Mark Easton, the BBC’s immigration cheerleader, has leapt upon some research about ‘Diversity’ and manages to put a classic BBC spin on it.
Unfortunately the ‘research’ tells us nothing that you couldn’t dream up yourself….i.e. that where communities are segregated, separated into different races and religions, things will fall apart as a ‘society’.
Conversely where there is no segregation and everyone mingles without adopting the identity politics so beloved of the likes of those employed in the BBC, people just get on with things and generally get on together.
Easton proclaims this as a break through revelation….and then adds his own spin…
What the new research calculates is that ethnic diversity helps improve community life…what this paper suggests is that where you have non-segregated and relatively prosperous communities, diversity is likely to improve community life, not damage it.
Diversity improves community life? And yet where’s his evidence? In what way exactly does community life become improved?
Maybe he is comparing ‘community life’ in a non-segregated and a segregated society….then there is an improvement…by comparison….but is he actually claiming diversity itself is beneficial and improves a society? That’s highly subjective. What is he saying is wrong with the original community?
Is he saying that an all white community is somehow bad, deficient, morally wrong, dysfunctional? Or an all black society…or a Japanese society?
A rather simplistic and naive, not to say insulting, assertion to say that a few black faces improves a society just because they’re black.
Even a completely white community is ‘diverse’….having a vast array of different ‘white’ people…not to mention body types, religions, political views, languages, accents, social groupings, fashions, music, football teams etc etc…and of course they may themselves not be ‘British’.
Ridiculous to lump all Whites together as one distinct and well defined group that needs to be leavened by a bit of colour to make them less racist…which they obviously are, being hideously white….and which is the real subtext to Easton’s comments about ‘improving’ a community.
Easton, with a complete lack of contrition, has finally come round to the realisation that Multi-culturalism is a disaster….because surely that is what this research is showing….the separation of communities into separate, well defined groups, is highly damaging to a society.
Shame the BBC has been pushing that narrative, of multi-culturalism, of identity politics, for years now.
Shame that the BBC has felt it is its job to push that narrative.
Once again the BBC’s interference in politics and society, trying to socially engineer that society in the BBC’s own image, has caused immense damage.
Shame that the BBC seems to be entirely unaccountable and shamelessly unprepared to take the blame for any of its dangerous actions.
Shame no one will take the BBC on and put a stop to their self imposed mission to ‘improve’ society.
Shame the BBC itself seems entirely confused about what its role is:
Mark Thompson proclaiming that:
The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can’t be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat. Often that plays as bias.
The BBC is no longer just a broadcaster, the corporation was to be a social force in the land, he said. The corporation was an “important builder of social capital, seeking to increase social cohesion and tolerance”, which in future would try to “foster audience understanding of differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or disability”…