A Biased BBC reader notes..
“A short play earlier this evening about a problem child at school. From Fact to Fiction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxzy4
The child was ethnic British, that’s fine, but the BBC approved play write couldn’t resist feeding in a comment by an actor in the role of a teacher (6.25 mins into programme) that she “couldn’t help but notice that ALL the kids at the ‘exclusion centre’ were ‘white'” (surely they didn’t mean Eastern European? ), to which another teacher replied that “Asian families have higher standards and Black mothers won’t let them talk back”.
The latter is a blatant lie, since black children are MORE likely to be excluded from school, and there have been frequent suggestions that this is due to “racism”. NO real teacher would pretend that black children on average are better behaved.
Just to underline that the criticism is of working class poor ethnic BRITISH, the Scottish teacher then lists of the pregnancies of Maria’s lazy fecund family then lists and name some of the local ‘problem’ ethnic British families (just to be sure we couldn’t think they’re Polish or Portuguese immigrants). If this isn’t out and out race hate and stereotyping of our people, I don’t know what is. The very idea of running this play, where Maria is a black or Asian child would be unthinkable to Auntie!
Frankly disgusted.”
The BBC is totally and utterly biased against the true ethnic population of this country and that is white British.
No the majority ethnic population of this country are simply ‘British’, ‘native British’, ‘indigenous British’ or ‘ethnic British’, just as the majority ethnic population of Poland are ‘Polish’, or those of Spain are ‘Spanish’. We should not accept definition by mere skin colour, a definition which includes Polish, Greeks, Italians, Ashkenazi Jewish, Iranians, Portuguese e.t.c. all of whom may be British citizens, and are thus ‘white British’ but are not part of the indigenous ethnic majority anymore than a German born in Italy is ethnically Italian.
The use of the term ‘white British’ is simply to deny us, the majority indigenous ethnic people, the right to be considered an ethnic group at all, and to reduce us to simply a passport and a skin colour, while every minority group is granted ‘ethnicity’.
Is there such a thing as ethnic British? English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. aren’t they ethnic groups in their own right?
Just as a point of interest since Aerfen brought it up. Italy annexed mostly German speaking South Tirol also known by its Italian name Alto Adige in 1915. When do they become Italians? They are not just born in Italy they are Italian citizens of possibly five generations.
Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish may indeed be considered ethnic groups in their own right, but are all genetically part of the same overall indigenous British ethnic group, very much intermingled and interbred over the millenia, but also springing from the same genetic roots of Celts, Anglo saxons and Viking stock. In terms of genetic markers the ethnic British can be distinguished from other neighbouring continental groups while the four sub ethnicities cannot be easily distinguished from each other. So yes, ethnic British have MORE claims to be considered an ethnic group than do the medieval ‘four nations’, and culturally too we all have far more in common than distinguishing us from each other.
Of course for those who wish to destroy European nations and dissolve us into an EU superstate then promoting internal division and strife, to weaken us is an effective policy – four small nations, especially disliking each other, are far easier to crush than a strong united Britain.
David, do you see any movement towards the argument for action of some kind against the bbc? We criticise the bbc entity but appears to have no effect; it has a hide as thick as a rhino. How will we ever be rid of it, in your opinion?
Because as poll after poll has shown you are in a small minority. The BBC is very popular and remains so. This site is an echo chamber for a small disgruntled minority.
How many polls have been made about should we have to pay a TV licence fee of £145.5 per year for the BBC and no other broadcasting or media organisation in this country. Why should we be forced to pay the BBC licence fee under threat of fines or prison. About 10% of court cases are to do with non-payment of the BBC licence fee. How many much more important court cases have never come to court because of these cases?
Google it
Silly Nicked emus: the popularity of the BBC rests on it’s ubiquitousness nothing else. All the old biddies etc love local radio and a plethora of other services the BBC provides that are never mentioned and will never be mentioned on this site because they are perfectly OK and not biased; HOWEVER, BBC news gathering and the crazily obvious bias of many of its presenters is fast becoming a joke and the clear bias becoming more apparent to more people. The point of this site is to keep highlighting it so that one day the pestilent infected pustule can be lanced and the BBC admired once more. The fact that you can only hide behind Auntie’s uninfected parts shows how wasteful your time here is.
