And so the new week starts and I see the BBC are on the attack using “zero hours” as a means to try and undermine growth in the employment figures. Another whole week for them to suggest that Ed Balls calls it right!! Anyway, here you go, a new open thread to help balance their bias!
MONDAY OPEN THREAD….
Bookmark the permalink.
Nicky Campbell (and whoever that is at the back end of his panto horse this morning) are most sniffy about the Simon Cowell stories in the red tops today.
‘The Sun and Mirror are still obsessed with Simon Cowell’.
‘Well they would be’
The BBC chuckleheads on 5 Live then procede to spend a 5 minute fest on the BBC/Dr Who story.
Well they would, wouldn’t they….
I’m afraid that panto horse has two back-ends, or three if you count the adenoidal dalek who reads the sports bulletins
Have you ever wondered why there’s so many blacks are in contrived, preposterous roles on television ? always cast in a positive light, such as brain surgeons, scientists, astronauts, 12th century knights, like in Merlin, Sir Elyan. Anglo Saxon England must have been brimming with ethnics !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mjlxv/heroes/elyan
The Latest offering was ‘Looffaa’, they’re never cast in a negative light, like ghetto rappers, criminals or rioters, odd that, isn’t it. Do you think that’s all a coincidence or deliberate ? Hmm…
This website is most enlightening.
creativediversitynetwork.com
Well, I suppose King Arthur is largely a fantasy, much like the BBC news. One key phrase to look out for is “exciting new drama from the BBC”. Translation: Features a black man in a suit.
”Well, I suppose King Arthur is largely a fantasy”
Yes, it is a fantasy, but why did they specifically pick a black actor and not say a Chinese, native American, Aborigine or Hasidic jewish actor then ? are they not entitled to roles ?
“Yes, it is a fantasy, but why did they specifically pick a black actor and not say a Chinese, native American, Aborigine or Hasidic jewish actor then ? are they not entitled to roles ?”
Because he was playing the brother of a previously established character? Because he can act? Because pandering to the views of an antisocial racist who gets his kicks from being a vile little man on the internet isn’t exactly at the forefront of a casting director’s mind?
What was at the forefront of casting director’s minds back in the day was a bit of an eye-opener when I read Norma Jean’s bio.
Luckily it was a different time?
‘playing the brother of a previously established character?’
Good to hear certain continuity levels are still needed maintaining for credibility in a fantasy plot line.
PNG
Re-arrange this well known phrase or saying: “Off Fuck”.
Oh, bless. Thanks for trying to raise the level of discussion in your own unique way.
The pleasure was mine Scott.
P.S. How much do you get paid to spout your lefty drivel? – Nice little earner, eh?
‘Because pandering to the views of an antisocial racist who gets his kicks from being a vile little man on the internet…’
Scott, sometimes you ask for it, luv.
You are quite right that, often, people who object to black characters being on TV are ‘vile’ and ‘antisocial (sic) racists.’ That you would come across them (steady Scott) on a ‘right-wing’ blog is inevitable.
However you could try a little harder to understand what people are on about when they complain about racial anachronisms. It is ridiculous to cast a black man to play a saxon or a celt warrior. Even if the chaps presence is explained by some woeful plot line it is still an anachronism. Worst still it is one based on a racist assumption – that people who are not white cannot watch a TV programme that does not have someone of their own ethnic grouping in it. That is just plain political agitation and the BBC has no right to take part in such.
If you cannot see this obvious truth yet consider this. Would you expect a series based on Zulu mythology to have a white actor playing Umvelinquangi ?
I hope they get a white actor, say, Dustin Hoffman, without blacking up, to play Nelson Mandela in the new upcoming film about his life.
They could also get Whoopi Goldberg to play F.W de Klerk .
Scott, do you think that would be contrived ?
Why not a Black or Muslim Hitler or Stalin, if diversity really is so important to promote? Does anyone recall the vampire film “Blackula”?
I’m just waiting for the day for a black actor to play Churchill, it’s bound to happen, just a matter of time.
” We”ll fight them,like, on the beaches, innit.”
Oh, yes.
It’s the clumsy, patronising tokenism of it all that grates. You might say that black actors need jobs too and that’s fair enough. Why not make some all black programmes then – they have a radio channel devoted to asian music don’t they?
But I can’t take much of the BBC’s output seriously, because while I want interesting drama entertainment, their prime aim is to show a world that just does not exist.
In a sense a lot of BBC stuff is science-fiction – presenting a world of the future when there actually will be fewer white ‘oppressors’ and a totalitarian government can impose their diversity quotas without hindrance.
they have crimewatch
I did note how that one particular programme has a full quota of diversity players – plus loads. It must absolutely give the BBC programme director sleepless nights : “Aren’t there any white crooks in Britain??”
Oooh! Scottie brought up the “R” word! He’s trying to close down the argument, by deliberately misreading the thrust of the argument.
Come on now Scott, why do TV producers only cast black actors in heroic, positive roles? How come we never see them as drug dealers, criminal gang members, pimps or other unsympathetic roles? You can even go back as far as “The Bill”. All the villains were white.
It takes American TV series such as “The Shield” which often cast blacks and Latin Americans as villains. Although the main characters were white corrupt cops, the secondary villainous characters were nearly always of black or Latino ethnicity.
It seems that British TV is reluctant to show ethnic minority characters in a negative light, which isn’t how it is in real life.
Ignoring my previous question, Scott? Somehow that’s just typical of you. You only post rants and verbal assaults.
Let’s try again and see if you can answer this in a grown up way without resorting to accusations of “isms”
Can you tell why British TV producers only seem to cast black actors in positive and sympathetic roles? Why are they never shown as villains? Please don’t go all the way back to the 1970s cop shows – I’m talking about the past ten years or so.
Mind you, I’m up to series 7 of Dexter and there hasn’t been a single black serial killer yet. Plenty of white and Hispanic though. I guess they don’t get so upset being portrayed negatively.
Not BBC but in a similar vein, I was recently looking at YouTube clips of the Adams opera ‘Nixon in China’. It looked, surprisingly, quite good but a lot of the comments complained that the Chinese characters were played by white singers and that was disgraceful etc. A few days later I went to see Les Miserables in London, where one of the main French characters was played by a young lady of Oriental origins. She had a lovely voice but nobody complained that a white role was played by a person of Chinese, or whatever, race. I also remember a stink some years ago when a white girl was picked to play the lead female role in Miss Saigon – the unions would not allow it.
I don’t have a problem with this personally, but the PC police who get very agitated about which roles are allocated on a race-basis only work their attacks one-way. This is typical of the Race Relations industry, where only a non-white can be subjected to racism, and only a white can be called racist.
The single ethnicity of all those eager pioneers disembarking from the Windrush in Danny Boyle’s multicultural extravaganza contrasted strangely with those black mill owners striding around in top hats.
Prepared to bet any lead romantic females were not from the less than comely community, too.
Some inclusivity on TV is a ratings compromise too far.
But they appear able to live with it when necessary.
And why not some Muslim women in burkas playing roles in top shows?
We could imagine tjheir actions and feelings underneath if we were only less prejudiced.
And of course-Best Eyes Awards go to…Most Expressive Eyes…Best Bloke escaping the country or robbing a diamond store goes to?..
I`D watch it!…er..”insh`Allah”
If a series is made by the BBC then it can be taken as read that black characters will be introduced who will be shown in a positive light, but also in historically anachronistic roles.
However, a skeleton has recently been found in the graveyard of an old monastery, forget where it is, which has been identified as that of a black male of African origin. The site where he was buried was reserved for knights and other nobles. While it’s very debatable that black people were in Medieval Britain in the numbers shown in Merlin, there is archaeological evidence that there were some at that time and achieved high rank.
I have to admit that I liked Merlin as a series. It had good story-lines and the acting was good. It also didn’t have the “in-yer-face” propaganda that the awful Dr. Who has. I classed it as fantasy and therefore wasn’t so bothered about having a black Guinevere. Angel Coulby was good in the role, by the way.
Merlin was one of the few BBC series that put an entertaining story before propaganda. It wasn’t supposed to be a history lesson, just entertainment.
I was sorry when the series ended.
‘It wasn’t supposed to be a history lesson, just entertainment.’
Trouble is, Andy, I’m not sure any kids watching could make that distinction, so in theory it’s yet more brainwashing of our young i.e. to support the Leftist narrative ‘We’ve always been a nation of immigrants.’
In an ideal world, parents would correct any PC re-writing of history in TV programmes. Unfortunately, after 43 years of comprehensive education in this country, it’s probably too late.
http://news.discovery.com/history/medieval-african-england.htm
One man from Tunisia does not make a vibrant multi-cultural society.
“Bolton said it was extremely difficult to find evidence of any Africans in England between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Age of Exploration”
“”I believe that this is the first physical evidence of Africans in medieval England,” said Jim Bolton, a historian at Queen Mary, University of London who wasn’t involved in the discovery.”
So, just another talking head, then.
Creative Diversity Network
” Diversity, diversity this, diversity that,” I think they said ‘diversity’ 500 times, the way they speak about ‘diversity’, it’s like a brainwashed cult, bit like Jonestown. Note, comments underneath the Youtube clip are not allowed, the Left doesn’t like diversity of thought. If you’re a white, male, heterosexual, Christian, you’re no longer wanted, get lost !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyXZHO17JA
I think what I object to is precisely the kind of thing your first link points to – the casting of Afro-Caribbean actors in roles that are historically, contextually – even explicitly – inappropriate. We see this kind of thing time and again across all broadcasters (we saw a lot of it in Danny Boyle’s Olympic opening ceremony – Afro-Caribbean victorian industrialists/gentlemen of means..?), but especially on the BBC – by far the biggest and most egregious reapeat offender in this respect (of course).
I’m sure Adetomiwa Edun is a fine young actor; but he is a completely baffling choice to play the role of brother to Guinevere (!) in Merlin – unless, of course, you are a paid-up member of the Common Purpose ‘diversity’ police who seem to gleefully ride roughshod over all pretence of historical accuracy in their agenda-driven dedication to re-writing historical context to suit the current ‘diversity’ meme.
