A Biased BBC reader remarks on the all too obvious multicultural engineering that is going on in Newsround – the BBC children’s programme.
“I only noticed it because my kids watch it, but if you would care to google image “newsround presenters” you will see that the ratio of Black and Ethnics Minorities presenters to white presenters is just about the opposite of what the ratio is in the country as a whole, ie overwhelmingly BEM presenters. This is no coincidence I am sure but an attempt to push the multicultural agenda onto a generation of young minds.”
I was on a BBC pilot programme the other week, it’s for the news series of Sunday Morning Live. At one point, the presenter alleged that multiculturalism was surely a good thing. I out her straight on that, to her evident chagrin. The prevailing wisdom at the BBC is that multiculturalism is a good thing and only bad fascists oppose this concept. As the Biased BBC reader points out, the BBC can use their power to instil this into young minds, as the Newround instance clearly demonstrates. Still, better than being “hideously white”…right?
Yes; it’s so politically blatant and dominant with the BBC.
Clearly, Jesuit-trained, Director General, Mark THOMPSON, is adapting a Jesuit saying: ‘Give me a child for for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the multicultural man.’
‘Newsround’ multicultural propaganda presenter:-
‘And this is one of the best schools you can go to. This is the new England; more girls and boys will go to schools like this soon. That’s good, isn’t it?’
“The chattering classes: The British primary school where pupils speak 31 different languages.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155938/The-primary-school-pupils-speak-31-different-languages–class-just-single-British-pupil.html#ixzz1xNadtt9A
But you can be sure the children of the BBC aristocracy will not be attending any school where 31 languages are spoken. Funny that – can’t imagine why not.
Probably not diverse enough for BBC cultural marxists.
Down here in South London the main languages spoken are Jafaican, and Pidgin.
I say it again, what is wrong with the diversity that Britain already has? We hear time and time again from the BBC lecturing us that Britain is a multicultural society well I’m afraid outside the main city centers it bloody well isn’t; unlike the anti-white, anti-English, anti-Christian BBC, some of us (no offense intended in any way) are still proud to be white and British – and I couldn’t care less what culture or race one comes from so long as they respect our way of life and traditions. I love different cultures of the World and enjoy living side-by-side Sikhs and Buddhists and so on BUT this is Britain and the BBC should remember that we too want to be recognised for who we are and not have our identities airbrushed from the pages of history by upper class, guilt-ridden urban liberals who hold the working classes in utter contempt.
I have had to, unfortunately due to the nature of my job, socialize with these upper class lefty types and quite frankly they disgust me with their Saturday morning coffee-house, wine-bar and Guardian-inspired pseudo-socialist mindsets. They couldn’t care less about the sons and daughters risking their lives to fight the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan; they most probably sympathize with the latter.
BUT I would remind the BBC that the majority of people who fund its existence are not from outer Mongolia or Trinidad but Britain so why don’t they stop obsessing over race and imposing the multicultural thought on us all and just get on with what they are paid to do until such time the tyranny of the enforced TV License is removed once and for all (in the name of the British people’s Human Rights, of course!).
The middle and upper class liberals probably do have a lot to feel guilty for. But foisting their responsibilities onto the working class, who were after all, not worth much and seen as collateral in Colonial times, is typical.
They went round the world stealing other countries riches with the blood of the lower orders and they repay the former colonies by inviting them to live here amongst the poorest in society competing for the jobs that these middle class idiots feel are beneath them.
It will only start to dawn on them when they are being displaced from their own areas and professions.
They really are that stupid that it will be to late by the time they are threatened.
We are full and have an Unemployment problem. When will they ever learn.
I totally agree. The rich play their little social games and experiments and it is the poorer members of society who have to live with the consequences.
It’s been this way for years. There’s every reason to provide youngsters from ethnic minorities with role models, of course, but this gross over-representation constitutes reverse racism.
The same trend can be seen in kids interviewed for comments on issues of the day – or perhaps i should say issues that the mindbenders have decided to promote.
I remember being startled when the programme asked stopped kids in the street to ask whether they thought the monarchy should be abolished. Gleefully, they poked the microphone at a Muslim boy of primary school years who proclaimed very decidedly: “I don’t believe in having a Queen”. He was obviously the star of the segment. I assumed he was a republican, and was surprised, but in view of the depressing things I’ve since read about Islamic views regarding women’s nature and intellect and to women rulers, I surmise that he was voicing a kind of “Salic Law” objection. If they asked him to give his reason (and I suspect they might have) his reason was not screened. Sexist or not, they got what they wanted.
I also recall how, the day after 9/11, Newsround had a segment on shocked children in various countries round the world, some of whom were lighting candles to remember the victims. Then came the punchline (voice emphatic): “Palestinian children also lit candles … ” Nothing about Israeli kids, naturally.
The BBC is to Great Britain, what Judas was to Jesus Christ.
At least Judas had the decency to hang himself after his betrayal. We’ll just have to go shopping for piano wire.
Do you really have a problem that the presenters are not ethnically English in proportion to the population? I don’t. Immigration is a fact of British life.
What is your solution? Some sort of segregation clause restricting blacks and ethnics to their proportion in the population? Excluding members of minorities from BBC employment as presenters should a ‘white’ person, even if less qualified presents him or herself?
What would one do if Barak Obama were to present himself for the job (I think he would be much more successful and productive as a TV presenter than a President on TV – wait until November)? Is there to be some one-drop-of-blood rule?
What about accents? Should the BBC draw up a list of acceptable accents – Yorkshire/yes but Jamaica/no?
If it’s enforced in some contrived left-wing way then yes I do have a problem; if it’s based on merit , then no I don’t have a problem. If work quotas demand more ethnic minority employees because of some left-wing multicultural balance-agenda, then yes I do have a problem. If one gets a jobs based on merit then no, I don’t have a problem.
If you support discrimination on skin colour then you are treading on dangerous ground; if, however, your philosophy is one of merit and talent, then I agree with you. This, by the way, is the tone of the article which I fear you have misunderstood.
Well said Merlin!
Seconded.
The fact is we don’t know why they’ve been selected for the job, it could be merit for all you know, but you just presume it’s because of their skin colour. All anyone can do is speculate.
You either do not understand what ‘presume’ means or have purposely used it to distort the mood and nature of this debate. I presume nothing sir but would strongly urge you to use the word properly if you want engage in a grown-up debate with me.
No, you presume they’ve all been selected for their skin colour. Nowhere is there any hard proof, so everything is a presumption, assumption or hypothetical reasoning.
Your presumption is that the BBC operates entirely on a meritocracy model throughout the corporation. This is how it should be, but the BBC is part of the public sector, and those diversity managers aren’t there for nothing.
Give me proof of their existence then? I’ve still not seen it, but without the proof this argument is totally flawed.
