The BBC’s latest recruit to Newsnight, Duncan Wheldon, has admitted to having been a teenage werewolf. The romance of the horror, the thrill of the chase, adolescent hormones coursing through the veins, the moonlight, all lured him into making that fatal decision. But he’s better now.
He’s over his brief dalliance with demonic Beastliness and has settled down in comfortable old age as a dinosaur…cosying up to the Labour Party and the Union Barons of the TUC….and his new comrades at the BBC…..all strictly ‘platonic’ you understand.
Actually he admits to having been, shock horror, a teenage Fascist.
He’s embarrassed and admits to having been a ‘witless prat’….but as I said, he’s better now….He tells us:
The BBC is full of journalists from a wide range of backgrounds who left their political baggage at the door the day they started work.
…or maybe he’s not so better now.
He goes on….
By the time I was 18 I had joined the Labour Party, horrified by the racism, homophobia and anti-semitism I had encountered on my sorties into far right literature.
Hmmm…was he reading the Koran or the Bible then? Or the Guardian? Must have some interesting conversations with Katz…will Katz be doing a self-expose, a mea culpa selfie?…admitting having worked for an anti-Semitic paper?
Wheldon continues:
Reflecting on the last week it’s hard to escape the irony that I have been accused of being a dangerous leftie and also a fascist within 48 hours.
None of this should be read as a plea for sympathy.
Well as Nazis were Socialists and they swapped personnel with the Communist party as often as the BBC does with Labour, there’s not much between the two ‘ideologies’ in philosophy or practice…..both murdered millions and enslaved their own people to the ideology.
Wonder how many more ‘selfies’ we will get from within the Labyrinth admitting to having been Trots, Marxists or even UKIP members?
You can see perhaps why Alex Salmond wants 16 year olds to vote on his nationalist agenda.
Remind me again what the difference is between Socialism and National Socialism. Names, policies and outcomes all seem broadly similar.
“You can see perhaps why Alex Salmond wants 16 year olds to vote on his nationalist agenda.”
If the article above is meant to support your concluding statement them it has failed.
In fact I fail to see any connection between the preceding ramblings, the inane graphic and the final sentence!!
Wow. After keeping a low profile during Labours budget response disaster this is the post you pop to go and criticise and then crawl back under your rock. Best get up to Scotland and try and keep believing everything Tartan is rosy when you know Salmond is a Dick and lying to keep himself in power.
Salmond is getting desperate. Lowering the voting age to 16 and allowing 800,000 ex-patriates to vote in September’s
Independence Poll. What next, one wonders? Postal votes, graveyard vote snatching, extra boxes of “yes” votes kept in storage until needed?
Albaman, if you have any clout with Salmond, tell him to consider extending the vote to England. That would guarantee him winning the vote for independence. As a bonus we would get rid of whining Caledonians like yourself. It’s a win-win situation.
Alby,
The point that is being made, is that whilst people are young, they have very idealistic views on politics, normally influenced by their rabid, left wing teachers, they eventually grow up and formulate their own opinions once they have joined the real world.
Salmond wants to lower the age of voters to harness this, knowing that yoofs will, more than likely vote left, not right, thus, making it a shoe in that the left is never out of power in Scotland, no matter how much, and how often they feck things up.
Btw, how old are you again?…14?….15?
“The point that is being made, is that whilst people are young, they have very idealistic views on politics, normally influenced by their rabid, left wing teachers, they eventually grow up and formulate their own opinions once they have joined the real world.”
Probably explains why most of the mock referendums held in schools have seen pupils voting against independence. I guess all these “rabid, left wing teachers” are just a figment of your prejudices.
Ok Alby,
Post your proof of the findings of these mock referendums, and I’ll consider my reply to be wrong, or at the very least, my interpretation of the post that Alan had made to be wrong.
I’m happy to do that.
You did ask:
“1,653 secondary school pupils in Aberdeenshire took part in the vote. A total of 8718 voted No in response to the referendum question, with 2847 voting Yes. The turnout was 79.9%.”
http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/elections/ASRIS.asp
And a survey in support of my argument:
“83% of pupils surveyed would vote against Scottish Independence”
http://www.esms.org.uk/school-report/16-year-old-vote-in-the-referendum/
Now perhaps you can substantiate your assertion that young people are “influenced by their rabid, left wing teachers”.
Before you point it out the first sentence should read:
“11,653 secondary school pupils in Aberdeenshire took part in the vote.”
And here is more children being influenced by “rabid lefties”:
http://www.belhavenhill.com/Articles/379602/Belhaven_Hill_School/Academic/English/Debates/Referendum_for_Scottish.aspx
Maybe it is those “rabid lefties” lecturer’s in Colleges and Universities that influence the young – than again maybe not:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/student-poll-rejects-independence.1394464154
Probably explains why most of the mock referendums held in schools have seen pupils voting against independence.
and you cite 2….that’s it?…no national representation?
Here, let me show you, if i do a straw poll of lets say….ohhh, I dunno…..Kensington & Beaconsfield, and they vote overwhelmingly Conservative, by your own maths, the Tories are a shoe in for the next general election….right?
Sounds like a plan to me, lets not bother with Newham, Bootle or Oldham.
One of your posts of truth polled only 2 schools in Edinburgh, lets have a look at those schools shall we….don’t look like comprehensive schools to me, they are not state run schools, meaning they have not been over run by the left.
Your proof is a half answer, very BBCesque.
Now, I may well still be wrong, but without an accurate representation of ALL of Scotland, it’s nothing but hot air.