Albeit this is a ‘fantasy’ series, so perhaps we are simply invited to accept without question that in Merlin’s vision of Dark Age Britain the presence of Afro-Caribbean knights was so commonplace that it was barely worth a mention. I’m guessing that this is what the BBC wants its audience to think, which does beg the question that if one struggles with such conspicuously inappropriate shoehorning of ‘multiculti’ casting in such programmes does that make one, in the eyes of the BBC, a ‘racist bigot’ for raising such concerns or merely someone struggling to re-write historical truth in a genre piece?
Sadly, I think we all already know the answer to that one.
One of the more incredible claims I’ve read is that the black population of London was between 10,000-20,000 in the early 18th century. There were indeed a small number of blacks in London at that time (even earlier in fact), but their numbers were in the low hundreds and it was not until World War 2 that the total black population in the UK reached a few tens of thousands. We can be reasonably sure of numbers due to the extensive parish records and other sources.
Whilst much of this re-writing of history is just wishful thinking by the liberals, some of it reflects a lack of scholary methodology. For example, a liberal sees a picture by Hogarth and notices a black face in it. Hmm… he thinks, what was the population of London at that time – 200,000 or so? There are 20 people in the picture, therefore 1 in 20 must have been black, meaning 10,000 in total. To be on the safeside, let’s double the numbers to make it 20,000. Having spoken to a number of liberals, this really is the thought process of some of them, as it gives the answers that they wish to hear. From there it is but a short step to have TV programmes and films that reflect this alternative reality.
I have just finished watching a very interesting programme on BBC4 (safely away from the masses)
Britain on Film, a series using the Rank Organisation’s Look at Life documentary shorts to examine British society during the 1960s.
What struck me, was how they looked at a good cross-section of British society, in the 1960s from working classes up to high society, in factories, shops, barbers, parties, parks, offices, fashion shows and everywhere, and there were only white people in it.
Even the crowd scenes. Not a foreign looking face to be seen anywhere. That is how I remember the Britain of my childhood.
Yet the BBC today tries to pretend that Britain has always been multicultural.
The BBC are revisionist liars.
BBC Children’s programmes are the worst, the multicultural indoctrination has to start early. For example ”Leonardo” about the early life of Leonardo Da Vinci. His friend is Machiavelli who is played by a black actor !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/articles/niccolo-character-profile
Also, In the Florence street scenes, you had black actors in bit part roles in the background, walking up and down the street. As if 15th century Italy was teeming with Africans !
What I hate about this is, it’s not accurate and it’s subtle multicultural brainwashing, children don’t know any better, so they would think this is a truthful description of Renaissance Italy.
“…What I hate about this is, it’s not accurate and it’s subtle multicultural brainwashing, children don’t know any better, so they would think this is a truthful description of Renaissance Italy.”
David, I think this is the point I am also making. It’s that bit about ‘historical accuracy’. However unpalatable by today’s standards, surely we all, including the BBC (especially the BBC), owe our kids the historical truth?
I see that this topic is already being trolled by the usual useful idiot because some here are daring to raise completely legitimate questions around the issue of wilful miscasting by the BBC within it’s historical factual/fiction broadcasting – one supposes this is done by the Corporation to both meet its ‘diversity’ targets for ethnic representation on-screen and to further its ‘progressive’ ‘multiculti’ agenda in the wider sense (the latter being very much the more important of the two).
To such trolls, even the asking of the question is itself a crime worthy of a visit to 101 for ‘re-education’ on the ‘diversity’ doctrine.
One simply must not be permitted to express even the merest suggestion of dissent without being instantly branded a racist. I guess this is what they call being ‘progressive’.
”One simply must not be permitted to express even the merest suggestion of dissent without being instantly branded a racist.”
Ah yes, the dreaded ”R” word, the Lefts nuclear bomb. What ever we say, we’ll be branded ”waaycist”, so we might as well say what we think. The ”R” word has been so over used, it’s now meaningless.
What ever we say, we’ll be branded ”waaycist”, so we might as well say what we think
What utter bollocks. You won’t be called racist if you stop coming out with nonsense like “the Met is 99.9% white so Idris Elba shouldn’t have been cast in Luther”, “The BBC didn’t report the Taekwondo scandal because a white man was dropped from the British team” (it did report it), and all the other nonsense you come out with.
Nearly every post you make on here is about skin colour, and how people who are not white are somehow above their station in whatever they do.
If it walks like a racist duck…
If it walks like a racist duck
Is it a French White? Buff Orpington? Swedish Yellow?
How about a Black East Indian?
I know that racist duck. Wears an EDL t-shirt. With his mates he forced some poor stubby-brown feathered unfortunate out of town. Tried to learn the goose-step but gave up ‘cos he couldn’t stand geese.
That’s just quackers …
ta dum! ;P
”What utter bollocks.”
An apt description of all your comments ( demented rants ) on this website.
”You won’t be called racist.”
Scott, I think you’ve screamed ”waaycist” in every post you’ve written.
So, Scott, to support your accusations of racism, please explain where in the above posts anyone has been criticised personally purely because of their skin colour.
Scott, can’t you stick to the questions at hand? Once again you dredge up previous posts as a way of diverting the line of discussion. It’s not good form and proves you come onto this site to disrupt and patronise.
You really need to up your game, or is it beyond your pay grade?
its only monday and scott’s coming out with both guns blazing. he certainly is full of spunk today. good weekend scott?
That whole series never claimed to be historically accurate. Lisa Geradini never posed as a man to serve as an apprentice to Verocchio. Lorenzo de Medici and Leonardo were not the same age. The theoretical designs in Leonardo’s sketch books, accumulated over his entrie lifetime, were not built and executed while the man himself was a teenager.
But hey, it’s the black man David Brims complains about. What a surprise.
Yes my child is not watching Leonardo. Besides the whole multi culture aspect I swear he’s wearing training shoes as well.
History re-written in front of your very eyes.
Remember when the BBC cast a black actress as Nancy in their last version of Oliver Twist? Certainly not what Charles Dickens intended.
Phil one small point of pedantry. They couldn’t have been Afro Caribbean Knights back then as there were no African slaves in the Caribbean, they would have had to have been Africans.
I do agree with the sentiment that history should not be altered to suit some stupid multi culti ideal and casting black or Asian or Chinese people as, say Saxons, is ridiculous just as a white Nelson Mandela would be.
Have you ever wondered why there’s so many blacks are in contrived, preposterous roles on television ?
No. But then I don’t wonder why Arthurian era knights aren’t talking in Old English, either.
Nor while I sit watching a drama do I look out for black actors that I can moan about. Just as I don’t make up false statistics to shore up my own racist views, and then act like a prissy little girl when I’m challenged on those views.
”Have you ever wondered”
” No.”
Well, Scott, that comes as no surprise, usually you will find simpletons, like yourself, are not curious about the world around them.
Oh well done, Brims. Delete the contextual element so little old you can try and have the last word.
Go you. Hope that makes you feel a little less bad about yourself.
Scottie, sometime the incongruity of the casting is so obvious, any reasonable person WOULD wonder why it was done.
I’M sure you would be the first to cry “FOUL!” if a white actor was chosen to black up in a modern version of “Othello”.
Scott, you act like a prissy little girl in every post of yours. Ever tried having a grown up conversation?
This from Andy S.? The same Andy S who was up in arms about a “false flag” post he found offensive and assumed was by someone out to discredit the site – but when it turned out to be genuine, suddenly wasn’t offended by it any more?
The same Andy S. who trots out the same “if you hate it so much why don’t you just leave” comments every time the debate clearly isn’t going his way?
The same Andy S. who leaps to David Brims’ defence every time the latter concocts fictional stats to back up his racist fantasises?
Do you really want to continue to pretend that you have any claim to the moral high ground?
Dredging up previous posts to divert attention away from the question I TWICE posed to you? You’ve ignored what is a reasonable question about why TV producers only seem to cast ethnic minority actors in sympathetic, positive roles. Now why haven’t you answered it?
By the way, you keep referring to a post I made some weeks ago about you trolls posting abusive and disgustingly racist comments on this site under “false flag” operations in order to discredit this blog. I’ll refer you to a quote from the film “The Usual Suspects” – ” The Devil’s greatest achievement was convincing people he didn’t exist” – much like your constant protestations of “false flag” posts.
Now, Scott, are you going to behave like an adult and answer my question?
By the way Scott, you lie when you accuse me of constantly jumping to the defence of David Brims’ “fictional stats to back up his racist fantasies.” I think most of the posters on this site are adult and big enough to defend themselves – probably better than I could. I only challenge trolls like yourself when I think your posts are abusive, unfair or downright disingenuous. There are a couple of accusations in your post that are total fiction, but lies emanating from your fevered imagination aren’t going to lose me any sleep.
The need to provide work explains the presence of black actors but what explains the absence of Asian actors?
Black actors take their places as supporting actors, but rarely important supporting roles. Is this just tokenism?[youtube]http://youtu.be/SWhhPWyWCv0[/youtube]
It is interesting how everyone debated whether the next Dr Who might be black or possibly a woman. The betting patterns reflected this. No-one considered it could be an Asian doctor despite Asians being much more populous in Britain than black Afro-Caribbeans. It’s South Americans I feel sorry for – they may as well not exist.
This country has had a small ethnic population for thousands of years and we have treated them relatively well in comparison to our European neighbours. The Arthur story is set in the Romano British period when the ethnic population of this country is likely to have been rather high considering the diversity of those who settled here after their time in the Roman Army. Sorry to bring a few facts into the discussion.
Hopefully, then, you’ll be able to point us in the direction of the historical Arthurian tale in which Guinevere’s brother (presumably also a Knight of the Round Table) is a black Afro-Caribbean – you know, in the interest of getting our ‘facts’ right.
As the actor who played the character comes from Nigeria why would I want to do that? One of those niggling facts getting in the way again, I suspect.
Fine – the actor playing the knight is of Nigerian origin (how silly of me to suggest he might be Afro-Caribbean). No matter, having accepted your word on his country of origin, can you please tell us where in all of Arthurian literature it is mentioned that Guinevere’s brother was infact a black Nigerian? I’d just like to ‘contextualize’ the BBC’s decision to cast him.
Merlin was based on, not a carbon copy of, the Arthurian myth. There is so much that is wrong historically about the show yet you pick on the ethnicity of one character. It is at least possible that the son of a blacksmith in post Roman Britain could have been of sub Saharan heritage, unlike Camelot being a Twelfth Century French castle.