Whitman, I appreciate your failed attempts at being critical and impartial but I repeat, provide me with textual evidence from my passage that specifically alludes to a presumption on my part that Newsround in particular uses ethnicity on job selection criteria. You’ll find there isn’t any as I, as you frame it, hypothecate that if it be the case that ethnicity is a major factor, then it is wholly wrong. So, although I can see your reasoning it is, indeed, you who is being presumptuous in suggesting that I am being presumptuous!
Look, everyone knows that the BBC offers jobs to ethnic minorities and women because they’ve admitted it themselves. Mark Thompson even said that the Corporation is ‘hideously white’ and countless former employees have bemoaned the rampant political correctness that exists within the BBC’s foul walls. For God’s sake man, what more loathsome evidence doth one need to realise the truth?
The BBC also recruits people with a Leftist mindset (thus their fondness for advertising vacancies in The Grauniad). It is hardly surprising, then, they they will be pushing a multicultural agenda, favoured by the Left, at every opportunity (and they do). It would be logical, therefore, to suspect that this is yet another manifestation of that agenda.
We could all be here for eternity dissecting the meanings and synonyms of words but it is pointless, especially in the face of incontrovertible evidence of liberal BBC bias. Whitman, if you think your defenses of the BBC are watertight then you’re deluded and in denial. As mentioned here, the corporation has openly stated that it is intent on increasing the ethnic minority numbers in its ranks and one sees this evidence in all of its programs and news coverage where more and more ethnic minorities are springing up on screen. You simply can’t deny it; to continue to do so is folly in the extreme.
I’m afraid your argument fails the logic test. If there are more white people in the country, it follows that logically there will be more white people qualified to be presenters. What we are seeing is an over representation of those from minority ethnic groups. Logically this would suggest that some kind of preference is being given to those groups over the majority. This is not about race, but about obtaining a position by merit, and merit alone. The BBC is legally obliged to do this, as all employers in the country are.
So what if the minorities genuinely are better then, should there be a quota on white people to get them more in? This is ridiculous and childish, and if anyone believes this kind of nonsense then more fool them. If it was all white then there would be nobody here complaining, it’s just another example of the undercurrent of xenophobia here.
‘So what if the minorities genuinely are better then, should there be a quota on white people to get them more in?’
Whitman, the answer is no but that’s what we’ve been trying to say to you, that’s our point! But you either don’t understand, which Merlin pointed out already, or you are so blinded by the left-wing multicultural groupspeak that you are beyond all help. I fear the latter! Come on, stop being negative and get on board and open your heart to the truth of BBC bias!
Heavens, you don’t half (or completely) miss the point so often. Most people here are arguing AGAINST quotas for ANY group! The BBC has a strict policy to enable the very thing we are arguing against, not for.
———————
“The more diverse our workforce, the better able we are to respond to and reflect our audiences in all their diversity”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/workforce.html
————————
I would have preferred : ” The more SKILLED our workforce, the better able we are to produce quality programming that ‘informs and educates’…but diversity seems more important at the BBC.
Also, if you want to see why their ‘strategy’ might be inherently insular and detached from the real world…from the research that ‘informs their diversity strategy’…
————————–
“BBC staff approached equality issues primarily through a BBC lens. Inevitably, as staff were invited to discuss these issues within the context of their working day, their perspective was dominated by their working experiences at the BBC rather than their experience as a member of the audience.”
Click to access diversity_strategy.pdf
———————–
More pointless, expensive waffle here…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy-policies/
…and more here, there’s reams of this junk…Beware “The Equality Act” minefield, if you dare to enter…
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/diversity/pdf/Diversity_strategy_110523.pdf#zoom=100
No, the BBC has diversity requirements. Anybody who thinks those presenters got their jobs strictly on merit is fooling themselves. The Trust did a study and found that the BBC had under-served non-white children. They have targets, and top management has in the past threatened to sack staff if those targets aren’t met. Some poor bastards even had to give up their bonuses for failing to meet targets.
Diversity targets include not only non-white ethnics, but other labels as well. After all, special characteristics such as sexual orientation and physical handicaps contribute so much more to jobs like editing, post-production, floor managing, and sub-editing.
Diversity at the BBC
PowerPoint presentation with actual targets
The BBC has not been legally required to give someone a job based solely on merit for years.
In pure epistemological terms Whitman is correct.
But if five white people were the ‘best for the job’ does anyone seriously think they would all be appointed?
I disagree RCE I’m afraid, nowhere in Merlin’s above post can i see any presumptions at all; in fact, Merlin, correct me if I’m wrong, uses the word ‘If’ at the outset, which cancels out any presumption at all. But, anyway, word choice is besides the point as i think most would agree that the BBC definitely has ethnic diversity agenda.
Ah, good old Whitman – always bringing out the best in people!
I’m honoured that my postings inspire so much debate lol! 🙂
Whitman – always a challenge, never an answer (see previous ‘climate change’ discussions). I think we’ve all got the measure of him.
This whole argument hinges upon the idea that ethnic minorities have some drastically different viewpoint on life and news than anyone else in the country. So do they?
No it doesn’t. Stop moving the goal posts.
I think the majority here have a problem with the bbc’s overt attempts to push a whole series of leftist agendas at the tax-payers expense. Their charter specifies that they should be a neutral body and they are very clearly not.
They connived with the labour party in allowing literally millions of individuals from Muslim countries, which have backward and culturally repulsive social practices , which are not compatible with British society, into the country and now wish to brain wash the indigenous population into accepting their presence as a fait accompli.
Personally I favour assisted repatriation packages, as all of these people still have very strong links to their historical ethnic homes and are purely here as economic migrants.
I didnt watch the entire proceedings of the Jubilee celebrations but I got the distinct impression the Muslims were seriously underrepresented. No-one in a burqua caught my eye waving a Union Jack. Or mosques decke out in bunting. Did I miss it?
Muslims are not interested in becoming part of British Society. They seem to just take from the “Kafir” so they feel no guilt. Mr Anjem poppy-burner Chaudary who doesnt take a job because it might jeopardize his free house and money.
I thought immigrants were require to take some oath of alleigance – to us, not Al Queda. If not, what are they doing here?
The opposite of Multiculturalism is not, as the sly Tony Blair insinuated, racism, but integration. If you dont want to be one of us, why dont you go somewhere else more congenial to yourself.
Backwoodsman, you’ve nailed the most important point of all in the multicultural debate. You are being demonized for not tolerating caveman behavior, self-segregation, and the establishment of a separate, intolerant subset of society. At the same time, you are blamed for the failure to integrate of those who deliberately self-segregate and openly express their intolerance and disdain for you.
The Left’s (Labour and the BBC) recipe for Social Cohesion is in fact a recipe for social division. And of course they’d call you a racist if you said it out loud.
