LOLOL
Leftwing BBC type in melt down.
Tessa Dunlop on Today programme this morning (08:50)
Talking about a book published by Civitas which puts the case for families having more than one child…as it can be beneficial for siblings, they claim.
Dunlop, who has only one child herself, has other ideas saying:
‘The world’s population is exploding….People are always coming up to me and saying when will you have another child..and there’s two things here…Civitas is a right wing think tank, I just wonder if they would be saying ‘when are you going to have another’ to a Somali woman standing next to me in the supermarket….it’s like the Middle Classes must keep breeding, keep up our genetic army…’
Well, I don’t think Civitas are responsible for her friends and others, including her doctor, for asking when she will have another… that’s pretty much a standard line in the baby talk world…I don’t think they are recruiting for the Fourth Reich.
A ‘Somali’ woman in the supermarket queue, really, is she on holiday?…we all know that they are ‘British’ as soon as they step off the plane….Dunlop clearly hasn’t read the memo from BBC ‘Diversity and Cohesion’.
Presumably she doesn’t mean Somali women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was driven out of Europe to the safety of America by the same sort of Left wing prejudice, bigotry and stupidity on display here.
I wonder where she picked up her views…kind of reminiscent of this piece of BBC religious ‘racism’:
For some, encouraging larger Christian families is part of a project to outbreed other religions, particularly Islam, winning back the world for Christ one baby at a time.
One only has to look at the black on black murder rate, to extrapolate the fact that one parent families are driving the crime rate. How many Stephen Lawrence’s have been murdered in the last 15 years by black kids equally as disgusting as the bastards who killed that boy
Or indeed because of the subsequent reluctance to stop and search ‘cos is it racist innit’ Beware of what you wish for …
Poor kids living in urban environments tend to commit more crime. As disproportionately black people are poor and live in cities it is not unsurprising that they feature more in the crime statistics.
Except that the crime statistics themselves disproportionately feature black kids, so obviously it’s not just a lack of money. It’s the culture we’ve instilled of black people being able to play the race card at every opportunity, coupled with the general lack of effective sentencing in this country especially for younger people. The UK treats criminals as the victims, especially when they’re an ethnic minority.
Your reasoning mistakes correlation for causation.
Eh? No, that demographic commits more crime. Lots of white people live in poor urban areas – yet they don’t commit anywhere nearly as much crime.
You’re drawing a deeply prejudiced correlation. It’s not their skin colour, it’s their attitudes, their upbringing and yes, their culture.
I thought the idea that the haveshad a moral responsibility to commit suicide by lowering birth rates below replacement level because the have-nots are reproducing too fast for the world to support became passé in the 1970s?
‘Civitas is a right wing think-tank’. Hmmm
Their website is here http://www.civitas.org.uk/index.php
The first director mentioned in the ‘about us’ page was a former labour councillor. The other directors with detailed biographies seem to have been heavily involved in the education sector, not exactly known as a breeding ground for right wingers. About the closest you get to any reference to right wing influence is that one of the directors was a former director of the Family Education Trust, which as far as I can gather is a conservative (with a small c) moral trust that presumably seems right wing to a beeboid because it actually holds that morality is a good thing (obviously liberals see morality as a bad thing, as it restricts individual choices such as homosexuality and abortion).
If this apparently left of centre think tank earns the accolade of ‘right wing’ from a BBC journalist, just because she disagrees with its recommendations, one wonders just how left wing a think tank (or any other organisation) must be not to draw the BBC’s ire.
Anything more than slightly to the Right of Pol Pot is a fanatically Neo-Fascist Organisation to the BBC.
What kind of lifestyle does Tessa Dunlop have where all these racists keep coming up to her and asking if she’s going the help out-breed the darkies? I mean, she can’t be talking about complete strangers approaching her about when she’s going to try to get pregnant. So these racists must all be people she knows. Does she have racist friends, or are these just casual acquaintances in her racist neighborhood? I do hope none of her BBC colleagues have asked her such an awkward question.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4855968420202853&pid=15.1
Something exists only if it is sensed. Ergo: unplug the thing; that is how you “win” and free your mind of this stress.