Fair enough; I hope you can appreciate that my problem is not at all with the fact that the actor in this instance is black; my issue is entirely with the decision to (in my view) force upon this role an ethnicity that has very little do with the historical context of the story (and I appreciate this is a fantasy tale, but it is derived from a tradition of established historical Arthurian literature) and everything to do with the BBC’s commitment to ‘diversity’ simply for diversity’s sake.
Yes, this is a petty quibble, I appreciate that; but we see this deliberate misappropriation of historical context time and again in BBC Drama’s mischievous casting decisions. What next? A Nigerian Mr Rochester?
I suppose ‘diversity’ demands it will have to happen sooner or later?
Historical figures should not have their ethnicity played around with but literary ones must be fair game. I do think that it is rather sad that the BBC adds in ethnic characters for quota reasons if only because it is rather insulting to the talented actors they abuse in doing so.
Here’s another one.
Whatever next?
Imam Tuck?
Maid Maryam?
Walid Scarlet?
Allah a’Dale?
Much the mullah’s son?
The Caliph of Nottingham?
Amazing. Perhaps King Alfred was a Rasta who unified the country by passing his joint around the Witangemot.
Robin of Dreadloxley?
Dat’s why he burn de caaakes, maaaan.
How many “black” Romans were from sub-Saharan Africa? Nubians, perhaps, but I would expect largely Mediterranean.
A bit like the often repeated claim that Othello/Otello must be played by a black actor without specifying that he should be North African.
Maybe the casting directors find it hard to tell the difference . . .
Facts, eh?
“This country has had a small ethnic population for thousands of years”
Well, yeah: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Scots, Welsh, Cornish. Depends what you mean by ethnic, really. If you mean those with a higher melanin content, then there’s not so much evidence to support that assertion.
“The Arthur story is set in the Romano British period”
Debatable. It may have its historical origins (if any) in that time, but the bulk of the Arthurian legendarium that we have today is much later, primarily 11th/12th century, and some of the most famous elements (Lancelot, the Grail) invented by Chretien de Troyes. That is the ‘mis en scene’ for pretty much every retelling ever since (with the notable exception of Arthur of the Britons, of fond memory). Any lingering non-north-European population would long since have been dissolved into the mainstream by then.
“the diversity of those who settled here after their time in the Roman Army”
Which was what? Most of the troops stationed in Britain were from northern or central mainland Europe anyway, very few from further afield.
You are confusing your arguments. Arthur would appear to a historical figure after the Romans left. Britain like all Roman colonies would have had people from its entire Empire, just like the British. Therefore people of African/Middle Eastern descent would have been common as there were no racial issues.
There have been many Arthur films made with everyone white and in 12th Century garb. Oh, and in Merlin there were black baddies. I had to endure the entire series with kids and until someone mentioned that there were no black badasses on BBC it hadn’t even crossed my mind that there are. We have moved on
*facepalm*
‘We have moved on’
This ‘we’ being?
Surely not the pre-pro and edit suite variety who seem oddly variable in which ‘groups’ can get popped into shot in dramas, and which get quietly left out of ‘news’, to taste?
Art & life, eh?
It’s a balance, one supposes, but a rather unique one.
I’m not sure I’ve got time for this, but . . .
“Arthur would appear to a historical figure after the Romans left.”
Not quite: there may have been a historical figure of that time (or perhaps a number of figures conflated into one) who gave rise to the earliest of the Arthur legends. Not the same thing as ‘Arthur’ being a ‘historical figure’. But, as I say, most of what is now told about Arthur is not from that time, so the political and demographic situation in southern Britain in the mid 5th century AD isn’t really relevant.
“Britain like all Roman colonies would have had people from its entire Empire, just like the British.”
Some, yes; but mostly from nearby regions. From the eastern or North African parts of the empire, not so many, apart from maybe a few traders and their descendants. When the Roman armies departed, so would many of them, if they hadn’t already left as the western empire declined, or become so interbred as to be indistinguishable.
“Therefore people of African/Middle Eastern descent would have been common as there were no racial issues.”
An assumption. Define ‘common’. relative to northern and central Europeans, pretty thin on the ground, unless you have evidence (say, from tombstone inscriptions) to demonstrate otherwise. Sub-Saharan Africans I’d say were pretty much absent.
So, your first paragraph is speculation. Not sure what the point of your second paragraph is.
If we are honest the Arthurian legends have been expanded and elaborated every century they have been told. If version you read the original legends and then read a Victorian edition of them you’ll find the stories are different and different characters. The image of Arthur in 14th Century armour seems to have developed during the 19th Century, especially in the paintings of the Pre-Raphaelite school. The fact that the writers of Merlin adapted, and in some instances added to, the stories is nothing new. The only thing omitted from the Merlin stories was the Christian ethos which permeated the original “Mort D’Arthur” tales as written by Sir Thomas Mallory. You could say the Merlin scripts were written for a modern secular society.
The BBC remains fully committed to the view that the Boston bombings, in which 3 people were killed and more than 260 people were injured – some extremely seriously – “were nothing to do with Islam”. This is despite the fact that the suspects, the Chechen born Tsarnaev brothers, were self-styled Islamic extremists known to the authorities who cited Islamic causes during and after their capture. Their motivations have yet to be proven in a court of law but the views of the FBI in this regard are certainly well documented.
Tonight’s Panorama is about an alternative or supplementary view that the suspects were actually right-wing extremists… An article on the BBC website states: “One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings was in possession of right-wing American literature in the run-up to the attak, BBC Panorama has learnt”. The giveaway phrase here is “…has learnt”; this is general BBC-speak for “we would like you to think” or “we have made this up”.
The article helpfully continues “Tamerlan Tsarnaev subscribed to publications espousing white supremacy and government conspiracy theories.He also had reading material on mass killings. Until now the Tsarnaev brothers were widely perceived as just self-styled radical jihadists.” Some of the examples quoted are “articles which argued that both 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing were government conspiracies” and “reading material he had about white supremacy commented that ‘Hitler had a point'”.
In fact there is nothing in the least surprising about this. Outlandish conspiracy theories about 9/11 are extremely popular amongst radical Islamists as well as others, usually along the lines that the Americans and/or the Zionists (Jews) organised it so they would have an excuse to wage war in Muslim lands. Admiration of Hitler is also strong: Mein Kampf remains a top-seller in many Arab countries. The fact that the Tsarnaevs may have read, possessed or subscribed to such material does not mean they were ‘right wing’ or held White supremacist views, any more than the fact that Anders Breivik quoted extensively from the Koran and Karl Marx meant he was a Muslim or a Marxist.
It is possible that Panorama will tell us something we don’t know. But it looks more like part of the liberal establishment’s ongoing attempt to promote a sanitised version of Islam and to equate the more glaring excesses with a largely imaginary and parallel right-wing threat. It is part of an intentionally distorted world view that seeks to show similarity between people who go around hacking off a soldier’s head in a London street in broad daylight, and those who shout abuse outside a mosque after the pubs have closed. Neither are acceptable, but nor are they comparable. Except in the BBC.
Thanks for this background Ian.
None of us need watch it, now we know that the usual “kite flying” by way of trailing “something that Panorama has learned” was the sole reason to put this turd of a notion onto the 8am news bulletin earlier.
Funny thing is though, that everytime they attempt to “learn things to report”…they seem not to learn from the likes of North Korea, Primark, Savile(or lack of)…yet , they continue their journey a la Dorothy…Goodbye Yellow Brick Road as ever…hello the road paved with (frankly largely evil) intentions…still leads us to Hell, but only quicker.
Still-to enjoy Jack Douglas, Leslie Phillips and Brian Rix attempting to fly a rainbow kite with Bonnie Greers ribbons for a tail should be fun.
What can possibly go wrong?…”hatcha fway”
I was going to give this a miss. However since it looks as though the BBC is going to try portray them as further to the right than the Tea Party, I’ll record it. Can’t actually watch because I’m currently doing an archery course on Monday evenings. Having quit smoking, I find I’m suddenly rich. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are Thai Boxing and Jiu Jitsu. Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see if the Beeboids offer any proof of their claim of right wing material, or it turns out, yet again, to be the BBC wishing what they claim was true. Personally, my money’s on the latter.
archery course eh.
Friar Tuck, has thou seen my beloved Robin?
He is verily behind the greenwood tree, m’lady.
Then I shall go thither and seek him, Friar.
Ermmm I’d wait til he comes back out, m’lady.
🙂
Exactly, Ian. It’s the Truther stuff he’d have been interested in, an idea very popular among Mohammedans, not the topics the BBC finds dangerous or worrisome. If the Boston Bombers were Truthers, it would be a very interesting revelation, but certainly wouldn’t discount the influence of an extreme interpretation of their religion. If anything, it would only reinforce that notion. There is no question about that, and it would be a shame if the BBC attempted to undermine this fact. Yes, defenders of the indefensible, it’s a fact.
BBC keeps telling me a report suggest more people are on zero hours than previously thought. They never mention who the report is from.
‘They never mention who the report is from’
—
Never say never.
But for now, it’s possibly down to A. Symmetric Journalism.
It’s legal, but has no integrity.
Seems ironic that many BBC types seem be on zero work contracts but still get paid full hours though.
As the Labour Party are all at their summer dachas they have left the BBC in place as the official opposition. A handy arrangement.
Heard this morning’s Today programme describe English golfer Charley Hull as a “17 year old woman”. Trayvon Martin was only a boy.
Some time ago I heard some leftie charity bint justifying 12 year-olds having sex and being prescribed contraception without their parents’ knowledge by describing them as ‘young women’. On the BBC. Totally unchallenged.
The definition is flexible to fit the agenda.
The definition of Leftist isn’t so flexible. Leave it with you.
Disturbing that certain groups see children as women….
Indeed. They also persistently speak of school children as ‘students’
Now to my mind ‘students’ are young people attending Colleges and universities, in other words minimum age sixteen, and mostly young adults over eighteen.
It`s one long masochism strategy at the BBC isn`t it?
Look…I know that all they need do is to read the Guardian first editions at 5.55am before Humph, Evan etc get their skinny lattes from a pliant intern or two…but when I heard their stuff just before 8a.m on
a) Scottish child abuse-as done by the Catholics of course, and
b) nasty employers and their zero-hour contracts
it only tells me that more BBC blowback is coming-any investigative reporter worth a damn will surely find that the BBC haven`t even BEGUN to muck out the Augean Stables re Savile, Hall, Ross/Brand, Balen and tax-efficient payoffs for the likes of Lesley Douglas and George Entwistle.