So you think the reason why there is a heavy over representation of ethnic presenters is because the BBC finds that ethnic adults are closer to the intellectual level of children and therefore better able to communicate the news in a way that would interest children. But is there not evidence that racism is increasing in schools year by year, showing that this is causing resentment amongst children. Also, I do not suspect that the rest of the world envies Britain because of its multicultural inner city shit holes, nor do I suspect that any of these left wing BBC morons live there. I suspect they prefer to live in the hideously white leafy suburbs with high house prices keeping out the riffraff, even though they are the odd ones out in a Tory area. The BBC is suffering from a fall in standards as was proved by the river pageant coverage, due to the previous Labour governments egalitarian education policies, which have damaged the meritocracy that was reflected by selection on ability such as Grammar Schools. So we now have a situation where the BBC is dominated by a type of middle class person with dumbed down arts, drama, media studies and humanities qualifications. People that know that they would not succeed in a meritocracy without a socially engineered job with the state or the state forcing the hideously white private sector to employ them. That is why they only have a liking for people that make them fell superior, such as ethnics. It is also why they buy the Guardian and vote the same way as the people in the inner city shit holes.
To true alot of these people employed by the BBC or have jobs that come out of the guardian would be unemployable anywhere else. These self-loathing white British leftys want to make everyone else like them. That explains why everything they touch is terrible.
If you think Obama would make a good TV presenter, then you should go on You-tube and type in ‘Obama Bloopers’. In contrast to the weekly feed of Bush bloopers, I have never seen one of these on our trusty BBC news, but they are as bad or worse.
Secondly, my 5-year old son lives in a small village in the country, he has 13 classmates, only one is not white, but that little boy is one of his best friends.
My point is that in reception year, every reading book has brown people in it, some of his reading books have no white people. He obviously doesn’t notice or care, but I can’t help feeling he is being manipulated.
deegee, I thought you lived in Australia!
It’s a big subject you’ve opened up there: immigration a fact of life in Britain. It’s also a fact of life that many English people have a problem with immigration, i.e. the amount and scale of it; the manner in which immigrants such as illegal and criminal elements exploit the country and make a mockery of it; the special deference that certain political and vested interests accord to charlatans, criminals and the undeserving merely because they are immigrants or minorities; the corresponding disrespect for English people and English identity. I could go on…it’s a big subject.
As to the composition of the Beeboid presenters on Newsround, it rather depends on the reasons for it. I will listen with an open (though sceptical in the case of the Beeboid Corporation) mind to a case for having this kind or that kind or more of one kind than another. I won’t necessarily accept what the Beeboid Corporation decrees as good for us, though.
How many Jamaican accents are there on the News Channel or Radio 3?
Given that the Newsround presenters are so evidently not “hideously white” and are unrepresentative of the country as a whole, would it now be permissible, given the aforementioned offensive phrase, to state that the Newsround team is “hideously black”? Daft question I suppose.
If the term hideously white has been used and accepted previously, then it follows the term hideously black is also acceptably.
That would seem to establish a suitable parity of usage. Would you care to suggest it to the BBC?
Hideously Green might be a more accurate epithet
‘[I]f you would care to google image “newsround presenters” you will see that the ratio of Black and Ethnics Minorities presenters to white presenters is just about the opposite of what the ratio is in the country as a whole, ie overwhelmingly BEM presenters. This is no coincidence I am sure but an attempt to push the multicultural agenda onto a generation of young minds.’
If all the Newsround presenters wore niqabs and spoke in Pashto with English subtitles, then your correspondent may have a point.
But this is a rather silly claim. Isn’t it?
Give it time, Jeremy…
On a similar theme, the BBC happen to be major players in the developing national game of word association – and in this game Football has been firmly coupled with Racism.
Each and every BBC debate on the subject begins with the premise that Racism is inherent in society and therefore requires a great deal of activity and action to either stamp it out, or indeed ‘Kick it Out.’
Now I have a question: We are almost always presented with the same strikingly unpleasant mental vignette. Without exception all BBC presenters and their chosen guest speakers tell us that as a matter of indisputable fact during the 1970s black footballers on British football fields were subjected to a constant barrage of bananas.
I don’t know whether this was the case. If I take the BBC at face value I am invited to believe that a fruity avalache accompanied every game in which a dark skinned player took part.
This ritual seems to have been as common in the 1970s as pay freezes, electricity power cuts and orange wallpaper.
Was it? I am an innocent in this field but I am concerned that the story is used so very often without any specifics given. If there is genuine evidence I should like to know about it.
Could it be another piece of myth making? Llike those famous signs in London pubs ‘No dogs, no Irish’ – only ever seen in left wing slogans.
There indeed was a lot of racism in the 70’s. Not sure all black players everywhere got trouble but certain grounds were known for it. It started to die out as more black footballers made it into the first division and became a normal sight on TV. This still did not kill it entirely because some idiots would boo opposing black players whilst cheering their own. As more black fans started to come through the turnstiles it seemed to shut the idiots up, when they actually started to mix with their peers who just happened to have a different skin colour.
It never ceases to amaze me that people hate others based on skin colour. I can see why one might not find another attractive, but hate? And when you examine it it is for utterly pointless reasons, never anything concrete.
However I don’t think all the chanting on the terraces was to do with real racism. A good proportion of it is old fashioned tactics, trying to put off the opposing teams black players. Hence the cheering for their own black players and the booing of others.
FWIR the proplem was never great in football and overplayed. The only times I remember it from the ’70’s are as rare events that the vast majority were neither part of nor encouraged. There were, after all few black players to boo.
The bigger problem in the ’70’s was the chance of getting your head kicked in by opposing fans, not for the colour of your face but the colour of your scarf.
absolutely spot on …
football on the terraces is based on tribalism, just go to Glasgow and find out.
I was late teens in the early 70s, went to quite a few matches, i saw a lot of barracking players, teams, refereees,
if racism was part of that ..must have been a small part, cityism, north/southism was much more obvious, sadly, (as usual) this overblown nonsense fits the agenda at hand.
Yes, when crowds chant ‘you black bastard’ it is usually the Ref who is getting the abuse.
i recall whole terraces to in div. 1 going at it to “ole” Alvin Stardust
“hes a bald headed b-st-rd, dressed in black.
dressed in black, dressed in black, dressed in black, black, black”
goodness 😀
you know i forgot to mention
“ref – ism”, now thats real colour
predudice, and that wasn t only maybe heard, by one eagle eared player, you could here it for streets around.
You obviously don’t go to many football matches. The crowd is far more likely to chant the referee’s a “banker”, at least I think that’s what they are saying.
I was refering to the ’70’s when I used to go most weeks. These days the refs often wear colours other than black so references to ‘banking’ makes more sense. :p
Definately don’t go as much as I did, mostly because of cost and distance, but when I do I don’t hear any racist chants.