The very existence of this blog (including my comment), and others, serves only to prove the platform’s relevance. It matters not whether you hate, love, agree or disagree, only that you make it an object for those sentiments. Objects exist; ergo: unplug the thing.
It is misguided to direct all bias accusations at the BEEB – all journalism is biased (including this blog).
99% of so-called news doesn’t affect you personally; it’s just filler, opinion, distraction or entertainment. Of the 1% that does, you’ll find out soon enough.
Took me around 2 years to wean myself off TV. 2 months ago I finally unplugged the thing completely after realising I watched it for just half ‘n’ hour each week. I now have more time to watch what I want, thanks to the internet.
Do yourselves a favour: save your electricity, unplug the thing (significant savings, trust) and eke out some enjoyment from our short time here.
Next: pack in smoking – now that is hard.
‘It is misguided to direct all bias accusations at the BEEB – all journalism is biased (including this blog).’
True, but, the BBC does tend to think it ‘speaks for the nation’ uniquely, and for many charges them when really not. Either way, holding inaccuracy and lack of professional integrity up to scrutiny can still have value. Especially when…
‘99% of so-called news doesn’t affect you personally..’
….there are seductive advocacies around that may not be quite true, or designed to serve causes even by inspiring inaction.
When good people do nothing stressy stuff can still originate and prevail.
He says, legs crossed, floating but a few inches off the chair.
If the BBC stood up and said “hey, we’re biased and we love the labour party” would that make this website redundant?
In some ways I like the like of the Guardian, because they spew all the leftist shit, but at least they’re honest about being biased.
Yes, but then a new website would immediately spring up along the lines of “Resist the Compulsorily Tax Funded BBC”. Because, (for me at least) this is the real point; being forced under threat of legal scanction to pay for something you don’t want. If the BBC is so great, then let it be subscription funded; then it can be as biased as it likes. And, just like the Grauniad, I won’t buy it.
With the internet there’s really no need to watch TV live, so no licence required.
And we all pay for TV channels – even channels we don’t subscribe to – yet, subscription or otherwise, biased news and dreadful shows prevail.
Just switch it off. On average, your mental health will improve and you will miss nothing important to you.
Switching off is probably a good way to reduce personal stress. And if accompanied by cancellation of subscription powerful protest.
However, retreating to caves may buy some time if your village is under assault, but is a short term solution as those seeking to impose their will, will seek you out still.
Unlike current political leaders, certain lines are worth drawing, and defending, vigorously.
Seductive though peace in our time may seem to some, history may remain a better teacher and guide.
‘However, retreating to caves may buy some time if your village is under assault, but is a short term solution as those seeking to impose their will, will seek you out still.’
Yes, but what seeks you out is the news important to your actual life, and/or immediate community; tax changes, drought, petrol price hikes, neighbours dying etc..
It seems you seek to advocate passivism based on self-defined ignorance restricted to areas of interest and/or perceived relevance to your sphere of existence.
I tend to err more on the power of the broadest knowledge possible, not just of what exists within my sphere, but what is beyond it that can help… or be a threat. Now, or in the future.
Prevention is usually better than cure.
Coming to a site that exists to highlight and caution the excesses and abuses of a £4Bpa policy-shaping tool with a message advocating that they be left to their own devices is, I would humbly suggest, playing into their hands, but it is yours to make of course.
Why here, now, in such a way, is of course for others to ponder, as I do.
‘It seems you seek to advocate passivism based on self-defined ignorance restricted to areas of interest and/or perceived relevance to your sphere of existence.
To do otherwise is surely to meddle in the business of others – one of the reasons I switched off; fed-up of listening to talking-heads telling us how to live, think & feel.
‘I tend to err more on the power of the broadest knowledge possible, not just of what exists within my sphere, but what is beyond it that can help… or be a threat. Now, or in the future.’
As I’ve said below, if what is fed is biased, false, nonsense etc., how is your knowledge broadened?
