Monthly Archives: July 2012

The BBC has a wonderful device that gives it carte blanche to rewrite history or at the very least to put a preferred spin to it.

Programmes or projects like the ‘New Elizabethans’ for instance…’To mark the Diamond Jubilee, James Naughtie will be presenting 60 profiles of men and women whose actions during the reign of Elizabeth II have had a significant impact on lives in these islands and given the age its character, for better or worse.’

A list of 60 Brits who have had some sort of impact on Britain….all ostensibly chosen by the public but the final choice was the panel of historians selected by the BBC…and then it was down to the old lefty Jim Naughtie to write and present the biographies….so no chance of any left leaning re-interpretation of history then?

I have only heard a couple of programmes but, perhaps I was just unlucky, it seemed that being a left wing activist was a sign of heroism and saintliness whilst if you were a right winger, well you’re not really someone to praise but you did do some good work regardless of your politics.

A remarkable omission is of course Gordon Brown….a man who for whatever reasons kept Britain out of the Euro whist also managing to destroy the economy….shurely shome mishtake to omit the man who for 13 years bestrode the world like a colossus and then went on to save it?  Perhaps the BBC would rather we just forgot what’s his name and transfer our allegiances to the New Pretender, the offspring of Marxist aristocracy, Red Ed.

Another such programme is ‘A History of The World In 100 Objects’. Whilst it may have  originally been a programme intended purely as one of historical interest it is simplicity itself to change the narrative and emphasis slightly so that each object is now a device to illustrate the scientific genius of medieval Muslims, the artistry of ancient Africans, the building talents of ingenious Incas and so on whilst contrasting that with the greed and violence of European colonisers whose own artistic, scientific and architectural achievements were only made possible by robbing the defenceless natives of conquered lands.

This is made all the easier because many of the objects have little or no ‘provenance’, they are what they are and you may have little idea or evidence as to what that meant at the time they were made and used.

So how do you interpret how they were used or their significance to their own society?

Reading the book based on the programmes (and it is a very good book worth shelling out for) you find that deriving a meaning from an object is not so easy….discovering its social, cultural and ‘industrial’ impact is often based upon inspired guess work….or what the book calls ‘The necessary Poetry of Things’.

If you wish to reconstruct what went on in times past you must ‘interrogate and interpret the object as deeply and as rigorously as any written evidence.’

How is that done? By using considerable leaps of imagination…re-imagining cultures by relying on our intuitions, imaginative interpretations and a capacity for poetic reconstruction of the past.

They also tell us that ‘A startlingly large number of objects bear on them the marks of later events…frequently later interventions which were designed deliberately to change meaning or to reflect the pride or pleasures of new ownership. The object becomes a document not just of the world for which it was made, but of later periods which altered it.’

Who can argue with that? The objects certainly do become something new in the hands of the BBC…small time bombs from the past targeted to destroy our beliefs and confidence in our own culture and history and undermine the basis of society.

As the BBC is fond of telling us….everything you thought you knew about your past is wrong!

Heads Buried in The Sand like Ostriches…or is it Emus?…Can never remember which….the BBC always refuses to bring itself into the discussion when talking about ‘The Media’.  It produced a programme on the media’s influence on politics last year….but didn’t mention itself once.

The BBC considers itself a ‘Torch Bearer for Truth’ and I suppose that as such it believes it can do no wrong and so actually defies engagement on a rational basis with any suggestion that it is not only the most powerful media organisation in Britain but also the most influential.

Such a reluctance by the media to step into the lime light and accept its responsibilities has been noticed by others….as quoted by Julian Petley, a left wing academic who abhors censorship but launches abusive attacks on what he construes as right wing writers who don’t adhere to his ideology.

However in his confused rant here…he comes up with a couple of quotes that sum up the BBC itself rather than the targets he was aiming for (the Right Wing Press):

‘As John Lloyd argues in What the Media are Doing to Our Politics: ‘the media have an unwritten rule not to divulge their power … They make and re-make the versions of the world with which we live – and yet when the news media represent the world, they largely excuse themselves from it’. Or as David Walker puts it in his contribution to the New Politics Network pamphlet Invisible Political Actors, journalists ‘rarely write about themselves or their own political responsibilities, and they almost never write about the organisations and interests of the organisations they themselves write for’. From the way in which most journalists write and speak about their work, one would never guess that they are employed by what are now some of the most powerful institutions in society. Furthermore, because they refuse to acknowledge their power they also refuse to acknowledge the responsibility and accountability that go with power – whilst at the same time, of course, constantly insisting on their right, and indeed their duty, to scrutinise and hold to account all other power holders. Consequently, as Will Hutton put it in the Observer, August 17th 2003: ‘Britain’s least accountable and self-critical institutions have become the media’.

The BBC to a ‘T’…lacking any self awarenes or any inclination to confront the problems so often highlighted by its critics….and so powerful that no one dare tackle it head on.

Here’s something to think about…does mass immigration and globalisation lead to not just rising crime but also to a new immorality when the boundaries of the State and Society breakdown?