Then again these days there’s only a couple of people in the stands and the first 11 to turn up at the ground have to make up the team …
The banana-throwing is overstated, if that is what the BBC are claiming for the 70s. However, the ‘monkey ‘chant’ was quite common, unfortunately. I think the black players just stuck at it and won even the bigoted fans over through sheer persistence and, in a lot of cases, pure talent. Also the sight of a black player started to become less of a rarity, and so fans found it difficult to be racist to an opposing player once they had black players in their own team (though there were and still are exceptions).
I honestly cannot remember the last manifestation of anything remotely racist amongst the crowd at the club I support, but it is in one of the lower leagues, so that might have something to do with it.
I’d just like to add that having black players proud to pull on the England shirt is testament to how immigration and integration should work, and makes you feel proud. Multiracial – yes, multicultural – a resounding no.
Sorry folks this quote below is off topic from the above debate but it excellently supports my suspicion that the BBC is churning out appalling bias/propaganda regards Syria. It is written by the brilliant, inimitable and incisive commentator and observer Mr Hitchens himself, a chap I hold in high regard not only for his intelligence but also his honesty and patriotic passion:
“The truth seeps out of Syria.
I have been contacted by a group of Western women who live in Syria and who believe that most of what the world is being told about that country is false.
As far as I can discover, they are not stooges of what they agree to be a rather nasty government in Damascus, but exactly what they say they are: normal human beings caught up in a political tornado. For obvious reasons, I have promised to protect their identities.
I urge you to read what follows, because it is important, because our emotional interventions in other countries never do any good, and because it is vital that people resist attempts to drag us into Syria, too, by feeding us one-sided atrocity propaganda.
This sort of propaganda has a price. I hope you have noticed the continuing tally of deaths of selfless British soldiers in Afghanistan, in a cause long ago abandoned.
And I hope you have also noticed that Libya, ‘rescued’ by us a few months ago, is now a failed state whose main international airport was recently taken over by gangsters, and where unjustly arrested prisoners are starved and tortured in secret dungeons.
One of my informants from Syria writes of the ‘activists’ we hear so much about: ‘These protesters are not peaceful, flower-carrying people wanting freedom. No, they are weapon-toting killers who snipe, who ambush, who fire upon the army with the sole purpose of inciting riot and mayhem.’
She blames Salafis, ultra-puritan Muslims influenced by Saudi teachings, who loathe and threaten Syria’s minorities of Alawites and Christians. She says many of the ‘activists’ are foreigners, a view shared by all my informants. Many of the ‘activists’ are armed.
Armed intervention is in fact well under way, uncondemned by the UN, which readily attacks the Syrian government for defending itself. Another writes: ‘I have seen reports of opposition rallies which showed pictures of pro-government rallies, and reports purporting to be from the north Syrian countryside, where it has been an incredibly wet year, which appear to have been taken in some desert. The news being accepted as truth by BBC World News is so biased these days that I no longer believe what they say about anything any more, after more than 60 years of crediting them with the truth.’
She says she has spoken to a man who took part in a march at Hama last summer. He ‘was worried for his safety, but was given a red rose to carry and assured the whole thing would be calm and orderly, and seeing many other men from the mosque joining in with their small sons, he agreed. They walked for a very few minutes, the unarmed police watching them from the wayside, then a man next to him pulled out a gun and shot the nearest policeman dead.’
A riot followed, reported by foreign TV stations as a police attack on peaceful marchers.
I expect to have more to say on this in weeks to come.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2156929/PETER-HITCHENS-Pop-goes-Monarchy-The-Queen-listened-Paul-McCartney–I-heard-end-Royal-Family.html#ixzz1xNofKr6b
An interesting piece. The comment about BBC World News tallies with my own experience in Vienna (that I contributed to an Open Thread) around a dozen years ago. They have a “progressive left” outlook and all reporting and editorial lines are reflected through that prism: Arab Spring, the EU and Euro, public sector cuts, multi-culturalism, etc etc
pallywood – has trained them well.
so glad they ve ditched the inspectors too, eh!
i suppose the old … “arab (alarm bell for anyone with a modicum of intelligence) league” …
will now be the go to guys, eh! …
for ahem! … “honesty” ? (shakes head)
Report: Rebels Responsible for Houla Massacre,” in National Review, June 9
couple that, el beebs b/s, with 10 yr old photos etc
Merlin, Why don’t you post that piece in the Open Thread? More people might read it there.
In other news…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100163919/gay-straight-or-necrophiliac-a-penguin-isnt-a-human-being/
Interesting what garners the ‘most liked’ score so far.
I remember the last government ‘indicating’ to the BBC that it would be a good idea to have a female newsreader who wore the ‘headscarf’. It may have been Jacqui or Harriet who put forward the idea – but as others here have said – I endorse people being given their jobs on merit.
Harriet horrible’s uncle was lord longford, mental illness must run in the family. Jacqui smith husband watches porn at tax payers expense. Those two ‘women’ must have worn scarfs to tight round their necks and cut off the supply of blood to thir brains and given them brain damage.
Those two are so po faced they make the average labour wimmin look like an Alabama red-neck.
Do you have a source for that? I remember a Beeboid trailing the idea, having discussed it among themselves at one of their awaydays or brainstorming sessions. It was trailed as a “Why not?” I’ve never heard it from the Labour government, though. They wouldn’t have needed to suggest it to the Beeboids, anyway.
Some context:
Paul WESTON on ‘Multiculturalism’ (5 years ago)-
“Multiculturalism – Merits & debits”
http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/multiculturalism-merits-debits.html
Another example of the BBC’s ingrained London-centricity, and – like the previous thread about the BBC’s anti-British racism – it’s another case of ‘anti racism’ actually meaning anti-white.
This is certainly not an accident. The advertising industry, too, has operated a deliberate policy of loading the racial mix in its images for decades – the head of the IPA actually boasted about this on a BBC radio programme a few years ago.
It’s a nasty game to play, for sure. What director of a major company looking at a proposed advertising campaign would dare suggest there was a problem with the racial mix on show?
We shouldn’t be surprised by meejah types attempting to create social changes of which they approve, but we should be aware of it and ready to resist what they are up to. It’s when people don’t even notice what they are doing that the Gramscians are at their most dangerous.
The BBC espouse multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is racism in practice. What else can it be when it’s purpose is to split society into distinct ‘cultural pockets’ associated with ethnic background?
Multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures have equal value. Surely there’s no option but to object strongly to this when we see how some cultures view and treat girls and women, and it’s hard not to have contempt for the leftists who despite the gross misogyny involved accept this unconscionable creed of cultural relativism.
If you look at the history, theology and beliefs of Islam ‘the religion of peace’ you can see what it is really about. They don’t want to intergrate into Western society but destroy it. These Cultural Marxists are supporting Radical Islam which as soon it can will start eliminating people like them. What will the metro trendy leftys do then or the soap dodging UAF.