OT: FWIW, I arrived by accident, researching the TV licence. I’m pitching-in merely to spread the good news that switching-off doesn’t mean being cut off and is quite liberating. As far as I’m concerned, the more who switch off, the sooner they’re all put out of business or change their ways.
Ah, we seem to have reached a conclusion of sorts.
As another well-meaning seeker of truth I wish you well, and am happy to endorse your advice that the BBc can be starved of much by canceling the TVL DD.
However, in a big, wide, world, with big problems and opportunities at every turn, I still like having as much access to information as I can afford, broadcast or internet. Hence, as the only one using compulsion, and seeking to impose restrictions elsewhere to support its unique model, my focus will remain on the BBC.
Especially when it continues to wield vast influence in my name and meddles in my business as a consequence without my approval or mandate.
‘Ah, we seem to have reached a conclusion of sorts.
As another well-meaning seeker of truth I wish you well’
I thank you for your indulgence, I enjoyed our exchange.
[i]’but, the BBC does tend to think it ‘speaks for the nation’ uniquely, and for many charges them when really not. [/i]
I agree, same especially with politicos. Drives me insane (I still unfortunately encounter TV when visiting friends), but ITV is just as bad, if not worse.
“They” know this, the public have raised the issue for years, yet it continues. So I came to the conclusion: look, you wouldn’t join or remain in a club you have no interest in, or visit a dentist every day without good reason, leave. There are better things to do than be insulted in your own living room daily.
[i]’Either way, holding inaccuracy and lack of professional integrity up to scrutiny can still have value.'[/i]
Really? What has changed in all the years it has been highlighted?
And to be fair, there are more actors involved than just the media: politicians, the police, military, pressure groups, think-tanks, PR companies et al, they all feed the machine, and they do so only because people watch it.
And journos have to swallow it because the more one digs into a story, the more one realises there’s more than can be reported in 1.5 – 3 minutes, and without expertise in the field, the more reliant one becomes on self-interested parties.
Plus, time is not a journos friend in this age of instant news and targets of 4 articles/day. Why? Because people watch/read it.
Bugger, thought I was on a forum; sorry ’bout the formatting code.
you can still use them, just use instead.
bold
italic
strikeetc
Sorry, no I meant I mistakenly used BB formatting code, instead of HTML.
‘Really? What has changed in all the years it has been highlighted?’
***
I’d say a fair bit, if not as much as should given what has been exposed.
If the alternative is giving up and letting them get away with more, sorry, I don’t really see this as an option if one values one’s kids’ futures in a free-speaking democracy.
This is a forum. The code that works substitutes the left/right arrow brackets for the squares you used.
‘If the alternative is giving up and letting them get away with more, sorry, I don’t really see this as an option if one values one’s kids’ futures in a free-speaking democracy.’
Well, good luck with that. Personally, I don’t see today’s yoof watching much TV in years to come. Far better, IMO, to teach them how to find and dissect the news important to their lives.
And free-speech is not a trademark of the BEEB (or media in general)… or is it?!
‘free-speech is not a trademark of the BEEB (or media in general)… or is it?!’
They do however claim to speak for the nation quite often, whilst banning any who may point out where they might not, or be inaccurate or lacking in integrity when doing so.
Best, then, to have other resources to hand to highlight when this happens?
” I don’t see today’s yoof watching much TV in years to come.”
The BBC don’t seem to agree with you ,as targeting yoof in order to promote their social engineering project is high on their agenda (wear a hijab for a day anyone?)
But even if what you say is true they (the yoof including my grandchildren ) will still be subject to the consequences of the BBCs actions.
Often on hear and on other threads I have been told that ‘It doesn’t matter what you think you’ll be dead soon’
A sentiment that the BBC seem to share and that also may be true. But. bye your leave, I’m not inclined to ‘go quietly into that last good night just yet .You of course are free to do as you wish ,up to and including pulling the blankets over your head.
‘The BBC don’t seem to agree with you … ‘
Of course not, neither does ITV, they don’t wish to die.
‘You of course are free to do as you wish, up to and including pulling the blankets over your head.’