“and you cite 2….that’s it?…no national representation?”
Obviously you did not read the linked articles or you would have seen that the Aberdeenshire results covered 17 different schools (all comprehensives).
You asked for evidence and it was provided.
Here is another:
http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/2013/November/2013-11-22-02.htm
And another:
http://www.penicuikcuckoo.co.uk/2014/03/beeslack-chs-says-independence/
Your response is just another example of how this site does not appreciate “inconvenient facts” .
Aren’t Penicuik \Edinburgh part of U.K, or is that a schoolchild’s argument?
Is this blog about BBC bias, or has Albaman tried to hijack it into working out what his unrepresentative and unrepresented Scottish schoolchildren think?
Classic comment from the individual who “hijacks” every thread with posts about Islam.
Chop raised a point and I responded with evidence to refute his assertion – you are obviously another “Biased BBC regular” who has a problem with facts.
INBBC appeases Islamic jihad threat to
Britain: not a point which you have ever made. But back to the centre of the universe…
Albaman – you have certainly produced relevant facts in this case (although Bellhaven Hill, and Mary Erskine’s are hardly representative of Scottish secondary schools, the academies in the north of Scotland certainly are.)
The results have certainly surprised me, because as far as I can tell, Mr Salmond and the SNP were definitely banking on 16-18 year-olds to generally vote in a specific way, namely to be ‘progressive’ (i.e. to support change), rather than ‘conservative’ (to support the status quo).
If these children really do vote in such a way, I think Mr Salmond and his electoral advisors will be both dumbfounded and confounded. As will many other politicians looking at this electoral matter.
Seems like Ian Katz the new editor of Newsnight is determined to only employee people who have the views of Guardian readers and journalists. Meanwhile the audience it attracts continues to decline….
B-BBC.
Your readers might be interested in a victory Bloggers (Jersey’s only independent media) had against the BBC in having to correct some false information that it knowingly broadcast.
It can be viewed HERE.
Yes, difficult to discern Alan’s point. Is there one?
yes to keep pro ‘BBC ‘ multi billion corporation fans in wet beds !
Crimea, Scotland, Salmond and ‘Newsnight’
Somewhere over the rainbow:
CRIMEA: has referendum on independence,
leading to ‘freedom’ as part of Russia;
SCOTLAND: has referendum on independence,
which Salmond dreams, will lead to ‘freedom’ as part of European Union (which doesn’t even want Scotland in).
Rather a strange comparison George.
The referendum on Scottish Independence has been agreed between the UK government and the Scottish government with the policies and procedures for the vote confirmed by Acts of Parliament. Both sides of the debate have been given ample time to present their case. The conduct of the vote has been agreed with the Electoral Commission by both governments.
These democratic principles were not followed in Crimea.
Apart from the comments made by the unelected José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (who will not be in that position post-referendum), what evidence can you provide that the EU “doesn’t even want Scotland in”.
“Prospects of EU membership for a newly independent Scotland”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prospects-of-eu-membership-for-a-newly-independent-scotland
George, apologies for pointing out the obvious but that is a UK government (pro union) view and not evidence that the EU “doesn’t even want Scotland in”.
I get it: as a Salmonite Scot, at the centre of the universe, you simply dismiss the E.U bureaucracy view , and the U.K government view on Scotland and E.U. Apparently if a view is not Scot Nat politically approved it is dismissed. I get it.
A common fallacy amongst those who know little about Scottish politics is that being in favour of independence means you must support the SNP and Alex Salmond. The independence movement is a “broad church” with support across the political (and non-political) spectrum.
Perhaps the question you should be asking is why would the EU want to “expel” Scotland as a member?
Perhaps the question you should be asking is:
am I wrong about the wonders of Scottish independence, after all?
Perhaps the question you should be asking is:
‘am I wrong about the wonders of Scottish independence, after all’?
They wouldn’t have to ‘expel’ Scotland. The UK (which will still exist after Scotland leaves) is a member of the EU. Scotland is not. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it chooses to relinquish its legal ties to the EU. Simples.
“Simples”!!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm
In the debate on Scottish independence it is natural that opponents tend to exaggerate the difficulties of EU membership, while proponents tend to minimise them. This note tries to address the subject as objectively as possible. In summary it argues that:
· Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence
· Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens
· For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission
· Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence
· The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries
One person’s opinion, Albaman – and, just like Wee Nappy, it makes pronouncements of desire, rather than reality. His very first paragraph makes the assumption that the EU would be willing to fast-track Scotland as an EU member, and then goes on simply to say how he thinks it could be done. .e.g. ‘Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence’.
So who’s going to do that ? – don’t count on a lot of help from Europe. Where is there any evidence that this fantasy is actually going to happen any time soon ? Which countries have agreed to this happening ? And there’s your reality check. Try reading the paper first, rather than just the bits which seem to support your theories.
But also in his paper he mentions only one other instance of near (but not quite ) similarity – Czechoslovakia – but that did not involve, for example, any state carrying on as an EU member (as the UK will do), and it took over 10 years from the split of Czechoslovakia for the spin-off states to gain EU membership.
Just reading from this paper – doesn’t bode well for EU membership for Scotland any time soon.
This seems to be a more direct analysis of issues relating to Scottish independence than anything on BBC:
“Scottish independence brawl exposes deep divisions.
“The romantic Celtic rhetoric of separation from the hated Sassenach (English) cuts little ice in much of rural Scotland. Independence is far more contradictory and divisive than most people, including Scots, realise.”
By Tom Gallagher.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4825/scottish_independence_brawl_exposes_deep_divisions