It’s also a slogan, a meaningless word used…well, mostly misused, to indoctrinate the masses and keep them from thinking things out for themselves.
Our ruling classes don’t really care about the rights of women and girls, though. They don’t care about anything except a few slogans. So long as they are not called raaaacist, they don’t care if the country goes to hell in a handcart and if women and girls pay the price for their irresponsible conduct.
And in theory, multiculturalism would be OK, except the way it is implemented in this country allows racist, sexist and homophobic discrimination to occur and be practised unchallenged by one culture, whilst simultaneously denying the host culture any recognition or rights to exist at all, where that host nation’s traditions and cultures conflict with one of the alien cultures.
This is why I oppose multiculturalism and support immigration only if the immigrant wants to fully integrate into our culture and contribute to our society.
British National Identity:
Multiculturalism vs Integration
Socialism:
Multiiculturalism vs Racism
The false choice, as always, from the cultural Marxists
All these BBC White British Cultural Marxists love multiculturalism. But they all live all white areas and might have a few token ethnic friends. I think the expression for this is NIMBY.
Er – looks like Tony Blair, a principal architect of the abolition of England, as new neighbours.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155726/Somali-family-benefits-handed-keys–2million-luxury-council-home-Londons-affluent-streets.html
Sorry – I dropped an aitch!
If there are any Somalis reading this I happen to know that Billy Bragg has a massive great house down in Dorset. I feel sure he would welcome the company….
Billy Bragg could show his proud working class credentials to people from the third world. He could teach them to sing the red flag song in english.
Billy Bragg ‘sing’, are you sure?
Sorry billy bragg can only wine.
Why does Billy bragg have such a big mansion?
So he can fit in all his self-loathing
You couldn’t make it up, you really couldn’t!
Someone is taking the piss.
Yes – Paul Dacre and his excellent publication.
Bore.
That publication, for all its faults, is still a lot better than the most bigotted paper in Britain, The Guardian. The terrorist’s best friend!
A spokesman for Islington Council said: ‘Islington has a desperate shortage of affordable homes and is a high-value area. This council home has been owned by the council for many years and is currently let to an Islington family who were ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶d̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶e̶ in great housing need.’
There was a case in the paper a few months ago where a large Somali family living in Coventry (on state benefits, of course) requested a move to London as they desperately needed to be close to a Somali ‘community’ – something Coventry lacked, apparently.
Request – granted. Cost – who cares.
Perhaps someone should have suggested one way tickets to Somalia – it would have been cheaper, and got them closest to their ‘community’. I’m sure they’d have suddenly found Coventry quite acceptable.
I wonder if they’d grant the same to a white English family that found themselves living as a minority in their area, and agree to move them closer to their ‘community’?
It would seem that some groups have ‘cultural needs’ that require homogeneity and which we have a duty to meet in the name of community cohesion, while others are just racists who need to learn to celebrate diversity.
So that was a Somali family who are racists who do not want to celebrate diversity? Deport them at once!
Tony Blair is the biggest traitor in British history.
well said!
Not directly related to the BBC, but we’ve just returned from Falmouth. On leaving a restaurant, we overheard some white, self-loathing, middle class twit comment: “Of course the Cornish are so racist”.
Her accent would have been at home in Putney or Richmond and she was alomost certainly part of the visiting sailing fraternity. She was in a group of five, all hideously white.
Presumably she took up sailing to meet black people?
These white self-loathing leftys do my head in. I met plenty when I was doing degree: http://www.ruskin.ac.uk/. This people are stupid to realise they are destroying their own culture that gave them the life they have. If that happens they will not last a day without the British Christian culture that gave them their life.
Universities are controlled by these people so expect the leaders of tomorrow to continue the bigotry.
They do, on the other hand, find anti-Semitism an acceptable prejudice, while dressing it up as anti-Israeli. This website and is good at documenting anti-Semitism on campus.
http://www.studentrights.org.uk/
The most recent entry:
The organisation Roadside2Islam, which suggests apostates should be killed, are hosting an event at London South Bank University tonight
This report documents it further.
Click to access 1292336866_1.pdf
In 2007 [the leader of the above event] was recorded saying that “we have become Jews in our clothing, Jews in our eating, Jews in everything that we do, and the other half is Christian in everything we do. Muslims are following one of these accursed nations. And people are still not waking up to understand the fact that these people are enemies towards us”.They do, on the other hand, find anti-Semitism an acceptable prejudice, while dressing it up as anti-Israeli. This website and is good at documenting anti-Semitism on campus.
Which is why Mrs Toynbee was admitted to University with rubbish A-Levels, she and her family are left-wing aristocracy. She was kicked out though, not good enough, but was always sure to land on her feet within the establishment, and the dross she produces just goes on and on, un-checked and ‘rewarded’.
Polly Toynbee won’t be happy till the streets are running with blood. Scary to think someone as mentally ill and psychotic as her is allowed to write her self-loathing rubbish in the Guardian. She is president of the british humanist organisation. But she was to scared to debate william lane craig the theist when he came to this country. She knew she would be shown up for the fraud she is. If you don’t repent polly you will burn in hell for all eternity.
The Pirates of Penz…Mogadishu?
She could have meant they were racist towards the English! Just a thought….
‘Radical’ or extremist, fundamentalist and terrorist Islamist? Guess which the BBC prefers…?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18386156
Newsround and most BBC kids prograaming is full on propaganda. They’ve been getting away with it because parents usually leave the room and make dinner/smoke fags whilst it’s on.
I’ve commented before on Newsround, it’s worth a daily thread on its own.
Multiculturalism is division misleadingly called diversity. The wolf in sheeps clothing.
On the argument about merit , I have not watched newsround for many yeas so I will base my observations on the news for grown ups. I cannot remember the last time I saw a white hetrosexual Englishman in the studio behind a desk reading the news off an autocue. A task I would assume, without having done it, would require little more than the ability to read English have sufficiently good eyesight and a reasonable voice. But when it comes to jobs that equire a more particular skill, being able to interview people or an indepth knowledge of a subject more intalectual than celebrity, then the ratio of white presenters even white male presenters is much higher. I think that where skill is required they are forced to hire on merit, when less skill is required they hire on race.
I agree that the liberal elite can look at the working class as irredeemably racist, that is a misunderstanding. When a large change to society threatens one section of society more than the others then that section of society will inevitably be most opposed to those changes. When the ruling classes are threatened they can mobilise the full resources of the nation to oppose the threat. That is why we do not have a Napoleonic or Nazi ruling class. When the working class is the group most at risk, and the ruling elite are willing to do more than make promises when they want our votes, there is little we can do. So it is remarkable that we have been so tolerant to such high levels of immigration for so long.