Nicked emus I thought the people the BBC has to go round all the internet sites, this one, blogs, newspapers etc to argue against anti-BBC people only worked normal hours. Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
Oh for sure my time on here is wasted. There is no way anyone on here is going to change their mind on anything. However maybe you might just entertain the idea that you are just a very small minority.
As for Earls Court, who is without a doubt my favourite contributor but only when he does his “they will all burn in hell” stuff. I have never been an employee of the BBC — and I have certainly not been paid as much by them as David Vance who is on the BBC the whole time. Wonder how much he is paid by them — care to share David Vance?
A tiny minority, with views shared by writers in the Telegraph and Spectator and the Mail (a paper with a microscopic amount of readers, right?). What on earth makes you think you can convince us of that when you’re sure you can’t convince us of anything else?
Or were you a bully at school, too?
Good to see you popping your head above the parapet again on here, Nick, after comprehensively destroying my man-made global warming challenges with your scientifically-researched accusation of ‘conspiracy theorist’.
Live with the fact that you are not going to change peoples’ minds on here because you really, truly cannot put a sustainable argument together. That, and the undeniable fact you are both a Leftist (as demonstrated by your unswerving support for the EU, Islam, man-made global warming, and socialist policies in general) and an unequivocal defender of the BBC on all those issues. In other words: you and the BBC – just peas in the same pod.
You are entitled to your views as an individual – and most on here would fight for your right to express them – the BBC as a licence/tax-funded national broadcaster isn’t, and thus the reason this site exists.
“…after comprehensively destroying my man-made global warming challenges…”
“Quick, change the subject”!
Kind of you to credit me with such an effect when I didn’t even respond to it.
I always enjoy how you can tell so much about me, and indeed someone on here is speculating about my employer (incorrectly), from the few posts I have made.
Why it is almost as if it were easier to create a straw man and attack that.
And yes David Preiser (USA) — a man who has to travel continents to be offended — there are writers for those right-wing newspapers who share the same views. Alas they have as much impact on the polls as you do. Just because a newspaper says something, you don’t *have* to believe it.
Count up the number of times David Vance has tweeted proudly about his BBC appearances. But maybe the failed politician himself could share with us exactly how much money he has taken from the organisation, an organisation he despises — if not its money nor the platform it gives him.
‘Kind of you to credit me with such an effect when I didn’t even respond to it’.
Er, you did actually. You accused me of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ – remember?
That wasn’t a response to your list of questions; that was an observation that pretty well every anti-AGW proponent at some point tries to claim there is some great conspiracy at work.
‘David Vance who is on the BBC the whole time.’
An interesting factual tack to try and take.
Care to substantiate this claim?
Preferably without the usual huffing, puffing or potty mouth deployed by the ‘right’ kind of ‘you’ favoured in some quarters when Google locates the claimant up yet another malodourous creek sans paddle.
Be interested in your views on the vast court time devoted to non-licence fee payment vs. more serious ‘crimes’, as the numbers do seem significant to warrant analysis.
Maybe a Panorama special, based on a Graun/LSE poll… which all know can only be accurate, albeit on the GIGO model used.
Have to say the commitment to knowingly wasting time is impressive, unless on salary or voluntary PR duty, which still suggests public sector market rate talent & commitment at work.
Maybe David Vance could provide that information — after all he is the one who knows how much money he has taken from, and how much airtime he has been given by, the BBC, the BBC that he castigates so frequently and for such profit.
‘Care to substantiate this claim?’
‘Maybe David Vance could provide that information..’
That will be a can’t, then. Again.
A promising career as a BBC ‘professional’ awaits, if not offered/embraced already.
Ten per cent? Good, it seems to have gone up somewhat. Before too long the court backlog will be so long that only a wanker will buy a TV license – the chance of being fined will be minimal.
As for courts dealing with serious crimes, slaps on the wrist can always be imparted by coppers issuing warnings, like now.