If the news is so biased, not presenting the full story, false or blatantly made-up nonsense, what is the difference (putting aside stress)?
“If the news is so biased, not presenting the full story, false or blatantly made-up nonsense, what is the difference (putting aside stress)? ”
None if it just happened randomly as you seem to have convinced yourself .That is exactly what I mean by putting you head under the blankets and hoping it will go away.
It wont and maybe nothing we do here will make a difference but that’s no reason not to try
‘None if it just happened randomly as you seem to have convinced yourself.’
Not sure I catch your drift there.
‘… maybe nothing we do here will make a difference but that’s no reason not to try’
Good luck with that. I contend we have more important things in our lives to fulfill and by switching-off, we can achieve both objectives in one stroke (with less stress).
Ok you carry on contemplating your navel and I’ll carry on pushing back
‘more important things in our lives to fulfill and by switching-off, we can achieve both objectives in one stroke (with less stress).’
To echo Stewart, fittingly at the 1cm column level of exchange, I merely observe that Ostriches under threat probably act to experience satisfying levels of low stress, albeit for a short period.
‘fittingly at the 1cm column level of exchange,’
LOL
‘I merely observe that Ostriches under threat probably act to experience satisfying levels of low stress, albeit for a short period.’
Or, put another way: choose your battles wisely.
Remember the SARs & AIDS hysteria, to name just two sensational mass-media reports in my lifetime? Forecasts of doom, mankind on the brink of extinction. Didn’t affect me, but it worried me at the time, needlessly. Time that won’t be refunded.
The media renders us to a feeling of helplessness; there’s nothing I can do about the atrocities in Syria, or Egypt, Palistine, Libya, or even those committed in my name by our own Govt.. As much as we whine, sign petitions and protest in the streets, still it continues…. just as it did before the BEEB, and will thereafter.
‘Ok you carry on contemplating your navel and I’ll carry on pushing back’
Both probably as effective as each other, though one with less stress 😉
And the other with less honour
I am sure you will be remembered for more honourable things than being a BBC protestor.
I would hope so ,and you what will you be remember for
My pornography collection.
‘They do however claim to speak for the nation quite often, whilst banning any who may point out where they might not, or be inaccurate or lacking in integrity when doing so.’
Indeed, and as I’ve said, politicos are the worst, but… how do you know this? I humbly suggest, because you watch.
And it’s not a BEEB-exclusive thing, as I’ve said also.
At the end of the day, it’s not what is said on the news that’s important, it’s what’s said and decided behind the closed doors of Govt. and corporations.
What was top of the running order this time last week? Last month? Last year?
If you’re struggling to recall, as I suspect most will (without cheating), it’s because it wasn’t important to you. In other words, it was time wasted; a distraction.
Not sure where you are going with this, but I’ll continue to engage as each post teases more of interest out.
‘it’s not what is said on the news that’s important, it’s what’s said and decided behind the closed doors of Govt. and corporations.’
Which is why the 4th estate is so key. So long as it exists to professionally, accurately and with integrity… ‘report’ on what Govt. and corporations and countries and NGOs and charities.. and each other… get up to.
The problem arises when certain media, especially any well funded and with unwarranted pretensions of trust and transparency, become part of the establishment too.
So what gets said or decided behind closed doors acquires yet another gatekeeper and filter of what goes out… or does not.. to the public whose approval is ultimately essential. albeit often ignore until too late.
As to ‘running orders’ at precise times, you’ll need a Dez or Alabaman for that. I could tell you, thanks to this site, at this time it appears the BBC’s main focus was a mistakenly captioned IDF photo on Gaza.
Thanks to other sources of news to this, and the BBC’s oddly selective one, I was also aware of much else of more significance and greater heft. Some impacting on me and mine.
It was important to me. And I participated then, as I do now.
The distractions still exist. What is interesting is what form they take, where they come from and with what intention.
As so often is the best course, it’s worth tracing who benefits most from an astoundingly uncurious population accepting what they are served without question. Or even ‘switching off’ and leaving others to ‘run’ things for our ‘benefit’.