When the lower levels at the BBC realise that their bosses would happily replace them all with ethnic minorities we might see some changes. Imagine what would happen if the government announced that at least 50% of the top management at the BBC had to be ethnic. We would get a run og programmes on why only white people could truly understand British culture.
the number of people behind the camera (jobs that require real skill) is dominated by the hideously white
newsround become successful because of John Craven (white)
if ANY programme becomes successful due to the original presenter being non-white then i look forward to it being taken over by hideously white presenters
No, only ever simply a case of the best person for the job at Al-Beeb, honestly.. Otherwise can only presume they must be yet more jobs that us lazy white honkies won’t do.
Pathetic Al-Beeb can keep on TRYING to fool viewers as much as they like – as the uber arrogant multiculti frenzied clowns will do anyway. But it won’t work.
Anyway, i’m off to roll around in some mud..
Watch the BBC’s breakfast programme any day, any time they need to go to a school, I guarantee there will not be one white child to be seen. So are they deliberately targeting EM areas for broadcasts or have white people given up breeding?
actually pro rata yes they have become insignificant in the breeding stakes!
The white british lefty/cultural marxists have made that the white people don’t breed like they used. With their evil twisted ideology of feminism. Has feminism actually done any good for women!!!
where are all the chinese/eastern asian faces on tv?
I’ve always thought that there was a real minority who have been overlooked
bbc being racist maybe?
😉
Gingers as well, ture celts are ginger. The BBC is instrusionally gingerphobic.
…as is Harriet.
It’s a funny thing about this blog, for about 75% of the time it makes good points about political coverage. Then as soon as somebody mentions the M word, the swivel-eyed loons come out to play and suddenly I feel as if I’ve wandered into an EDL meeting by mistake.
The way I look at it is don’t blame any group for our societal decay especially the Muslims. You should blame to Left/Cultural Marxists. They are a cancer on our society that needs to elminated in the same way smallpox was in the 20th century.
Anybody who thinks the BBC does not pour a bucket of whitewash over Islam and then examines the result through rose tinted spectacles, is a bit of a swivel eyed loon himself.
I must be a swivel eyed loon seeing i’m a bible believing christian. I think that Islam is a false religion and is as believable as the spaghetti monster that the British left/cultural marxists favourie academic Richard Dawkins created.
Oh, so am I – and I loathe radical Islamism. But certain of the regulars here can’t distinguish between a militant and a pacifist Arab with a beard.
Trouble is thoughout the history of Islam the only way Islam has only got bigger is though war and conquest. Radical Islam is going to get alot worser before it gets better.
it will never get better.
I keep re-iterating the point – one frequently made by ex-Muslims – that thee may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. For instance, it is not a religion that does ‘pacifism’ (try reading a few Islamic sacred texts).The odd sufi sect may have preached the brotherhood of man regardless of religious belief – and got away with it before modern mass communications – but they were so far outside orthodoxy as practically to be in orbit. The amadiyya do pacifism but they also believe in a prophet who came after Mohammed and are regarded as so heretical they are not allowed into Mecca and are persecuted spasmodically in various Muslim countries. They are also a small minority of British Muslims. Even those quietist Muslims, who are in denial about the Koranic injunction to jihad, empower the umma by increasing its numbers and presence.
It appears you have fallen for the con that identifies all the violent aspects of Islam with some kind of radicalisation process. There is NO moderate Islam, it simply doesn’t exist.
“the pacifist arab with a beard” tends to lose his argument with an AK47 or a sharp sword and soon loses any sense of fair play.
Funny, isn’t it, how every mainstream Christian denomination disagrees with your assessment? Perhaps that’s because it’s nonsense.
Then it’s high time Christianity woke up because its followers are being persecuted & butchered in every Godforsaken Muslim country in the world. There’s nothing nonsensical about that assessment.
Maybe something connected to their “turn the other cheek” ideas.
Something a little difficult when your severed head is carefully placed on your chest and the video posted for old time’s sake huh?
On what factual basis do you make this statement? Christian denominations in those countries where Islam is the majority, have a very different viewpoint to yours. e.g. Northern Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.
I think what most people in this blog are objecting to is the multicultural agenda of the Left, well-practised by the BBC of course.
If you agree with multiculturalism then please say so, with your reasons, but don’t just accuse people on here of Muslim-bashing for the sake of it, because by and large I haven’t detected that in the posts I have read.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/261453/pinoyabroad/worldfeatures/afghanistan-to-control-people-taliban-bent-on-closing-down-schools
You know all about EDL meetings, do you? Or is that your preconception showing?
No, never been, but I’m pretty sure that EDL members would be more comfortable than I am with phrases like “third world dross”, as used here recently, or the suggestion above about repatriation for ethnic minorities. Some of the comments here are difficult to reconcile with a Christian attitude to one’s fellow human beings.
I appreciate your response, Rwb. Unfortunately, a ‘Christian attitude’ isn’t very helpful when a gang of pissed up/drugged up Somalis are putting your windows through. ‘Third world dross’ is an understated remark. I live in an ‘enriched’ area of north London, perhaps your home turf is more benign: I hope so.
When the wheel really comes off I hope to be standing next to something more substantial than the Quilliam Foundation, or my local vicar, good man that he is.
Perhaps the emotive response that the very mention of Muslims engenders is simply down to many millions of them blowing things up, killing Christians, stating that they wish everything un-Islamic to burn in hell, raping young white girls, treating women and gays and anyone/thing who doesn’t bow down to their religious with complete contempt and destruction. There is copious evidence of the BBC liberals pussyfooting around Muslims. For credible sources please refer to the Big (Left-wing) Questions with Dame Nicky on Sunday Morns; please have a bucket to hand for involuntary projectile vomit spasms though.
I received this e-mail this morning and you will see the frustration I have at the censoring of the BBC.
Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate for President of Egypt, recently said that, if he is elected, Christians living in Egypt will have to convert to Islam, pay the jizya (a tax on non-Muslims living in Muslim lands), or leave the country.
The barbaric video of the beheading of a young Tunisian man for the crime of apostasy – converting from Islam to Christianity and refusing to renounce his faith – has made the rounds and was recently run on Egyptian television.
A wave of anti-Christian violence has swept Indonesia – the world’s most-populous Muslim country – as churches and worshippers have been attacked. The same is true of Nigeria. I would recommend this piece by Paul Berman, author of the indispensable books Terror and Liberalism and The Flight of the Intellectuals.
Thankfully, the ace reporters at CBS’ 60 Minutes recently produced an “expose” of the ne’er-do-wells behind this international mistreatment of Christians…the Jews! In a report condemned by Jewish and Christian leaders (Gary Bauer said it, “missed by a mile the true threat to Christians in the Middle East”), CBS accused Israel of tormenting Christians into leaving the West Bank. Rather than re-litigating CBS’ malpractice, I’ll refer you to Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon.
CBS and the BBC seem similar – they only tell us the news they want us to hear.
