Monthly Archives: May 2013

 In 2004 David Goodhart wrote this:

Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state?

Too often the language of liberal universalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of place and people. These affinities are not obstacles to be overcome on the road to the good society; they are one of its foundation stones. People will always favour their own families and communities; it is the task of a realistic liberalism to strive for a definition of community that is wide enough to include people from many different backgrounds, without being so wide as to become meaningless.

And in the Guardian:   ‘Migration is now much easier than it used to be, and millions of people would come to live in Britain if they were free to do so; the left must abandon a romantic attachment to open borders and acknowledge that too much openness threatens many of the values it most cherishes.’

He says he was torn apart by many on the liberal left who favoured mass immigration and multiculturalism.

A more measured but still negative response came from Kenan Malik:

‘The real problem is not a surfeit of strangers in our midst but the abandonment over the past two decades of ideologically based politics for a politics of identity. The result has been the fragmentation of society as different groups assert their particular identities – and the creation of a well of resentment within white working class communities who feel left out.’

Malik, in 2013, is still opposed to Goodhart and the theories in a new book Goodhart has written about immigration, The British Dream, and any discussion about immigration…the real problem not being numbers but management:

‘Goodhart’s three key themes – the gap between the elite and the masses, the erosion of social solidarity, and the problems of multiculturalism – are all crucial issues to address. The trouble is, we cannot begin to address them until we stop being so obsessed by immigration.

The real issue, in other words, is not immigration, but the policies enacted to manage diversity.  And the real problem is not that government policy has been too laissez faire, as Goodhart suggests, but that it has been too cackhandedly interventionist.’

In The Guardian  responding to that new book by Goodhart, The British Dream:

‘Sadly, such is the myopic vision of misanthropes who live in fear of their country.’

The BBC though is prepared to give Goodhart a platform.  Not just once but at least three times to examine his thoughts….they may not like it but they can no longer ignore the issues completely….

On the Asian Network., on R4  two weeks ago along with a couple of immigrants…to provide ‘balance’, and now on ‘BOOKtalk’.

I can only think that Goodhart, being a Liberal from the Demos think tank,  is considered a safe bet when talking about immigration…A Liberal clearly can’t be racist, whilst racism is clearly the basis for everyone else’s desire to control immigration….though he has described his views as stemming from a  ‘post liberal attitude’.

He lays to rest the favourite myth of the Left…that Britain is a nation of immigrants…saying that since 1066 there has been essentially no immigration of any significance numbers wise.

The second myth he scotches is that there is an economic benefit from mass immigration…yes skilled immigrants, and immigration on a small scale can bring benefits but an open border policy doesn’t….and will destroy the welfare state system….schools, NHS, benefits, housing etc.

He says what is forgotten is the interests of the existing population and that we must encourage less zealous multiculturalism based on race or religious identity.

Britian, he says, is far more segregated than we realise….if we do not stop the mass immigration and fail to integrate new arrivals we will have a population that retreats into their own ‘tribes’ and that ‘public space’ will shrink…ie there will be ‘no go’ zones for different races and religions…and people will be more reluctant to pay into a state system that is seen to be paying out to people who hold them in actual contempt.

Life will be harsher, more violent with a racially divided nation.

That’s a vision of the future that the BBC has helped work towards…blindly supporting mass immigration, refusing to allow discussion about the consequences of immigration and refusing to accept that multi-culturalism means the death of a ‘Nation’…with all the conflict that entails.

The question is does the BBC even recognise its own role in all this?

Here is Nick Robinson investigating the effects of immigration:

‘While politicians are catching up with the public by debating how to limit immigration, people are increasingly asking questions not just about who should now be allowed to come here, but how to achieve integration in a society which has changed dramatically in recent years.’

So it’s only those politicians who get the complete blame then.  And where are the BBC’s questions about who should be allowed to emigrate here?

Unfortunately as you can see from Robinson’s report the BBC is still not prepared to come to a conclusion….Robinson sits on the fence..he said he ‘studied the impact of immigration’….but where is his conclusion?  There is none.

The BBC….paying lip service….but still avoiding the issue.

Something for the BBC to chew over should they get around to discussing the causes of the financial crash.

Andrew Bailey (in the Paywalled Sunday Times), deputy governor for prudential regulation at the Bank of England, said:

‘The crises that lead to such big changes often follow long upswings in economic and financial conditions that are allowed to go to excess.  Light touch regulation in the run-up to the start of the financial crisis in 2007 supported expansionary growth in the balance sheets of banks – which was literally too good to be true.

Two important principles stand out for me:  first that we must carry out financial regulation with an eye on conditions in the real economy…and second we should always be prepared to look to risks ahead, and exercise sensible judgement.’