‘Which is why the 4th estate is so key. So long as it exists to professionally, accurately and with integrity… ‘report’ on what Govt. and corporations and countries and NGOs and charities.. and each other… get up to.’
It can never be what we ideally wish it to be: all journalism is biased.
As above, it reports what is fed. The powers which feed it manipulate & fund it. If the media questioned and debunked absolutely everything its fed, it would lose access and funding, even if there was enough time, interest and capacity to achieve such a noble goal. And even in such a world, ironically, many more blogs like these would emerge for many more cries of bias would arise; it can’t win even if it were possible.
‘As to ‘running orders’ at precise times, you’ll need a Dez or Alabaman for that.’
I have no idea what those terms mean!
‘I could tell you, thanks to this site, at this time it appears the BBC’s main focus was a mistakenly captioned IDF photo on Gaza.’
And how is this knowledge impact you directly? Next week, if not tomorrow but certainly next month, I’d wager it will be forgotten.
‘Some impacting on me and mine.
It was important to me. And I participated then, as I do now.’
That’s what I’m talking about, good.
Though I wonder, how much does it advantage you to know (presumably) beforehand? Or will its inevitable impact on your life occur at the same time as others, regardless.
L‘Or even ‘switching off’ and leaving others to ‘run’ things for our ‘benefit’.’
There aren’t enough hours in our lifetime to right all the wrongs, and it’s hopeless to believe the media will or can do it on our behalf. The best we have is the ballot booth – equally hopeless!
@MikeC
Not sure if you’re being sincere, or are in fact a concern troll.
The problem with the BBC is not that we can’t switch it off if we don’t want to see it, its that it takes £3.5bn in tax from the british public each year (plus its commercial interests income on top), with which it promotes a left-wing, anti-british, anti-family, pro-climate change/’green issues’, pro-homosexual, pro-welfare, pro-immigration, and pro-EU stance.
It has long since ceased to function in the role it was set up for, and has instead degenerated into a partisan political pressure group.
Wider afield, particularly in the US, it promotes its leftist agenda from behind the facade of being the UK’s premier news organisation (and claims it is impartial and authoritative, an abuse of the BBC world service history that it is doing its best to destroy with its current journalistic standards).
On top of all of this, if such were even needed, it has been implicated in a set of coverups related to paedophilia from the 70s and 80s the like of which make the catholic church look positively benign. Instead of showing any contrition (again, in stark contrast to organisations such as the church), it tries every excuse in the book, from ‘times were different then’, to ‘the girls wanted it’, to ‘the police should have done something’, to ‘it was a problem then but we’ve now completely changed even if to the untrained eye it appears we’ve done absolutely nothing at all or even apparently hindered official investigations in the matter by claiming we forgot what happened at the time’.
To be forced to pay for this travesty of an organisation on threat of criminal proceedings and potential prison time is abhorrent, whether or not you choose to watch it.
Hi Gunn
Don’t watch it, don’t pay the licence – it’s no fun speaking to yourself; don’t give them the power. All the talking-heads will scatter and hopefully stop meddling in others’ business. It’s very difficult to book guests without ratings.
But you’ve also gotta remember, these people who make a living socially-engineering us, they’re psychopathic sociopaths, they don’t care if you agree or not, they’re gonna do it anyway with or without TV. The fight is not really with the TV but with the people behind all the stories the media doesn’t cover. The one’s affecting you most are local, right in your backyard.
Let’s not forget, we also pay for the commercial stations and channels most of us can’t even view because we don’t pay the subscription, as said above, but still we have bias and awful shows, so not paying a licence doesn’t even come into it – switch it off, seriously; you’re being insulted.
‘it promotes a left-wing, anti-british, anti-family, pro-climate change/’green issues’, pro-homosexual, pro-welfare, pro-immigration, and pro-EU stance.’
I don’t necessarily agree with all that but do with most, plus others you’ve left off. And the mainstream alternatives are the same – that’s why I switched off. It’s crap, you know it is, why suffer it?
Remove the hold it has. Take away its power, urge others to do the same. Saying that, it’s happening anyway.