I myself am working on a script for we future “Today” interviewees to read out on air about their hypocrisy, stupidity and wish to fall on the Islam sword and die…their pay rates and crocodile tears, as they live as leeches on thinking honest people.
I will say this while ostensibly feeding little Courtney with chips as I sway around Salford in my disability scooter, whilst swigging Buckie…let Today decide whether this is a drink-driving offence.
F*** off Evan-for you to care about “zero-hours 9am”
shows that Elton is not the only gay rocket man and fantasist.
And at least Elton has talent, kids and does a good tune too!
A couple of weeks ago I saw Portillo on Andrew Neil’s late night programme. He said that the reason why the challenge of the BBC to some of the coalition’s policies was weaker than it had been on Tory governments was because the BBC felt it had no right to challenge a government that had over 60% of the votes.
Well what about the other 40% who didn’t vote for the coalition? Don’t they deserve a strong voice from the state broadcaster who should fully represent all of the main strands of opinion in the country? Obviously the same argument requires that the BBC properly represent the views of the large number of the population who don’t want Britain being turned into a multicultural , over populated country.
The whole notion of a state broadcaster in a democracy is fatally flawed. It simply cannot deliver the plurality of views and comment that a democratic society requires. Far better to have all news and current affairs brought to the people via a range of outlets with differing views and opinions and people are free to choose which ones they wish to pay for.
The BBC is simply unable to deliver what a democracy needs and should be shut down.
It is very scary because influencing what people think is a very powerful tool! The BBC didnot want the public to hear the than PM Tony Blair on foreign policy as they knew he was a good speaker and people might choose to agree with him. So they simply didnot broadcast his speeches – despite a 8 minute standing ovation in Washington DC – nothing at all on the BBC and later his speech in las angeles in 2006 was reduced to “this is what the PM meant to say”on the 10 o clock news .
And because his speach was full of lies from beginning to end. The BBC just wanted to show the congress giving him a standing ovation.
Oh…that Boston bomber turns out not to be a real Muslim after all.
All those jihad sites and Allah Akhbar ruses…when really(according to the BBC on the 8am news/Radio4) he was an embedded gun lobbying white supremacist after all.
He only was a naughty little boy, bit angry over something-NOT ISLAM either, don`t go there!-who “attached himself” to the caravan of love that is Islam!
Case closed…and here`s Glenn Griswald of the Guardian to tell us of his joy….how come we get left withe the likes of him and not Chevy Chase and his family?
Islam is NOT to blame, but we`ll do a bit of renovation work in assorted embassies worldwide until they`ve slept off Ramadan/Eid/todays excuse to bomb us…BBC is just a cargo cult for this kind of madness…so North Korea!(which is why John Sweeney felt so at home in both)
The BBC are still pushing the narrative that these (including Lee Rigby’s ‘alleged’ killers) are just ‘madmen’ who would attach themselves to any group or ideology for convenience. Evan Davis was at it the other week on Today, putting words into his interviewee’s mouth. Same again on the BBC news at lunchtime today.
They don’t know when to stop.
”I’m sure Adetomiwa Edun is a fine young actor.”
Gosh ! it’s a litany of vowels.
The left-leaning Resolution Foundation yet again on the R4 Today programme this morning (their favourite think-tank). Naturally, it was not described as left-leaning – it never is. The Conservative Party urgently needs a ‘rottweiler’ in the Campbell mould to force the BBC into some semblance of balance.
The Rule of three.
I now see any BBC news and analysis as being done by one of the three freaks/vulnerable/disturbed types that accompanied Dorothy as she sought her red shoes( how apt eh?…friends of Dorothy an` all)-The Wizard of Oz”.
Whether your news comes from the coward, the thickie or the autistic/OCD one is neither here nor there…to the BBC as long as you hear from any from two of them…then that is “balance”…so off you go!
Islam knows that the BBC wizard is probably fiddling his expenses-or with underage girls-behind that booming curtain…and would rather IT took that place, seeing as there`s so much competition for Jihad Seekers Allowance as well as ex-virgins from care homes wanting to meet Savile-with or without a Toto!
Creepy.
Glad to see the grand dame of breakfast radio has a new joke.
Apparently whenever anyone mentions a two-syllable compass point, in jumps the dame with,
‘Zadezolaysouwes’ or ‘zadezolaynorwes’. At which stage there’s a mass corpsing, snorting, ahoohaha-ing, chuckling and cackling by the dame and her studio monkeys.
I should think this one’s got about six months to run judging by how long lasted ‘yerve ony gorragoogle thatcher ‘n’ paedophile’, and ‘wobouplebgay’ and ‘wobouandoomichul’
The Daily Mail tells us that Nick Robinson has threatened to kill a cockerel that crows outside his Suffolk cottage as he takes a holiday (the cockerel I mean…the BBC work 24/7 for the taxpayer, remember?).
He made his threat on Twitter….now then, where do we start what with Womans Hour telling me of Twitter abuse etc.
Is Nick a Francophobe, anti-male, avianist hate crime perp?…is this an offensive, inciting Tweet deserving of both RSPB and Suffolk police involvment?
Or simply cockist?
Find me Keir Starmer somebody….what a strange name, I grant you!
Cockist maan!
Hold the front page! A male BBC employee who doesn’t like cocks.
Chris you know anything with a cock can be abused, violated, killed attacked on twitter but no cock and then abused, then you have the platform to launch your career.
The cock must be silenced in proper halal fashion … or I won’t be responsible for the “spontaneous” outbursts of anger that may be whipped up.
Giles Dilnot yesterday morning on Radio 5
”Next year, the government will be marking the anniversary of the start of the First World War with celebrations !!”
” Celebrations” ? I think that’s the wrong word, commemoration is more suitable.
I wonder if Scott can find any ‘waaycism’ in that comment, come on Scott, you can do it.
Well if going by the new BBC liberal history rewrites ,our trenches of ww1 were full of white working class British men who spent their days trying to kill foreigners after invading France to start the war so we could be nasty to the Germans and bring about ww2 because Churchill made it happen to get his hands on power and due to racism of the British conservative empire not as many young black men were killed in the trenches as new equality quota would have demanded !
See bloody Tory’s fault again !
!
Like the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: “Witch” (Ties in quite nicely with the Merlin stuff too)
“Celebrations” are also a variety of chocolate, chocolate is brown….what else is brown?
So, logically, if celebrations are brown, and you say “celebrations” is wrong, therefore, you must be….
A wayyyyysist!
Check this story out, a black activist dresses up as a chocolate cake in Sweden to highlight female mutilation in Africa. Cue uproar from the race hustlers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eivcagwvbQk
So very very typical…
If they didn’t commit acts of FGM in Africa, then there would be no need for this “Waaaaaaaaysist” symbol to appear in the 1st place….what do they want do folk to do, in highlighting FGM?….make a cake that depicts a white woman?….I’m sure the Beeb would approve, they love to twist the truth so somehow it’s all evil whitey doing bad stuff.
Any women out there, would you rather be “waaaaaaaaaaaacially abused”, or have your clitoris removed with a chunk of rusty metal?
Just askin’
I will just repeat the comment I made on you Tube
FGM is obscene and immensely cruel and it happens in the Black community not the White one. If drawing attention to this is deemed Racist by the usual morons, then shame on them I say as they clearly don’t care about the black victims.
Back to Lefty Top Trumps – I’d guess Racism beats Women’s Rights.
How many millions have been spent on funding “meat” produced from stem cells, that can be made into a poor quality burger (only, of course, with various extra colouring and flavouring added)? Lord knows, but it’s all good stuff, because according to the BBC R4 news this morning (as mentioned twice in one report), it will “reduce CO2 emissions”. They didn’t explain either how it would do that, or why, considering CO2 is not a problem and has little or nothing to do with climate change (the BBC haven’t quite got around to revealing that truth, yet). They also said that world meat consumption was increasing.
Yet, in a later bulletin, they said meat consumption was decreasing world-wide. How confusing.
The money which must have been wasting “funding” anything into which the “scientists” can inject some reference to AGW, climate change, CO2 or some other eco-green lunacy, is phenomenal. But it clearly guarantees the granting of money.
The BBC are a bit confused between CO2 and Methane gas, but science is not their strong point. Apparently the methane belched and farted by the world’s cattle is contributing to global warming as it too is a greenhouse gas. If we can “grow” beef then there is less need for cows. Not sure how this will help feed the billion people in the world who are Hindus and can’t eat beef, though. The BBC love this type of story as it plays on environmental fears/fantasies and supports the UN anti-meat agenda. Or as Marie Antoinette would have said: “No meat? Let them eat insects.”
Plus meat production needs feed where alternatively foodstuffs to feed the out-of-control populations of the third world could be farmed, and uses squillions of gallons of water (y’ know, that stuff that covers two-thirds of the world’s surface).
I suspect that meat consumption PER CAPITA is falling very slightly but meat consumption TOTAL is going up. We are producing more and more every year so it is going somewhere, population is rising and needs feeding. From a few years ago:
http://owsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/oratio-obliqua-of-one-oxfordshire.html
“Anyway, re methane…they have to say this when awkward facts are pointed out like the most major greenhouse gas, by far, is water vapour, with CO2 about 30% of the water vapor total (not the overall total). Admittedly the 3rd worst offender is methane; the “23 times more powerful” merely means that methane is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but he fails to mention it accounts for less than 10% (some say less than 5%) of ‘global warming’.
Also look at the growth of the Brics – no MacDonalds in India/China 20 years ago – just as meat consumption has probably peaked here it will grow exponentially (along with associated obesity) as a US diet is adopted elsewhere!
This morning the BBC are dutifully reporting further threats to Mary Beard (and for the avoidance of any doubt, threats of violence are criminal acts and should be prosecuted).
But still not a dickey bird about this bomb threat that I mentioned yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10221309/Fracking-boss-Francis-Egan-receives-bomb-threat-over-shale-gas-exploration.html
A bomb threat that the BBC has chosen not to report. Why? ;
a) It relates to an industry that the BBC is agitating against, have no sympathy with or understanding of?
b) He’s not one of their own?
c) Because it’s been sent to a man?
d) Because they’re hypocrites?
or
e) All of the above
Mary Beard said on Stephen Nolan’s show that her house was going to be blown up at 10.47pm !!!
