC’s left-of-centre mindset in action:
“And that was one issue I did want to ask you about Graham Smith, which is could it be said that the Royal Family is one of the few remaining symbols of national identity at a time of devolution? You know, you’ve got the NHS, some people might say the BBC, and the Royal Family is something that does unite the country?”
(Mr Smith of Republic replied, “Well no. I think maybe it’s true about the BBC and the NHS. I don’t think it is with the Royal Family.”)
So the NHS is a given for Martha Kearney as a “symbol of national identity”? And her automatic first choice too?
Craig,
And it is a given that the BBC is too, but that is to be expected.
I know you and I have been here before, but why are most historians left-wing ? Is it because the left control the universities ?
Anyone any ideas ? Maybe lefties are more motivated to put a left slant on history or re-write it altogether.
From memory when I studied history some while ago it was dominated by the Marxist view of the inevitability of class and power conflict and all that events result from this. A mechanistic approach to existence.
I remember raising the battle of Hastings and asking why the result was inevitable. Had the English fought harder and not made a vital strategic error the result would have been different and European history also quite different. i never got an answer.
A left view of history is based, as far asc I can see, on this fundamental misunderstanding of life.
Homer is a much better guide to things than any Marxist historian.
This is a very good analysis, by Thomas Sowell, of the cultural dominance of the Left in fields such as academia:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vision-Anointed-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X