The BBC have gone to town on Barclays and Bonus Bob Diamond….but stay strangely mute about Labour government involvement…from which there was definitely a significant intervention….if only by deliberate omission in not tackling the rate fixing when it was brought to their attention by several sources.

The BBC are also reticent about immigration and specifically Labour’s deliberate ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Britain, which was ‘too hideously white and/or British’ and too unlikely to vote for Labour or entry into Europe.

The BBC are also reluctant to investigate the effects of mass immigration and the reckless abandonment of border controls allowing in…well…no one really knows who or what has been let in to the country.

Open borders mean no NHS, no State schools, no welfare system, no State housing, no workable tax system or legal and police organisations….it does mean a massive rise in crime though.

It also means something else….as Peter Oborne pointed out today on ‘Capital Justice’….the globalisation of the world, the mass immigration, the breakdown of national states, the much freer movement of people, means that there is no loyalty to a nation, no sense of obligation to the nation or community and therefore neither to the people in it…or anywhere in fact….there are no physical borders but also no moral boundaries….individuals have lost their morality because they no longer take their values and beliefs from what was their community.

G.K Chesterton said ‘When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything’.  That’s true just as much for secular beliefs, laws and moral values…when you lose the restrictions placed upon you by your society you don’t just pick up another nation’s values you become a loose cannon making it up as you go along, whatever suits you and of course the further you get from any prescribed value system the further you get from a set of anchors that limit your actions….any thing goes because you no longer know what is right or wrong….there is no ‘baseline’.

Labour knew this and believed that a new population imported from abroad would not have any ties to Britain, they would have no loyalty and feel no obligation to retain centuries old systems and values…in other words they would vote for European integration and never vote for the symbol of Old Britain…the Conservatives.

It also means that international businesses, such as banks, lose their sense of moral purpose and a restraining hand is removed along with the old fashioned ‘ethics’ that they might once have considered before entering into any course of conduct….leading to a ‘make money at any cost’ impulse.

Such an important subject with massive consequences for British society and the future, and yet the BBC duck the issue almost completely…if it is raised it is within tightly constrained limits that mean you will never hear the true extent of the upheavals and future dangers that mass immigration and ghettos of immigrants with no intention of ‘integrating’ present.

At least Oborne managed to slip that one past the censors…mass immigration and globalisation leads to immorality and a valuless society.

The BBC proselytises for Islam at every opportunity as in this instance drawn to our attention by B-BBC reader Alex;

“In what can only be described as a loathsome article, the BBC exude unbridled pleasure in announcing that Muslims are more efficient at passing on their faith than Christians: what the BBC conspicuously fails to mention is that Islam isn’t slammed on a regular basis by media socialist secularists, the gay rights lobby and those who aggressively and vociferously seek to ban Christian symbols in the work place; all of which will undoubtedly influence young and impressionable minds. It also doesn’t mention that Christians are becoming ever more sidelined by a secularist agenda which is too afraid to treat Islam in the same manner. Oh, they also forget to mention the lovely Madrasa schools where children are beaten into submission as evidenced by Channel 4’s recent documentary. Do Muslim children really have a choice whether or not to continue their forebears religion? If you’re a fan of Islamic groveling then you may wish to read this. Please Note: if you’re easily upset then look away now!”  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17023858“

The danger of BBC bias runs deep at so many levels. Take this example flagged up by one of our many eagle-eyed readers;

“Just thought you’d be interested in this appalling brainwashing on the BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies website. Please Note: compare the following entries for Islam, Christianity and Judaism within the War and Peace section of the site which looks at the role of waging war in each of the religions.

I have highlighted some salient quotes which go some way to conveying the BBC’s differing tone towards each – and guess which one comes out the more positive, peaceful and loving???? Judaism comes the worst, surprise, surprise…. I certainly hope this particular section of the curriculum doesn’t find its way into any Jewish households any time soon!

1)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/islamrev1.shtml

‘Islam is a religion of peace in which fighting and war are seen only as a last resorts’

(Try telling that to your normal Israeli, American or Londoner!)

2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/christianityrev1.shtml

‘Most Christians believe that war and fighting are wrong except in the most severe cases and they base their views on Jesus’ teaching about love’

‘Most’ – who are the odd ones out then???

3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/judaismrev1.shtml

Jewish scripture and ‘Just Wars’

‘In the Jewish Scriptures there are examples of wars. Some of these were Holy Wars where the Jews were trying to maintain their religion when other people wanted to make them worship false gods. Others were perhaps ‘Just Wars’ but it could be argued that some of them were wrong and unjustified.’

‘Others were just perhaps wars’  –  Wow, what wonderful scholarship!

A B-BBC reader notes;

“Read the BBCs blurb for the film Arlington Road showing on BBC 1 tonight. :-

“Conspiracy thriller about a college professor who is prompted to research extreme right-wing groups after his wife is killed in a bungled FBI anti-terrorist operation. When the strange behaviour of his new neighbours leads him to suspect them of being terrorists, he is unsure whether he is being paranoid due to the stress of losing his wife or if something really is terribly wrong.”

I’ve search every description of the films plot that i can find, & the BBCs version is the only one that includes the phrase ‘extreme right-wing groups’

…strange.”