Why 10.47pm and not say 10.45pm or 10.50pm ? storm in a tea cup, or should that be thimble.
The use of “precise” information is a typical propaganda trick. The metholodogy is: if it sounds vague then it might be made up whereas something so precise must be true as who on earth would fabricate something so detailed? It is a variant of the technique of “cliched detail” e.g. “the Israeli planes killed 10 people at a wedding party” (it’s always a wedding party or a funeral). Another related technique is that of the “ignorant and illiterate opponent”. For instance, during the 1970s there was a phase of American liberals and academics allegedly being attacked for their views; the attackers would invariably carve or write a phrase such as “niger lover”, thereby proving how stupid they were because they couldn’t even spell the ‘N’ word (in reality, most of these attacks were self-infllicted so as to draw attention to the cause). It is of course perfectly possible that the Bearded one has misreported the alleged threat or has sunk into emotional left-wing reflex action (“ELWRA” as its known) when describing it on the Stephen Nolan show.
Mary Beard reckons someone tweeted that they would rape her.
The first question would be: is this tweeter mental?
Ahh yes Mary Beard that heavy hitting anti troll campaigner!
Who can forget her fulsome defence of women who have also suffered on line abuse and threats women like ,
Louise Mensch =
‘typical soulless rich whore’.
‘Louise Mensch… you would, wouldn’t you? Given half a chance you’d strangle her!
And many a lot worse plus death treats made about her children!
Or Melanie Philips =
‘Kill yourself you ****’’
‘vile, poisonous, horrible old woman’
‘Go and suck a tail pipe, get cancer, GET RAN OVER BY A TRAIN. I hope your ******* house burns down’.
I know maybe ,
Nadine Dorries=
“to set my car alight and watch the flesh melt from my bones as I burnt.’
“Another threatened to come to my house and fire bomb my car.”
And lets not miss out her and her ‘war on words’ fems army standing up the the anti Mrs Thatcher hatred on line !
Nope? me neither but oh hang on they are all something in common that means Mary/BBC can ignore their suffering ! !
What did people on BiasedBBC think of “Thought for Today” with Clifford Longley (around 07:45 on Radio 4) ?
I thought he made a fair point about not confusing Islamic extremists with other Muslims, and he did at least mention the murders of Christians in the Middle East; but it still all seemed to fit in with the general BBC line of playing down the cultural conflict between Islam and every other religion it comes into contact with. He even talked of a crucible and of forging a new relationship between Islam and the West!
Looking at it another way, can you imagine Melanie Phillips or Pamela Geller being allowed to give you their thoughts on the subject ?
You’re asking the wrong audience. Of course, the BBC is as usual directing their attempt to educate at the wrong audience as well. You and they should be asking Mohammedans about forging a new relationship, not lecturing the harmless British public.
If Islam was not a problem, then the Beeb would not have to discuss it every day….simple as that.
I don’t hear them discussing Hinduism daily, nor Buddhism, hell, they hardly speak about Christianity, unless a peado priest has been caught with his “Fingers in the till”, so to speak.
I heard this, but at first couldn’t believe what I was hearing – had the BBC let one slip under the radar?……persecution of Christians under-reported…..Pakistan……Africa…..Middle East…..fleeing……..murdered……..etc
But then…….turn the other cheek…….moderate Islam will prevail…….set an example to the world……
Normal service resumed………zzzzzz
Meanwhile the slaughter continues. How long will we have to wait for it to stop, Rev?
Clifford Longley and Catherine Pepinster (who the BBC also indulges) are the editorial team of the Tablet newspaper. The Tablet is the Catholic equivalent of the BBC and the Guardian. Longley and Pepinster are to orthodox Catholicism as the BBC is to impartiality.
It’s now posted so people can listen to it and make their own minds up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01dqzvc
I think we have to judge his words within a framework which is extremely hostile to what he has to say. He might well have wished to go further, but could not.
I feel that I am living in a state akin to communist Russia where I have to read between the lines to get to what people are really trying to say, but are prevented from doing.
Some really serious ‘news’ breaking on the world renowned BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143
Good God. What are we to do?
Paul “Comrade Kite” Mason is leaving Newsnight for C4 news:
As “It’s All Kicking Off” editor, they mean. Can’t wait to see which new Left-wing ideologue Newsnight brings in to maintain the current standard.
I will have to admit to the enormity of their balls if they bring in another Guardian journo.
Sorry pressed the wrong button DB!
Mason never recovered from this Paxman classic!
Ha – the raised eyebrow, the sigh. Priceless.
Paxo vs Comrade Mason Round 2
If Mason wants to see a real threat to democracy, he should come to the US for a few days.
Mason giving a passable impression of a shit-scared schoolboy brought before ‘the Beak’ to explain himself. Tee-hee!
Paxman doesn’t like him, does he? I remember once joking in the comments here that the reason Mason was usually on location somewhere was because he’s probably a Bolshie bugger that the others didn’t want around during editorial meetings. More truth in that than I originally thought, perhaps.
And talking of Mason in Athens – remember the report from the taverna with the poverty-stricken students where a bottle of bubbly disappeared and reappeared? Champagne socialism!
Paul Mason cares about the small shopkeepers??
That’s a laugh
Channel 4 has long been a ‘progressive’ propagandist – Jon Snow’s incessant pro-CAGW hectoring has been ample evidence of the channel’s real agenda. Gone are the days when CH4 was brave enough to broadcast anything like the exemplary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ – something for which it then grovelled and bleated in abject apology for afterwards. Since then, Snow has led the charge for the channel’s impeccable pro-CAGW credentials. The tiresome man cannot be retired soon enough for me, although news of Comrade Mason’s imminent arrival will no doubt engender a fresh round of shouty ‘on-message’ propaganda films on the subject. Can’t wait.
Comrade Mason defects!
Is that last word a verb…or a noun?
“BBC Newsnight’s Paul Mason joins Channel 4 News
Economics editor to leave corporation after more than a decade to become rival’s culture and digital editor”
By Josh Halliday.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/05/bbc-newsnight-paul-mason-channel-4-news?
Has Comrade Mason, and Father of the NUJ Chapel, ex-‘Newsnight,’ been converted to Channel 4 by the daily pro-Ramadan propaganda they’ve been running?
Zimbabwe:
Is it me or are the BBC acting like they think everyone should respect the result and move on. The African Union and South Africa are accepting the results so it must be true. All the evidence suggests otherwise and there are suggestions that ZANU-PF may have paid off other African countries to endorse the result but lets ignore that, they are all happy with the result so we must accept it and move on.
I know Mandela is too ill now, but I don’t recall him ever in the past being openly critical of Mugabe’s – what shall we call them – ‘over exuberances’.
On Sky News this morning Dermot Murnaghan must have been thinking of his BBC work & the need to keep Cred with his BBC colleagues, his voice increasing several octaves to display his contempt for the views of the Gibraltar MEP. That foolish fellow was suggesting sending a frigate to Gibraltar to ensure that the UK’s determination to stand with the Gibraltese was not in doubt. Murnaghan considered such an act outrageous provocation – irrespective of the fact that such movements must be commonplace at the Royal Navy’s Gibraltar base.
Do we have any frigates left to send?
What does E.U have to say about Spain’s hostile action towards Britain and Gibraltarians?
“Gibraltar MEP: ‘My constituents are being harassed'”
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-04/uk-concerns-over-spain-gibraltar-dispute/#gibraltar-mep-my-constituents-are-being-harassed_241485
Don’t worry, ‘Baroness’ Ashton will be over there like a shot to sort things out.
No, hang on, she’s the EU ‘Foreign Minister’.
Will it be Neil Kinnock then? Or the dude who stuffed us over the non-existent CJD epidemic? What about TinTin, what’s he doing these days?
Spain and Argentina, eh? – an ocean apart but so much in common….
“but so much in common”
To the point of Spain selling selling some old Mirages to them.
TBH at £500,000 a pop I don’t think that Madrid is giving away top-quality weaponry. Do we know whether the Mirages are clockwork, or do they work on the twisty rubberband method of propulsion ?
I always wondered what got those Pukaras off the ground – all that pastry and minced lamb filling, not to mention their odd triangular shape.
I think that class of Mirage is powered by an old 2CV engine.
I don’t think Eurofighter, the aircraft some wanted to cancel as it would be unlikely to be used in an air superiority conflict as in the cold war, is going to be too bothered by some last generation Mirages.
About 12.
really that many?
Click to access Management_of_marine_living_resources_in_the_waters_around_Gibraltar.pdf
If only there were still a Royal Navy base in Gibraltar. It was closed down by the dreadful John Nott during the Thatcher administration. Mind you, we only have 19 surface escorts left (13 frigates and 6 destroyers), so the Navy (if you can still call it a navy) does not need as many bases as it used to.
I was no fan of Sir John Nott but you have to give him credit for walking out on the truly ghastly Robin Day during an interview about Navy cuts in the early 1980s. Day described him as a “here today, gone tomorrow” minister and Nott decided that he’d had enough, disconnected his microphone wire and walked off. I remember Day thanking Nott sarcastically after he’d gone. Priceless!
Politicians of the Right need to be far more assertive with the BBC and much less polite. The BBC bullies won’t enjoy being bullied back and it might provoke more debate about bias. Cameron and Osborne are too soft on “Today” but IDS and others have shown the way.
Thanks for the memory, Mr Beebinator, that has brought a smile to my face after all these years!
As I remember that didn’t do John Nott any harm in the publics mind or the BBC any favours
I still think the Tories have got far more to gain than lose by adopting those tactics more regularly ,specifically with the BBC
The silence from the likes of Persona non grata and Dez and Albaman and A Journalist over at Rod Liddle’s Spectator blog is deafening.
British jihadis, go to Yemen
The British embassy in Yemen is to be closed for a couple of days because the Americans have got wind of a terrorist threat. The Foreign Office has gone so far as to urge all Britons to leave the fractious, arid, maniac-bedevilled wasteland right now. I think they should stay where they are. Any Britons visiting Yemen are either mentally ill or actually involved in plotting the very terrorist violence the FCO is worried about. If only we could persuade all of our trainee jihadis to export their talents to this desolate agglomeration of rocks and sand, Britain would be a happier and safer place to live in.