I have never seen an opinion poll about BBC left-wing Guardianista Bias. I have seen reports of BBC bias and misinformation on Russia Today which is biased against the west, and therefore allows critics of western institutions in Britain to have a say. I have also read the many articles on BBC bias in the Daily Express, Daily Mail and the Telegraph, but the BBC Guardianistas live in a world of their own, interviewing their own journalists instead of experts, censoring opinion on their website, radio and carefully selecting the people they interview in the street. But in the real world, we have for instance a future debate in Mensa about the extraordinary level of bias at the BBC in censoring scientists at Oxford when it comes to Climate Change, presumably because they have been ordered by the scientific fraudsters at the UEA not to allow us to have a say.
When the BBC compulsory licence fee is abolished and replaced by a voluntary subscription fee, we will find out just how popular the BBC really is. Till then, those of us who believe it does follow a biased agenda, has dumbed down the nation in numerous ways through its programmes, has become the largest media influence in the UK to the detriment of the nation and its democracy, and who object to having to pay for incessant leftist, liberal, statist propaganda, will continue to draw viewers’ and listeners’ attention to just how far the BBC has strayed from it’s public service charter which it is legally obliged to follow.
Black mothers won’t let them talk back”.
Correct, but stabbing and shooting back is encouraged.
“The latter is a blatant lie…”
Gasp! You mean characters in a fictional drama aren’t always telling the truth???
Outrageous.
…and, sometimes I suspect that Postman Pat isn’t actually a real person 😮
A new level of dumb even for you David
There are lies which are part of the drama, and broader lies about society at large which are deliberately intended to misinform.
If a play (fiction) about a Muslim girl made a sweeping and untrue generalisation that incestuous child abuse was common in Muslim families , I cannot even begin to think what an uproar there would be, but tell lies spreading negative stereoypes about ethnic British is fine in your book, it seems.
Nuff said!
Have you actually listened to the drama Aerfen?
The “play” wasn’t making sweeping and untrue generalisations; the “characters in the play” were. Do you see the difference?
And yes the characters were being racist whilst peddling their own negative stereotypes of a certain class of “white British”.
Of course, they themselves were another negative stereotype of a certain type of “smug-middle-class-left-wing-do-gooder” (one , I might add, trotted on this blog on a regular basis).
That was kind of the whole point!
Yes I listened.
The play was very much in the form of ‘nitty gritty’ realism and the “characters” were allowed to make sweeping negative racist generalisations which extended beyond the remit of the play about the ethnic majority in broader society, with NO suggestion that these were wrong or should be questioned.
The second character, the Scottish teacher, far from challenging this view, supported her with examples. You cannot seriously be suggesting that this was intended to provoke the listener into questioning the prejudices of the teachers? LOL!
The racist example given was incidental , to the storyline too, and if you were correct, and the *point* of the play (which is debateable) was to be critical of the middle class do-gooder, then it was totally superfluous. They could have shown their class prejudice without muddying the waters with race.
The test is would the BBC have run the same play with a black or Muslim child, even a Tinker child in the role of Maria, and made the comparable negative comments about her ethnic group.
You know what the answer is don’t you Dez?
So you are saying that characters in a play are unconnected to any message the playwright might be pushing?
Are you serious?
Are you asking Dez or me? No I am certainly not saying that.
I was asking Dez. The nesting of the postings on here can get a bit confusing sometimes, I’ll admit.
‘So you are saying that characters in a play are unconnected to any message the playwright might be pushing?’
Hard to see it any other way. Though…
‘The “play” wasn’t making sweeping and untrue generalisations; the “characters in the play” were.’
…possibly the characters selected took on lives of their own and the playwright simply noted down what they said? So really, it’s like BBC ‘analysis’ then. Or what ‘sources’ provide. Filter facts, with inconveniences left of the floor of the edit suite, that are the only version of truth because they say so.
If not an answer, with explanation, would be well worth hearing.
[prepares popcorn]
‘”We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, l…uniquely uni-directional thinking.” Ben Stephenson BBC Drama Commissioning Controller – Guardian, July 16th 2009