A pretty damning assessment of Gordon Brown’s policies.

Strange that whenever a Tory politician raises the matter of Labour blame he is told that that is old history….the Coalition has been in government for three years…the hamstrung economy is now purely their fault.

Pretty soon there won’t be any 70’s or 80’s TV that we can watch if this goes on much longer.

Yet another BBC star…and yet another one whose activities the BBC may have turned a blind eye to…..

BBC managers turned a blind eye to Stuart Hall’s regular practice of luring young girls into his dressing room, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the Jimmy Savile sex scandal, a former studio worker claimed Hall took a ‘string of girls’ into BBC Manchester, sometimes describing them as his ‘nieces’.

Gerry Clarke said: ‘Of course they [BBC managers] were aware of what was going on  … Stuart could do what Stuart could do.’

Greg Dyke, in the paywalled Sunday Times, suggests that the stars were allowed to get away with behaviour that other people would not:

‘In television, presenters and stars have always been protected in a way that the rest of us never are, in terms of the way organisations work.  They would always protect them.  But it’s difficult to establish the truth.’

Greg Dyke, in an interview with the Sunday Times (Paywalled)  says that Entwistle, whilst way out of his depth,  was betrayed by the very man that was supposed to protect him….Chris Patten.

You might argue with that….protect Entwistle…even when he’s obviously failed?  Though failure might be ‘excused’ by his newness in the job and inexperience.

Dyke goes on to ask:  ‘Where was Lord Patten when the going got tough? Lord Patten did a runner…his response to that crisis was to hang Entwistle out to dry.’

Dyke says Patten is ‘damaged goods’ and should really go.

One thing of note is that he suggests that Tony Hall has probably become the ‘most powerful DG in history…and that has to be good.’

Dyke doesn’t elaborate on that…no explanation as to why he thinks Hall is now so powerful, nor what the consequences of that might be…other than ‘it has to be good.’

Firstly, my apologies for this having taken as long as it has.

For those who don’t know the history, the QuestionTime LiveChats were run using CoverItLive. They decided to bring in a new charging scheme which caught us (and many others, including Guido) in its net, so we dropped it.

Having tried out a variety of alternatives; some free, some with a small cost, we think we’ve found one that’s not too bad.

There is a trial version installed over on another server called questionti.me so that if we break it when we’re testing, the main site is not affected.

Even if you haven’t taken part in the LiveChats before, we’d be grateful if you could head over there for a few minutes, create an account on that machine (option at the bottom of each sidebar) and give it a go please?

Please leave any comments in the LiveChat session over there. I’ll leave it active for a few days to give everyone a chance to play.

Thanks in advance

AllSeeingEye

. 

The BBC’s programme about Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch – Battle With Britain, you might have thought would be the ultimate hatchet job.

Murdoch, the BBC’s arch enemy, right wing, Thatcher supporting, the BBC’s most dangerous political and commercial rival…but he was also everything the BBC loves….an immigrant bringing innovative, radical, revolutionary ideas to break the Establishment monopoly, a Leninist Labour supporter who gave the People a voice.

In fact the programme was probably a big disappointment for the Guardianistas who must have choked on their own dismay as they watched in shock the BBC undermining myth after myth that have fed and nurtured the Left’s hatred of Murdoch for years…even this morning Toynbee was blaming Murdoch for a conspiracy against Press regulation proposals based on Leveson….ignoring the fact that just about every newspaper and publication are also against them.

The programme exonerated Thatcher for allowing Murdoch to buy the Times…..a meeting that was supposedly a secret stitch up between Thatcher and Murdoch was shown to be nothing of the sort and that even the most vocal critics of the deal said Murdoch was the best candidate.

Steve Hewlett , presenting the programme, let the objectivity slide a bit though….as after having conclusively cleared the deal he then said  that of course there might have been a secret deal…but we’ll never know because that is the nature of a secret deal.

That’s pure speculation that feeds the conspiracy theories…and the facts he had just presented showed otherwise…he had the minutes of the meeting which revealed it was entirely innocuous.

The programme carried on in that vein…the worst that could be said was that it concentrated on the ‘sleaze’ aspect of the Murdoch stable’s output….ignoring the upbeat nature of the Sun, certainly when contrasted with the downbeat, miserable leftwing Mirror.

However the one problem with the programme was one that must raise a few questions about the BBC and it’s relationship with the Labour Party. 

Hewlett told us that there was a crisis so serious that it threatened to destroy everything Murdoch had built….a period of crisis that became the worst days of his life.

That was of course the phone hacking scandal, especially the hacking of Millie Dowler’s phone and Leveson.

But how did Murdoch come to be under such a concerted attack by his numerous and politically motivated enemies?