Why? Because we support racial equality instead of politically correct division and bigotry? Because we oppose allowing Islamic communities being given legal freedom to be overtly racist, sexist and homophobic, when white English people are sent to prison for the same?
We do not have racial equality in this country anymore. The prejudicial version of multiculturalism is imposed on the people of this country and is done in such away to attack and destroy the “white majority” so hated by the racist and politically correct lefties.
Why do you think opposing racism is a bad thing? Are you another member of the profoundly racist UAF?
Most leftys I have met are mentally. ill. There are lots of psychologists and psychiatrists who will say this off the record. Why would anyone want to destroy their own way of life and replace with something that will kill them. I know plenty of leftys that want Israel to be wiped off the map. But when someone tries that gods steps in and the leftys will feel gods rightous anger on them.
Any lefty that reads this is a warning to you change your ways or you will burn in hell for eternity. You will never sleep and will always suffer unbearable pain that will never get better, 24/7 for eternity.
Which M word do you mean? The Multcult? Or the other one?
Personally I’ve no objection to having all the BBC’s frontmen being from ethnic minorities – no matter what colour – as long as they’re chosen on merit. The problem, of course, is what “merit” means in these circumstances. Set aside how they look for a moment but a gift for being able to babble (preferably in a regional accent) an interminable flow of unmemorable dross is the first requirement: the second is the ability to drop in where appropriate (or even where completely inappropriate) a slice of the BBC Narrative. Accordingly a reference to climate change, “sustainability”, the wonder of multi-culti, the cutz etc is always to be expected . . . and the viewer/listener is rarely disappointed.
A poor third in the “merit” stakes – and unnecessary if you can read a teleprompter – is to know something of the subject you are fronting. You only have to look at the BBC’s favourite comedians and actors (and BBC “personalities” generally) fronting, for instance, nature or history programmes to know that the ambition of such programmes is restricted to maximising ratings (which “justify” maintenance of the TV tax) and creating opportunities to slip in part of the Narrative. Mind you even the ones who seem to know what they’re talking about (eg Al Khalili, du Sautoy, Cox) mouth the pieties dear to the BBC. For instance, I can’t imagine any survey of the history of mathematics or science not giving disproportionate space and praise to the Moslem contribution.
Just as important though is appearance. For women, the selection has been – and continues – to be irredeemably “lookist”. I can’t believe that the present selection of BBC frontwomen has been chosen purely on their broadcasting “talent”. Furthermore, the moaning of “over the hill” women ex-broadcasters about sexism and ageism contrasts with their conspicuous silence when, in their 20s, they were chosen over their less attractive (and more accomplished?) sisters. But, hey, the clue is in the medium: it’s television after all. Why shouldn’t the presenters be attractive? The idea that women presenters should all look like Harriet Harman or Baroness Uddin is ridiculous. Ridiculous perhaps but I suppose that the only reason for the recruitment of Kirsty Wark – apart from being a lefty – must be as a defence to an accusation that the BBC is institutionally “lookist”. Kirsty aside, lefty opinions don’t necessarily have to be mouthed by harridans and it’s possible that such opinions can be more acceptable coming from visually attractive women.
Even so, given the multi-culti religion of the BBC, I guess the default choice of presenters – particularly of children’s programmes (since the children are the ones who must be propagandised) – is for a cultural mix that includes whitey but only as one of many “Britons”; not as a proportionate approximation of the country’s population. This is not necessarily wrong or evil, nor would it be if genuine merit was involved. However, until proved to the contrary, I’ll assume that for the BBC, this is just part of its cultural war on whitey generally and the indigenes in particular.
‘For women, the selection has been – and continues – to be irredeemably “lookist”.’
Indeed.
And I am often intrigued as to whether any of the undoubtedly mostly comely, but peroxide-addled female ‘market rate talent’ across the MSM have such a thought flit through the airspace in their pretty heads as they read out endless ‘ism accusations from the ‘approved’ sectors of the grievance industry.
I’m guessing not, eh, Fearne?
I don’t have a problem with Kirsty Wark’s looks, it’s her awful voice that’s the problem, it makes my ears bleed. However, she’s well in with the Scottish Labour Mafia, so completely unsackable.
If one must be lookist, I would say that Kirsty Wark is an attractive looking woman. So is Harriet Harman. I don’t know Baroness Uddin. I would think that Wark was recruited to the Beeboid Corporation for her intelligence, ability and probably? her political leanings and connections.
Well, whatever one’s swivelled organ of choice in views, this would appear to be set to add catnip to the pigeon coop….
http://www.channel4.com/news/theresa-may-wants-uk-judges-to-put-country-before-family
I wonder how the BBC will… ahem.. ‘report’… this?
I’d hazard time for the Return of the Mehdi!
The old ‘speaking to t… telling the nation how to think’ most trusted PR machine better commission its own unique poll pronto via the vast Graun readership, overseen by the totally objective LSE, or maybe best just to pretend, like the Jubilee coverage, everything is in fact tickedy boo within the bubble…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9322404/Foreign-criminals-will-no-longer-be-able-to-argue-right-to-family-life-to-stay-in-Britain.html
Yep, he’ll be wheeled out. He’ll begin reasonably enough, covering a few quieter numbers from the Oasis back catalogue, but then the blubbing & screaming over what happened in Medina about a thousand years ago kicks off. Then he’ll rip his Western clothes off to reveal his magic 7th century Muslim trouser suit: the one that a winged horse brought to him when he was a chump at Oxford. Then he’ll start to fizz with hatred, paranoia & inferiority. Telling us we’re all Dr Dolittles, walking, talking, with the animals, especially pigs & dogs. And how izlaaarm holds the ‘high moral ground’ where all those car bombs & suicide bombers keep detonating, where all those executed teachers’ heads are piled in bloody tribute to the ‘religion of peace’. Then its a quiet car journey back to Mosque Broadmoor with Mark Thompson patting his knee. ‘Mehdi, even we’re going to have to let you go. You see, you’re madder than a sack of snakes & you’re beginning to give the game away.’ And in a moment of rare insight, & honesty, for a slippery old deceiver like the DG, he says, ‘Mehdi, you just can’t help it. You’re a microcosm of a lunatic ideology that is primed to implo…Mehdi, Mehdi, put that knife dow…’
Mehdi, Mehdi, put that knife dow…’
It will happen one day, I just hope they begin with the correct people.
Dear old Mehdi always reminds me of Harry Enfield’s character ‘Jurgen The German’. He comes across nice and polite to begin with, but after a while he simply can’t help but start shouting out his real, extremist views:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2e0_1226024885
God, how I hate diversity. I used to like male newsreaders with their received pronunciation, but now it’s geordies with exaggerated accents, and old slags like Fiona Bruce flirting with the viewer. And every time I see a black newsreader it reminds me of how they’re taking over the country. I could machine-gun my telescreen sometimes but I’d only get a visit from the thought-police.