The thoughts of a racist, white, middle-aged, single male, BNP or EDL supporter, the tiniest of tiny minorities who should be scorned, or perhaps something else? I’ll ask our defenders of the indefensible directly: why are you wasting your energy and professed superior intellectual abilities on this site and not on Rod Liddle, a professional journalist who blogs on a far more influential and widely-read website?
Where are the threats of legal action we hear from you? Where are the personal insults? Where are your high moral values and priorities now?
The poor Dez’s of this world can’t compute Rod Liddle/Ex-Editor of Today/balanced argument.
Anyone see the newspaper review at 0550 this morning? No? I’ll skip over the important and get straight to the news of the new Doctor Who. One of the women, who’s name escapes me, apparently isn’t best pleased with Peter Capaldi being chosen. She also claimed that she only watched the show because her nine year old daughter made her. Twat! The woman, not the daughter. Her exact words were, “THEY’VE CHOSEN ANOTHER WHITE MALE!” To which my response was, “YES, BUT HE’S SCOTTISH, SO HE COUNTS AS A MINORITY”.
Obviously, little Miss Lefty couldn’t hear me through my television screen, but it made me feel a little better. To be honest though, I’m a little puzzled as to why she would insert the word ‘white’ into her little rant, since her only beef seemed to be that the new Doctor was not female. Though I’m sure I’m heard Moffat say last night that it had been established that the Doctor could change sex. So she may be happy as a pig in excrement to find that the 13th Doctor is a woman. It would not surprise me.
If that does happen, I shall stop watching. Unless they cast Carmen Electra as the Doctor. In that case I’ll happily watch it all day long. Personally, I would have liked to see Colin Salmon in the title role. I think he’s a fantastic actor. It also seems that a lot of the fan boys and girls have taken offence at the appointment of an older actor. Good. It’s because of them the Doctor has been slowly transforming into a live action cartoon. I’m really hoping that at some point, Capaldi will forget where he is and go Malcolm Tucker on a Cyberman. That would really upset the lefties.
Personally, I’m still hoping they’ll revert to the format used by the original series. I’m not holding my breathe though.
In the first series the Doctor went back in time as well as forwards – without meeting any creatures from out of space. As a child I always assumed they stopped this because it made producing the programme too expensive and making daleks out of egg boxes was cheaper.
Just as long as the new angry Scotsman is more the Doctor than the last one.
Personally I’m glad a fine actor has been chosen. In all shows there are bloopers and outtakes, Capaldi getting all sweary as a Daleks sucker falls off or a studio pleb wanders into shot would be wonderful to behold!!!
I was just about to breath a sigh of relief that uncle Paul Mason was leaving Newsnight……
BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight 2h
.@vicderbyshire makes her debut as a @BBCNewsnight presenter tonight, join her at 2230 on BBC Two!
Retweeted by Paul Mason
Aaaaghhhh!
BBC Newsnight = Carry On Socialism
A radio person? Paxman must be pleased…..
I might watch just to see if she’s as tragic on TV as she is on radio.
Don’t. It’s on late and you’ll not sleep tonight
She (Victoria Derbyshire) was on Womans Hour today, hosting a “Special” on child abuse. Now of course that’s a serious issue and one that needs addressing, but I wondered, why her? She seems to have a morbid fascination with all things repulsive and shocking; her radio show is a daily catalogue of misery, suffering, abuse and hardship. She regularly invites listeners to ring in with their tales of woe and despair – the radio equivalent of Misery Lit. She sets herself up as a victims advocate but to me she seems more like a vulture, preying on the carrion of human suffering.
You could substitute Stephen ‘Haw Are Ye Naw’ Nolan for Dreadfulshire in the above post.
And not content with his grief-farming he then has to replay the clip any number of times because ‘yon thur’s very powerful radio sourris’. Yer Stephen let the listener decide what’s important and what isn’t eh.
Ant to a (slightly) lesser extent Jeremy ‘Phone In If You’ve Ever Been Stuck Down A Mine’ Vine.
If he’d said ‘phone in if you’ve ever wanted to stick me down a mine with Victoria Pigthickshire and Stephen ‘Would You Look At Dat Dere Naw’ Nolan’ I’d have been first on the blower.
Watching it now.
Rhymes with ducking sight.
Lord, she is awful…………..
Huffington Post woman on now. Not sure who I despise the most but I know I won’t sleep.
They’ve been parading Dreadfulshire about the tv studios for some time now. She is hopeless, she will continue to be hopeless… but the BBC isn’t there for us, it’s there for her.
hashtag twitter agoodfaceforradio
hashtag twitter dittoanitaanand
Oh no You must be kidding. Oh well ever downwards. Still I can’t remember the last time I watched the crappy show so luckily I won’t be adversely affected.
EGYPT.
I can’t find this anti-Obama, anti-Muslim Brotherhood musical video clip on Beeboid site:-
“‘HEY OBAMA, YOU ARE STUPID, BAD MAN’: VIRAL EGYPTIAN MUSIC VIDEO ACCUSES OBAMA OF SUPPORTING TERRORISM, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/05/hey-obama-you-are-stupid-bad-man-viral-egyptian-music-video-accuses-obama-of-supporting-terrorism-muslim-brotherhood/
Egypt’s top general is of a similar mind:
“You Turned Your Back on the Egyptians”
Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt’s top general, has stern words for the United States.
Admittedly, this could be used as fodder for the “damned if we do, damned if we don’t, so why bother” crowd, but it sure isn’t proof that Mark Mardell has been right all along about his beloved Obamessiah’s deep, thoughtful foreign policy approach.
BBC 5 Live and Anna Foster interviews step son of Ian Tomlinson.
What does he think of the Met Police apology?
Based on this BBC report I would have had absolutely no hint that the apology was accompanied by an ‘out of court compensation payment’. Nice.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/05/ian-tomlinson-death-met-police-apologise-and-pay-compensation-to-family-3911681/
Are our BBC operating another of their ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policies here?
I guess the BBC want us to believe this case was all about ‘justice’.
Yeah right.
The BBC : Half the news all the time.
Is this the same family who didn’t want anything to do with him when he was alive?
‘It showed Tomlinson — who had a history of alcoholism and was estranged from his family — walking away from a group of police officers, and falling to the ground after he was hit and shoved by Harwood’.
Any mention from the BBC or would that have been making a ‘moral judgement’?
I too note the lack of mention of the “out of court settlement”-but the “apology gets mentioned every time.
How much are WE…the BBC audience who are taxpayers…paying the family of Tomlinson(who maybe are not the grieving loving family portrayed..wasn`t he homeless at his death?)?
Or …like the Licence fee…are we not to question the Met stumping up on our grandkids pensions , so the Tomlinsons can emote on the BBC…and the BBC get a chance to get the Guardian namechecked for its investigative reporting.
In other words-an American tourists filmclip on YouTube.
How much did the Tomlinsons get?…and why aren`t we being told, seeing as its our money?
Commercially sensitive I`m sure…
It seems that Ian Tomlinson meant more to his family in death (Kerchinggg!!!!) than he did in life.
The deputy commander’s statement is strange, seeing as she apologies for the killing. Strange because the two juries contradicted each other. The inquest said it was unlawful, and the criminal jury said not guilty. The commander should know that it is unlawful for on inquest to allocate blame. Therefore Horwood did not kill Tomlinson as he was acquitted.
As a test I did a Google news search for the Horwood trial, the results are interesting. The second half of the trial, i.e. the defence, not a single mention by ANY news outlet. What was so embarrassing that none of it was reported?
Following the Lord Lucan case, inquest juries no longer assign blame to an individual, but it is still up to them to determine if a death was unlawful or not. Mr Tomlinson’s death may have been unlawful, but that in itself does not mean that a particular person can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been guilty of a crime.
When he is a rapist not a rapist?
Well to the bBC, when he’s a
black copper with Asperger’s syndrome and was told by his superiors to practise building a “rapport with people”.
Here read the local version which doesn’t go well out of its way in which to defend this scumbag but rather give the reader all the facts in which to allow them to make their own mind up on this poor ‘misunderstood’ copper.
The bBC, which goes well out of its way in which to defend the indefensible.
“Sure, sure, I know… it just happened. Coulda happened to anybody. It was an accident, right? You tripped, slipped on the floor and accidentally stuck your dick in my wife. “Whoops! I’m so sorry, Mrs. H. I guess this just isn’t my week.”
Excellent article by Christopher Booker in yesterday’s Telegraph giving us yet another example of shameless BBC bias in favour of renewables (part of their ongoing commitment to their global warming activist mates).
Last week on Today we had Humphrys interviewing the government’s former chief scientific adviser (and, coincidentally, arch-warmist) Sir David King plugging a newspaper article he had written urging the world to make a major push for solar energy. On with King we had a journalist who ‘echoed’ his sentiments, so no balance in the debate to be had there.
So, expanding on Booker’s theme, in this totally unbalanced and uninformative discussion we had none of the following:
– The fact that Germany and Spain have poured billions into subsidising solar panels but found them to be so inefficient and catastrophically expensive they are now cutting back drastically on said subsidies.
– The question ‘How many square miles of panels would we need to provide electricity for a city the size of (name your city) – y’ know, just to get a feel for it.
– The impact of this ‘major push for solar’ on our tiny overcrowded island (obviously nowhere near as bad as bad as fracking, otherwise it would have been mentioned on the environmentally-sensitive BBC wouldn’t it?)
– Reliability and true ‘sustainability’ i.e. lifespan, CO2 emitted in manufacture, transport, installation and maintenance.
– Back-up requirements for when t’ sun don’t shine, and what form will it take (clue: could begin with ‘c’, ‘n’ or ‘g’ but not ‘w’).
And any other flaws you might think of in the solar power argument.
No balance, just sheer, unadulterated ‘renewable energy’ bias.
But rest assured (because we all trust the BBC, don’t we?) – all is well because Humphrys told us he has a solar panel on his roof. QED.
The country’s fucked, and the BBC have played their part in fucking it.
Bastards didn’t even use a condom as they fucked it…evil gits.
Funny you should use that analogy … Here’s the Radio 4 “PM” programme’s Nigel Wrench being more literal:
“The first guy I ever fucked without a condom gave me HIV. What’s more, that night on Hampstead Heath, he wanted to fuck me without a condom. … Since I’ve been HIV positive, I’ve had ‘unsafe sex’ more times than I can remember, often with men whose names I could not tell you now.”