That we never learned from this programme…once again the sins of the Labour Party have disappeared, hoovered up by the BBC’s clean up squad, 13 years of tragic corruption and incompetence  quietly disposed of.

The programme does tell us that Blair and New Labour joined forces with Murdoch….no Murdoch no Sun, no Sun no New Labour victory.

Strangely however,  no mention of Murdoch’s support for the Iraq War.

Andrew Neal told us that there was no question that Murdoch’s relationship with Blair and Brown was far closer, far more intense than it ever was with Mrs Thatcher…..at least 25 people from each side, government and News International, were deeply involved in an intermeshed, close, deep relationship.

And?….nothing…absolutely no examination of who and when and what resulted from all that intermeshing of personnel….not even a peep about all those weddings, pyjama parties and meetings.

For a start Hewlett could have looked at Tom Baldwin, Times Journalist, who planted stories in the Times for Labour.  Where does he now work?  For Ed Miliband as his chief spinner…or ‘intevention coordinator’

Instead the next we heard from Hewlett, skipping those 13 years, was that…‘the blurring of boundaries continued with David Cameron’…..in fact, he said, the relationship was possibly even deeper.

But what was the most startling omission?  The fact that the Sun had declared that it would not support Labour at the next election and that an enraged Gordon Brown then declared war on Murdoch…once again not a peep….astonishing given the seismic reaction to that declaration by the Sun.

This is from the Mail which reports how upset Brown was about the story of his son’s illness and other ‘criminal’ activities of News Corp…and yet he did nothing….

Gordon Brown today laid bare his family’s anguish after Rebekah Brooks revealed she had seen his baby son’s medical records – and intended to publish a story about his illness.

In an extraordinary interview, the former prime minister described how he and his wife Sarah had been in tears after speaking to the then editor of The Sun in 2006.

Mrs Brooks had told Mrs Brown that she knew four-month-old Fraser had cystic fibrosis – something which was thought to be known only by the family and medical staff – and that the paper intended to run a story.

The Browns were devastated. Speaking to the BBC today, Mr Brown said that he was ‘incredibly upset’ at the thought his son was going to be ‘broadcast across the media.’

He also accused News International of using the ‘criminal underworld’ to obtain information and said that the company’s tactics had been totally ruthless and ‘disgusting’.

Brown said:  ‘I just can’t understand this – if I, with all the protection and all the defences and all the security that a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a prime minister, am so vulnerable to unscrupulous tactics, to unlawful tactics, methods that have been used in the way we have found, what about the ordinary citizen?’

And yet he did nothing….why?

There must be little doubt that if Murdoch had continued to back Labour the phone hacking scandal may never have seen the light of day.  After all even when Brown believed the Sun had obtained his son’s medical records and when his bank account was accessed…he hadn’t pressed for an investigation of Press behaviour.

The Sun’s defection was probably the major turning point in Murdoch’s relationship with Labour, the one that set him on a collision course with a group of rivals intent on destroying him and his News empire…and that included the BBC which actively campaigned against him.

A major turning point that Hewlett completely ignored…after dealing comprehensively with Thatcher’s relationship with Murdoch.

How is it possible to miss 13 years of such a close and intense relationship between Murdoch’s business and the Labour Party and the eventual massive falling out which was so destructive?

A relationship that must have had enormous consequences for the country if tales of the influence of Murdoch are to be believed.

Once again the BBC has buried inconveniently difficult revelations about Labour and its shameful record in government.

It is utterly remarkable how Labour, and especially Gordon Brown, get wiped from history…their economic record barely acknowledged, the effects of their policies ignored or downplayed and Labour’s economic plans continually endorsed.

Have at it.

I think it is fairly well accepted that the Left hates white people, Empire (British), Christians, Western industrial and commercial success and dominance, the USA…and Mrs Thatcher of course.

They have worked relentlessly to undermine everything that has brought that success to Northern Europe, the USA, Australia and other countries that have successfully dragged themselves out of the mire under Western influence….Israel especially.

Mark Mardell has helpfully put into black and white the very mindset of those Left wing wreckers:

Remember, wealth and power were pretty evenly distributed in the world until around the 16th Century. The rise of the British and other European empires, with their technological and ultimately military superiority, threw the world out of joint.

The US was heir to that, with the added power and zest of its expansion. In two world wars American intervention was decisive. Without its political commitment much of Europe would have been behind the Iron Curtain, and arguably the Cold War would have been lost. 

Those defenders of America who attack knee-jerk anti-Americanism are rather missing the point. Those all over the world who might say they are anti-American don’t hate Jimi Hendrix and Woodie Guthrie, Levis and denim, Andy Warhol and Jack Kerouac.