I watched a very interesting programme last week about the decline of Deptford High Street over the years. It made me so sad to see how the close knit Cockney community had been ethnically cleansed since the 1960s.
Likewise, Jools Holland had a programme about the sounds of London. Footage of little children playing in the street in the 1950s contrasted with an East End school now, where there was just one white child in the playground. If what had been done to the white working class in Bitain had been done to Amazonian indians, the BBC would be up in arms, but as it is, they couldn’t care less. Indeed, mere indifference on their part would be an improvement, they have the gall to celebrate what has happened.
This thread is an interesting example of how nearly all of us in some way avoid facing the difficult questions that sooner or later have to be faced.
Liberals- the BBC/media elites cannot do so without risking a confrontation with their core beliefs. Even conservatives find it difficult.
What exactly is a nation? Is it a collection of people with the same papers that declare them to be citizens of this or that country? Or is it a defined place peopled by those who have held and shaped the nation and it’s culture over endless generations and who have absorbed from child hood a way of looking at the world that is peculiar to them and only to them.?
If it is the former then immigration of all and sundry is no problem. If the latter then there is a definite problem..So one can see why the liberal elite so pushes multiculturalism especially at the children.
When immigrant numbers remain small then this approach could just possibly work but when the immigrant numbers rise and start to look like colonisation and population replacement then there is a real problem.
When cities like Leicester become ethnically less than 50% English then that city is no longer an English city but something else. Change the people change the culture. It is historically true in every past instance anywhere in the world you care to look at. It is a reality.
So we have this increasingly frenzied search for a common identity. For an ersatz Britishness that can never exist in the real world. As a cororally it become necessary to strip the English of their identity and alter and corrupt their history to fit an agenda that is unreal. The liberal elites quite rightly identify the English working class as the main problem so concentrate their efforts on them. it won’t work but will cause all of us considerable pain.
If we had been led by clear sighted men who understood the past and human nature things could have been different. But we were not.
And those nice English people go along with it, obliginlgy referring to themselves as British and never English, for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. It’s half admirable and half tragic.
White Christian European culture gave us the world we have today. All these Left/Cultural Marxists with their self-loathing and white guilt need to be stopped. They will be the first people to be eliminated if Radical Islam gains power.
Thank you for that brilliant insight.
And it’s goodnight from E.J.Thribb. Age 17 & 1/2 years.
Your wit’s just too much for me.
Better go to bed now school in the morning
Please give us yours. All you do is criticize other people’s views without giving your own. So do you approve of a multicultural society in Britain, and how would you describe it? Do you see any dangers at all in the way immigrants have been encouraged to practise their own cultures here?
As I child I used to like Floella Benjamin every bit as much as the rest of the white children’s TV presenters. (Valerie Singleton, John Noakes etc). I could even tolerate the intensely annoying “Andi” Peters. The ethnic / white mix of the TV presenters pretty well matched the mix of pupils in my school. But if I turn on children’s TV now….. Put it this way: If I go to China I don’t expect every TV program to be hosted by Mexicans.
Mexicans…hahaha! Very neatly put.
The BBC does not have diversity. The young people in the pictures may look diverse because their skin colour and racial backgrounds are varied, but I don’t think diversity is skin deep. I bet everyone one of those Newsround presenters believes the same thing and there is no intellectual or political diversity (the only kind of diversity that matters) if everyone in the BBC THINKS the same way.
They are token cookie cutter people who distract us from the main point. I bet none of them – not a one – votes Conservative. I bet none of them is a revolutionary. I bet they are all middle-class liberal kids who live their lives in their own enchanted world.
Sorry. “Diversity”, as defined in the modern media, is a myth.
There is probably a lot to what you say – a general uniformity with a superficial appearance of ‘diversity’.
Perhaps that should be the BBC’s new slogan :
“Uniformity through diversity”.
‘“Uniformity through diversity”.
Has a certain ring to it.
Maybe they could put it in metal letters welded to an arch at the entrance?
That comment will go way over the average beeboid’s head. Superb.
It is a gloomy damp Monday morning. One might have thought that Salford Local Radio (BBC5Live) would have sent Dame Nicky Campbell the sort distance down the road to some flooded Welsh caravan park – in order to show Celtic solidarity and to provide a platform for critics of the Tory-led coalition’s anti-rain policy.
No, no, no. Gameshow is happily sunning himself in the Ukraine asking does the England football team, which he does not support, representing a nation most BBC commentators and historians don’t believe exists, have any chance of success!?
The BBC, what a wonderful thing.
The BBC recently covered a major national event with outstanding success. Thousands of people from up and down the land set aside their usual humdrum daily routines and with a passion took to our streets to participate. Those taking part were generally very pleased with the sympathetic and encouraging coverage they got from our national broadcaster. The extensive coverage followed events closely and BBC commentators and guest experts were well informed and very approving of both the events and those participating.
I am of course talking about the riots of last August.
I wonder, has anyone had the misfortune to hear Radio 1’s Newsbeat?
The radio version of Newsround pretty much, but even more patronising, multi-culti and generally insufferable.
My old Nan made me laugh, she said ‘Are white presenters banned from Newsround…I said Yes, probably..
It’s often useful for a business to employ some non-white staff in less prestigious postions to enable the plum jobs to go to the usual people from the in-crowd.
Quotas have to be filled, but if done sensibly it needn’t derail the gravy train of those who have been on it for a very long time.
Expect Gordon Brown to get a very sympathetic presentation from the Beeb over his Leveson evidence.
In his recommendations for the future Brown just about suggested the BBC take over the internet – ‘to encourage the good and root out the bad’.
Do you think he was talking about us?
The BBC are typical of left don’t like any criticism of any kind. The left never does like the truth that everything they touch turns out to be disaster.
Tim Shipman (Mail)@ShippersUnbound
Colleague advised by newsdesk that he does have to cover Brown’s stranger musings: ‘He may be bonkers, but he is a former prime minister.’
Retweeted by Guido Fawkes
adamboulton@adamboultonSKY
#LevesonInquiry overheard at RCJ veteran hack: either the police or men in white coats should be waiting for GB when he finishes.
Retweeted by A Libertarian Rebel
I have complained on more than one occasion about the reporting on Newsdim from their take on the banning of Burkhas to the mis-rule of us the English over Ireland. I noticed long ago the non-representative make up of their presenters, how ever even I couldn’t be bothered to complain about this as no doubt I would be deenmed to be racist and carted of to a high security prison. I do note that they continue to report on items that as a sub -teenager I would of had no interest in at all. Not like the golden Craven years of warnings about Chopper bikes.
How about a white, middle class northerner on kids tv.
Shame the BBC’s institutional racism would probably get in the way of this.
Terry Christian would do he is a lefty and not very bright. So he could be of of IBBC’s useful idiots.