Is this once again the destructive Left mindset at work? The desire for no petit bourgeois restrictions on the freedom to act? The desire to abandon control and self-discipline, and drag other people down into your chaos and destruction?
Excellent post, Johnny, but we both know one simply doesn’t ask the BBC answer such troublesome questions. To even attempt to do so is a criminal offence within the Corporation. Nobody questions The Consensus – that’s the rule. The Dominant Narrative on CAGW is sacrosanct and woe betide anyone who dares meddle with it.
I often wonder… if the BBC really is even a tiny bit as ‘impartial’ as it likes to pretend (for pretence it most certainly is) on this climate issue just where exactly are the sceptical presenters to balance out the likes of the tiresome Humphrys, Web and Davis, et al?
Silly me. I keep forgetting it was all agreed a long time ago that since ‘the science is settled’ the BBC no longer has a duty to impartiality on this subject. These days even poor old Michael Buerk, who once dared to tarry close to outright climate change insubordination, has learned to keep his opinions to himself.
As was mentioned above, the BBC have lost a hardcore comrade… http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/05/bbc-newsnight-paul-mason-channel-4-news
Channel 4 (already a Muslim worshipping hive of extremist Left-wingers) will be utterly unbearable.
As with Laura Kuenssberg going over to ITV, they spread like the tendrils of a Broadcasting House-sized dry rot fungus.
What’s going on?
Early stories in the Daily Mail suggested that a senior exec at the BBC leaked the name of the new Doctor Who, and that some serious betting had been made by certain staff at the corporation. That story has been pulled and replaced with this one .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2384614/Doctor-Who-Fans-ageism-row-dub-Peter-Capaldi-old-play-Time-Lord.html
If you enter into Google “doctor who BBC betting leaked” then several links to the original story will appear, but it will not take you to it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts-ents/film/bbc-to-announce-new-doctor-who-on-sunday-as-peter-capaldi-named-bookies-favourite-for-role.1375457283
Carries the story of the leak, but not the allegation of the BBC exec profiting from it. It might well be that the corporation or the individual concerned has threatened legal action which has resulted in the removal of the article, however it would be yet another disastrous story for an organisation which has had more than it’s fair share of misbehaviour over the past few months.
Please remember that this is a rumour / allegation for which as yet there is no proof, and there maybe none in the future either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23574325
Luton, almost as nice as Croydon
“The jury heard Mr Afolabi had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and was told by his superiors to practise building a “rapport with people”
Perhaps the BBC would like to explore precisely how someone with a condition (aspergers is something you have from birth) that makes essential policing abilities such as social interaction and communication difficult and interpretation of motives, emotions and behaviour ‘challenging’ became a police constable?
Just wondering
Sounds like all the qualities some hospitals look for in nursing staff.
”PC Adesoji Afolabi,”
His name has got more vowels than consonants ! after raping the woman, did he arrest himself ?
Rolf Harris has been arrested.
Scott, I suppose this is another ‘waaycist’ comment.
CHORUS:
Tie me kangaroo down, sport
Tie me kangaroo down
Tie me kangaroo down, sport
Tie me kangaroo down
(CHORUS)
Let me abos go loose, Lew
Let me abos go loose
They’re of no further use, Lew
So let me abos go loose
Altogether now!
I was never quite sure why the BBC let Rolf off the hook for that bit of waycism when so many others have fallen foul of PC for similar aparently harmless gags – it was different time I suppose.
And amazingly they still play ‘Dreadlock Holiday’.
Rolf Harris sang ”Two Little Boys”, isn’t that a bit suspect ?
Well, not really, but he did stand there and say , ‘ can you see what it is yet? ‘
Not to mention his extra leg or didgeridoo – actually for what it’s worth cheap one liners aside I believe his and his friends denials and think that king compo/15 mins/revisionism is in operation here – or maybe I just don’t want to believe it – Christ Rolf – poor little feller Harris is nothing sacred ..
The focus on ‘celebrity’ peados like Savile or Hall sure is a double edged sword for al-beeba.
It allows them to gloss over those ‘men’ in the grooming cases, but makes them hark back to different times, and other half baked excuses for their ‘in house’ peados.
Of course the Harris case is yet to be tried.
What a bunch of traitorous scum infest al-beeba.
Yes,feel the same…and just as I did over Stuart Hall too…but seems I was wrong there.
Hope Rolf IS innocent.
how long before al beeb jump on this gayosexual campaign band wagon
“a homosexual man has launched a lawsuit against a Church of England parish in Maldon for refusing him and his civil partner the lavish church wedding of their dreams. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle that he has launched the suit because, despite the law, “I am still not getting what I want.””
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed
But David Cameron has assured us that the COE has a legal exemption and cannot be forced (Indeed I believe is was made illegal for them) to perform gay marriages – no need to worry then…..
I wonder how his legal challenge is being financed?
According to teh pice about this story on Cranmer’s blog, the two men concerned are millionaires, so I expect they’ll be paying for it themselves. Rather than, y’know, giving the money to the poor. Practising Christians they may be, but they seem to have missed out the bit about ‘Not my will, but thine’.
It’s not the ‘marriage’ they want, it’s the camp crassness of a ‘wedding’. This is just narcissism, pure and simple.
Apols for typos, I’ve got an arthritic finger.
If Cameron said it who could possibly believe it. The challenge will come it was always going to and Cameron probably knew it.
I really miss the Brown man now.
Funny that, how these lawsuits quickly follow nearly every gay rights law enactment. The militant gay activists are the new intolerants, sad to say. Let’s see what’s next on their never-ending list of demands, because you bet your life ‘marriage’ isn’t the end of it..
Possibly the start of a challenge to Camerons idiocy in the European courts which can overturn any promise made by an anti democratic politician like Cameron.
It is likely he made this promise in the knowledge it was going to be overturned in the very near future.
In fairness to Cameron, this challenging and pushing of perceived boundaries would have happened whatever laws were or were not in place and whoever introduced them.
I remember underpants Bryant wagging his finger on QT saying something along the lines of the denial of people’s rights was hurtful…well that cuts both ways. In a grown up and mature society we ought to be able to accept and be sensitive to the rights everyone holds.
Stamping your feet and pushing the boundaries is something that people normally grow out of by the time they get to 16.
If we’re being completely ‘fair’ to Cameron, we have to assume:
i. he’d be a cretin not to realise the consequences for the church of his push for gay marriage
ii. he didn’t care
iii. he saw this as a cheap and easy way to flourish his ‘centre-left’ credentials without upsetting any groups that in his eyes really mattered
Whichever way you look at it, a conservative prime minister supporting gay marriage and ramming it through against the church’s objections doesn’t deserve to be called a conservative, even in name only.
Isn’t it more the fact that Europe insisted on this initiative through or is it just a coincidence of timing that France (at least if not more) are also pushing it through at the same time?
This Drewitt-Barlow bloke is the millionaire who are constantly adopting kids ( I think it’s currently five) and publicising the fact. He’s a publicity whore who is constantly pushing his homosexual lifestyle with the fervour of a religious convert. If anyone were going to bring a legal action against their local church under the Gay Marriage law, I would have bet my house it would have been him and his partner.
Craig, who used to post here and now has his own blog about BBC bias (along with Sue, also once of these parts), is on Twitter if anyone is interested.
I don’t suppose Martin(also late of this parish) is on Twitter, is he ? Just imagine the baroque splendour of it all !
Article from The Canadian – ‘Canada’s new socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper’.
‘Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012’.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
‘….the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.
The “hydrate hypothesis” (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.
By the way, the “hydrate hypothesis” is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists.’
Never let the facts get in the way of a good headline, eh?
Originally copyrighted 2007, it’s still on there under today’s date. Guess that’s another AGW theory totally bolloxed, then.
As fellow ‘social progressives’and ‘cross-culturalists’ this is a standard the BBC will be aspiring to (and show every sign of achieving).
tonights look east featured an interview with the parents of the muslim girl served gammon by the sacked dinner lady, she said that she has never done anything wrong as a british citizen, and she would never treat other MUSLIMS differently. what did she mean by that? she sounded to me that she meant treating other religions differently was ok, ie christians, but not other types of muslims. bit of a slip up on her part, im sure it must be available on iplyer or you tube but im not savvy enough to provide a link. if anyone could though id be gratefull, im sure i heard it right.
is that the openly deceitful, tax dodging, crooked gangmaster, soon to be leaving their debts, parents …
that have never done anything wrong?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b037xgqk/Look_East_East_05_08_2013/
surprise surprise “victims” apparently then, getting on the case to press complaints … hmmm …. payout? and still
no allergy, no medical, no life endangering reason for that child not to eat pork,
that child pointed and choose the meal for him/herself
… you couldn t make it up …
nice one noggin,and didyou notice the way that THEY were the real victims, not the dinnerlady who lost her job. bloody press, daring to report the truth. doubt they will include the bbbc in their complaint though.
oh no not another one.
Woman trafficked to be a sex slave by Bradford man
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10590496.___Woman_trafficked_to_be_a_sex_slave_by_Bradford_man___/?ref=ms
man
So he`s a follower of the Religion named after Bradford then?
Or maybe I`m Bradforophobic for saying this!
Religion of Bradford…or ROBs for short!
Yes, but she’s not white British is she ? So there’s absolutely no connection whatsoever with anything else that may or (ho ho) may not have been reported before along these lines on dear old Auntie.
Oh, and there was that Sikh girl in Leicester last week wasn’t there ? So, see: it’s a wide cross section of society just asking for it and then blaming hardworking ROP’ers for their own failings.
Oh look ! New Doctor Who ! Concentrate on that, children……..
I’m not into bird watching (the feathered variety) but yesterday I had a chance to talk to a proper bird watcher. To cut a long story short, we somehow got onto solar panels, you know those huge fields of them, row after row after row. Now, this here chappy got a bit hot under the collar concerning these panels, because, as I was informed, certain feather friends, do not see them as eco friendly planet savers, but big puddles to land on and at a fair rate of knots. I am informed that these solar panels give a whole new meaning to *The killing Fields*.
and for birds wind farms are meat grinders
I wonder if *Country File* would/could do a report on this? Now wouldn’t that be a programme! I somehow think I have more chance of winning the lottery without buying a ticket. 😎
And while I’m at it, just had a look at the BBC iplayer (as I couldn’t remember what the nature programme was called) and guess what? He is there again! Front page, in your face. Where isn’t he I ask? “Who?” I all hear you scream. It is that man again, you know, the athlete who only won two medals in the Olympics…I think he is called *Mo*. BBC, it has been over a year since he won them, for Christ’s sake, give it a rest will you! The world has moved on, he has had his 15 minutes of fame. (You wouldn’t think).