They don’t, usually, hate freedom or democracy, but a certain cynical exercise of America power sheltering behind those values.

Is it a melting pot of immigrants from many lands, some unwilling, where Korean and black and Hispanic culture is celebrated every bit as an English or German heritage?

Or should newcomers, bring no more than a few folk songs from their old home, and squeeze into a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of what it is to be American?

More importantly will American values, often honoured in the breach nowadays, have transformed the world into a place where democracy and freedom of speech are unquestioned values?

Then America would have been mighty indeed

I’ll leave you to Fisk it if you wish….like shooting fish in a barrel.

The BBC has investigated accusations of bullying within its own precincts.

Looking at the report it seems to be a reasonable attempt to handle the situation fairly.

However as always what the official line is and what the ‘frontline’ says are often different. We know that the BBC is by law required to be balanced and impartial. We also know that that imperative is roundly ignored at ground level. (See Biased BBC!)

Having listened on and off to the radio today I received the distinct impression that the presenters were trying to downplay this.

They reported it in depth but their conclusions were somewhat less than judgemental.

The general secretary of the NUJ was quite sure of what was happening:　

“It is quite clear that bullying has become an institutionalised problem at the BBC, one that has taken hold over many years,” said Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary for the NUJ.

However I heard several times presenters state that ‘This isn’t widespread’…or ‘It’s historic’…suggesting that this wasn’t really an issue…or not a significant one.

I heard someone complain that certain newspapers would be trying to discover who the ‘untouchable stars’ were…‘pursuing the story for their own reasons.’ (No link but I think the comment was made by Lucy Adams, director of BBC Human Resources)

Well yes, that’s their job.

Can you imagine if this was a story about the Police or the Army?  The BBC would be all over it.

Just look at this story from today in which the police wanted to hide the identity of one of its officers accused of theft:

‘The broad accusation from journalists is that the police are increasingly secretive and it’s becoming harder for reporters to find out what the police are doing and why.’

Slightly different case as this is one of theft but if it had been a case of bullying in the police by a senior officer the BBC would have been demanding to know who he was.

‘So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity.’  [Not Islam?]

Outstanding piece of BBC hypocrisy which shows just how incomplete and favourable the BBC’s coverage of Islam and Islamically inspired violence is as it is prepared to publish an article linking violence and mainstream Buddhism.

Here the BBC are reporting ‘A problem of anti-Islamic feeling in Burma.’  A phrase used by Rachel Burden I believe a couple of weeks ago as she reported on the violence in Burma.

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

 Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?

Aren’t Buddhist monks meant to be the good guys of religion?

However any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power. Buddhist monks looked to kings, the ultimate wielders of violence, for the support, patronage and order that only they could provide. Kings looked to monks to provide the popular legitimacy that only such a high moral vision can confer.

 If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.

Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of “freedom-loving nations”, all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.

So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity. [or Islam?]

Burmese rulers, known as “kings of righteousness”, justified wars in the name of what they called true Buddhist doctrine.

Sri Lanka’s powerful Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was guest of honour at the opening of a Buddhist Brigade training school, and referred to the monks as those who “protect our country, religion and race”.

But the anti-Muslim message seems to have struck a chord with parts of the population.

Many Buddhists share a sense that their nations must be unified and that their religion is under threat…… they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit.

 From the BBC website:

Christians and War

The main Christian view of war ethics is contained in the doctrine of the Just War.

The basic assumption of modern Christians is that war is rarely justified and should be avoided unless the Just War conditions are met.

For many centuries Christians believed that it was right and proper to use violence (and thus war) to spread the faith and deal with its opponents. They did not regard violence as an inherently bad thing: whether it was bad or not depended on what it was being used for.

From Constantine onwards Christian writers and preachers have used warlike and soldierly metaphors in their writing about the faith.

The idea that violence is not inherently bad can also be seen in some versions of the Just War doctrine – violence (war) can be a vital tool in restoring justice and peace.

Islam and war

Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.

In brief, war is permitted:

• in self defence
• when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
• if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

Islam is in favour of peace and against violence. Murdering the innocent leads to punishment in Hell.

Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur’an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it).

The Qur’an emphasises that war should be fought only for noble motives without seeking any earthly reward.

Buddhism and war

Non-violence is at the heart of Buddhist thinking and behaviour. The first of the five precepts that all Buddhists should follow is “Avoid killing, or harming any living thing.”

Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict.

Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.

That being so, it makes you wonder why the BBC isn’t claiming that these Buddhists attacking Muslims in Burma are not ‘perverting’ Buddhism as it does for Muslim bombers in the UK?  Are they not the same mere criminals or madmen?

Is Buddhism not the religion of peace that the BBC website says it is?