The BBC can’t… let… go… of the 2012 Olympics. I’m not really sure why. Perhaps they remain in thrall to Danny Boyle’s grand socialist opening extravaganza, perhaps they view the games lovingly, in the same vein as say a pompous Soviet-style military parade? This unwillingness by the BBC to let the 2012 event go is a strange and puzzling thing.
The BBC have been showing footage of the assault on Ian Tomlison, carefully edited of course, not to show the man being a complete ass obstructing the Police, deliberately getting in the way and ignoring instructions. Before he is pushed over another officer can be seen moving to have a go at him. If the first hadn’t got him the second would.
No mention of the alcoholism either, the family split and the consequences to his health.
They haven’t yet mentioned the secretive compensation payment from the Met believed to be around £100K , but you can bet that they won’t miss the chance to attack one of their favourite targets given the chance.
You know, for a long time now, I could have sworn when all the information about Mr Tomlinson was coming out in the very early days after his tragic death, that the news programmes were broadcasting footage of precisely the same guy doing precisely the same thing (i.e. walking very slowly in front of a police line trying to clear and close a street. I seem to recall that, despite all sorts of visible remonstrations with the man on what might have been CC footage, he continued to walk at his own sweet pace, paying no attention to the police. He appeared to be deliberately goading the police into physically moving him along at a reasonable pace. And all this was taking place at some distance from, and at some time earlier than, the eventual location and time of the man’s death.
After the first few days, however, this footage seemed to have disappeared from the news bulletins, which all began to focus only on the last few seconds of the incident(s).
I could be wrong, but his behaviour seemed to me to be a deliberate challenge to the police who were trying to do their job. Am I the only one who remembers that early footage ?
Well I must admit if I was being followed by 20 police with batons and dogs I wouldn’t be loitering around, weaving from side to side with my hands in my pockets.
It’s almost as if he has his hands in his pockets so no one could claim that he raised a hand in self defence when he was pushed over.
Tragically, whatever his intentions, the result was fatl
The autopsy found that he had the alcohol equivalent of 8 pints of beer in his blood. So he is not taking any notice, because he is well and truly pissed.
and then some over zealous police man puts him on his arse and kills him. the police officer should be retried like the killers of st lawrence
Great interview with rock’n’roller Ted Nugent, putting the record straight on Zimmerman and Martin and the race-baiters at the top of the US government. The sort of stuff the BBC would run a mile from – but every word Nugent says is true, is founded on hard evidence.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/05/ted-nugent-trayvon-martin-got-justice-video/
London news at 6.30pm and 10.30. Boris has decided to close some fire stations to save money BBC has laid down the ground work so that every fire from next month onward can be blamed on the Mayor.
Will INBBC discuss whether U.S closure of American embassies in Islamic countries of Middle East and North Africa could accidentally be the beginning of new, sensible Western polices towards Islamic countries, to include the following stages?:-
1.) Closure of all Western embassies.
2.) Ending of all Western aid.
3.) Ending of Immigration.
“White House warns some US embassies could remain closed for another month”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/05/us-embassies-remain-closed-alqaida?
So How did Mr Obama assess the whole middle eastern situation a year ago ? Ah, yes, if I recall it correctly, he claimed in his election campaign that he had Al Quaeda ‘on the run’, and ‘decimated’.
Yep – just like he’s going to close down Gitmo in the first year of his presidency…. oh, wait a minute…
….and that would have been around the same time that he had a majority in both Senate and House ? So nobody to blame but himself and his own party. So how’s the ‘hopey changey thing’ working for you now, Mr Obama ?
Then, of course, there’s Benghazi……..
Why now to start to say how terrible zero hour contracts are. They have been around for years, one of my oldest friends works on a zero hour contract for a well known security company with on off work.
As if to echo yesterday’s report by a friend of Tony Hall who was asked to do a review of the BBC’s failures in their creative process, today the BBC interviewed actor Steven Berkoff.
You may remember him as the actor who played General Orlov in the 1963 James Bond film Octopussy.
He was being interviewed by Johnnie Walker on Radio2 while at the Edinburgh film festival.
Steven took the opportunity to really lay into the BBC on a host of subjects. He was clearly very frustrated and disappointed at how it had degraded itself over the years, and at the age of 76, as well as witnessing its demise, he wasn’t holding anything back for fear he might not be asked to do another interview.
Simply Brilliant!
BBC ‘decaying art’ by trying to compete with ‘silly old tarts in costume’, says Steven Berkoff
I bet Mr Berkoff never drops the final “T” and never uses “gonna” or insults the English language in the way it has become obligatory for the modern Beeboid and beeboid sympathiser to do.
His description of the loathsome “Eastenders” is spot on.
One of the comments accompanying the article on Mr Berkoff’s critique of the current, lamentable state of the BBC, in all its mega-leech, closed shop, smugly subversive, Pavlovian Leftist mediocrity:
‘Amen Mr Berkoff!
The BBC is a master of socially engineering a state of hopelessness, brutality, stupidity, failure, lack of ambition, lack of aspiration, lack of manners, lack of responsibility, downgrading serious science to Dr Who drama level, downgrading serious & quality art, music & literature to celebrity level of presenting…& leading the march on victimhood to Oscar level.
‘I grew up with a sense of honour from the BBC, pride in Britain & British values, reaching to achieve as not only normal but a good thing to do, great humour from really talented & hard working actors & comics, challenging & serious subjects taken on & presented by top professional people in a challenging & serious way & always children included in an appropriate & aspiring way…
‘Now the BBC is full on social engineering the population into accepting & expecting dysfunction, antisocial behaviour, deviant behaviour & corruption from those employed in every arm of the State all the while paying eye watering amounts for people…way beyond their ability & experience…
‘Cleverly placed Labour lackeys particularly during the Brown phase of ‘government’ has a lot to answer for…
‘The BBC should be closed down – it has morphed into an enemy within guided & motivated by Left wing politics & no longer a servant of the people working to the highest standards & finding & encouraging new talent & pushing the envelope of intellect & achievement – more pushing the fag packet with a poor script…for one of their favourite luvvies to present to the public & to be paid through the nose for it.
‘Thanks Mr Berkoff – it’s long overdue for someone with the authority & experience to take a stand for all that was good…at the BBC. It was once a hotbed of talent, risk, breathtaking programming…talent sadly & deliberately gone from the BBC today.’
‘Deliberately gone’ – now that’s a puzzle, isn’t it? I wonder why?
Can’t wait for Gameshow’s phone-in on this.
Tick-tock
Bloody excellent critique by Berkoff – not a base left untouched!
No wonder it’s hit a raw nerve with Scott (see below).
The BBC’s opinions are honestly expressed by people that the BBC calls Comedians. That’s Officially Funny isn’t it? Yes, but only if it is Politically Correct.
Very good point!
I wonder what Berkoff thinks of kids show Doctor Who ?
Maybe “that series that I was a guest star in last year”?
He appears then to be joining a long and growing collection of those who have worked for the BBC who subsequently have tales to tell and thoughts to share that some feel they are not entitled to having taken the unique piece of silver.
Evidently the gagging clauses the BBC specialises in were still insufficient in these cases.
As precedents go, one presumes you feel any who once worked for an organisation, or maybe even still do, have no right to pass comment if they feel it is going astray?
Which given recent events would spare various tinpot embassies worldwide keeping a bunke… guest room prepared.
Another interpretation might be somebody who mouths off about the BBC when he thinks it’ll get him some public attention, but who will quite happily turn round and appear on it if his quest for self-publicity and ego trumps what he claims are his principles. Or is that just David Vance?
‘Another interpretation might be..’
Hardly factual then, and you often seem keen on them when it suits.
But with analytical commitment like that you may well be in with a chance of a BBC Editorship, so worth a try.
It was just as factual as your comment was. But shorter, less self-aggranddisngly pompous and making more sense.
Do feel free to reply with yet more paragraphs of tedium that everybody except you ignores.
‘everybody except you ignores’
—
Evidently.
Seems logic is in the same place you keep that moral high ground of yours.
Sorry Person non groper are you saying his appearance is because he loves the show ? or as a working actor he will do work for money with people he slags off when he gets home ? say like the many BBC talented rich who run off to the commercial sector every week then slag it off when they get back at the Beeb ?
There’s a few typos in the piece that should keep the Tel’s day shift picket line busy a wee while.
But so far the comments suggest a further chord has been struck.
‘Anyone who doubts the decline of the BBC should try this test. For a week watch no telly, then go to iPlayer and download anything you have missed that looks good.’
Just back from hols having cancelled the TVL (and SKY…) DDs before we left.
Bit of cold turkey on the breakfast idiot box front just now, but it was never ‘news’ anyway.
Now hunting legal online sources of info, education & entertainment as alternatives.
Doubt much will be via iPlayer.
Happy for what is to count in eyeball terms at least to the makers and performers getting the lion’s share of any ‘unique’ funding remaining as the consequences of actual choice being enacted and the fallout of this spreading around the country pervading around the rotten corporate hulk that is the BBC Titanic, with Captain Hall installing ever more iceberg explanation officers to the deckchair poop.
I do exactly what was suggested – a weekly trawl on BBC iPlayer to see what has been on their 4 TV channels. Average number of programmes worth watching per week – 2 or 3.
Like last week David Starkey’s second piece on History and Music was educative, interesting, lovely images – real TV. Didn’t choose Luther, the first couple of episodes had seemed so contrived and unbelievable, violence just for the sake of violence, no credible storyline. I chose another programme last Friday but I can’t remember what it was, so it cannot be up to much ?
And for this people are forced to pay £145 a year ?
Both David Starkey and Miss Beard seem to prefer talking near to the camera so we have less of them walking towards the camera flapping their hands up and down. And while I may not like Miss Beard’s politics it was a pleasure in her Caligula programme and Mr Starkey’s History and Music to be treated by them as adults and complex ideas discussed – not the dumbing down that most history programmes have become. (And I never thought Mr Starkey and Miss Beard would appear in the same sentence and I have done it twice).