The BBC has been caught feeding lies and misinformation to children….
First glance and this is just a story about a mistake, an over eager attempt to improve the image of an historical figure ‘forgotten’ by history but it is far more than that. It is a perfect example fo the BBC’s world view and how they attempt to manipulate the audience, and quite sinisterly, especially young impressionable children who don’t have the ability to question what is put in front of them. It is a huge political project of the Left that aims to change history, change how a nation sees itself and ultimately to make people feel less inclined to value that identity…all the more easier then to sell them the idea of handing over their ‘nation’ to the faceless rulers in Brussels.
A conspiracy…but so very real. And the ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation is playing a big role in that project.
CBBC sketch ‘inaccurately’ painted Florence Nightingale as racist, BBC Trust finds
The BBC has been accused of “insulting” the achievements of Florence Nightingale, after inaccurately showing her racially discriminate against fellow nurse Mary Seacole in a Horrible Histories children’s programme.
The show, a comedy aimed at primary school children, showed Nightingale rejecting four applications from Jamaican-born Seacole to join her nursing corps, saying it was only “for British girls”.
Viewers complained the show was “insulting to Nightingale”, debasing the memory of her achievements in order to bolster the reputation of Seacole.
The BBC Trust, which examined the complaint, has now partially upheld the accusations, confirming Horrible Histories portrayed Nightingale’s actions inaccurately.
In fact, it said, there was no sound evidence to suggest she had rejected Seacole’s application, nor that she had acted in a “racially discriminatory manner” towards nurses.
It’s a very serious finding.
Saying a charge of racism was “very serious”, it added the severity of “any imputation of racism” against Nightingale should have made it “incumbent on the programme makers to ensure that there was sound evidence”.
“In the Committee’s view, the programme makers had provided no such evidence,” it said.
The BBC’s actions are more than just a mistaken reading of history. This was a deliberate, calculated attempt to manipulate what children think, to brainwash them, to make them look at Florence Nightingale as a racist and to downgrade her achievements and character in order to improve the image and standing of Mary Seacole.
It isn’t the first time the BBC have maligned Nightingale’s name and reputation….
BBC accused of slur on Florence Nightingale for labeling her ‘neurotic and sexually repressed’
It is all par for the course for the BBC…it has long made it its aim to undermine and debase British history in order to disparage ‘Britishness’ and thereby hopefully make the audience feel embarrassed and guilty to be British rather than proud. The BBC, and the ‘Left’, work hard to try and erase the national identity which is grounded on that history…rewrite the history and you can destroy that national identity and feeling of belonging and unity.
The ‘Nation State’ is the enemy of the BBC.
Mary Seacole was ‘Black’…or at least that is what the BBC and her supporters want, need, you to think, and is the reason fo their ever growing desperation to strip Florence Nightingale of her reputation and replace her with Seacole…who was in fact a store keeper with a canteen providing meals…for officers….she did indeed help the wounded and sick but not in any way comparable to the professional care of Nightingale.
And Seacole wasn’t ‘Black’…..she was more Scottish than black, 3/4 white….describing herself as ‘Creole’…
Now celebrated as a “black Briton” and black heroine, Seacole never described herself as black: “I am a Creole, and have good Scotch blood coursing in my veins,” she states on page 1 of her memoir, further describing her father’s status as being “of an old Scotch family,” Her mother was Creole, or of mixed heritage (WA 1), but she was swift to explain that her “energy and activity” came from her “Scotch blood,” characteristics “not always found in the Creole race” (WA 1). The “lazy Creole” description “applied to my country people,” while she did not know what it was to be “indolent” (WA 2). Roughly one quarter African in heritage, Seacole described herself as being “only a little brown–a few shades duskier than the brunettes whom you all admire so much” (WA 4).
Seacole frequently referred to “blacks” in her memoir, always for other people, often her own servants–her maid, her cooks (WA 12, 21, 36, 37, 39, 45, 58, 113, 138, 180). There are references also to “good-for-nothing black cooks” (WA 141), a “grinning black” (WA 38) and “excited nigger cooks” (WA 20). When she described, the roasted monkey which was “natives’ fare” in Central America, Seacole found its “grilled head bore a strong resemblance to a negro baby’s,” while in “a stew made of monkey meat” was a piece that “closely resembled a brown baby’s limb” (WA 69).
The pro-Seacole campaign is self-evidently highly political and intended to provide an inspirational role model for the Black community as well as to alter White people’s perceptions of history trying to downgrade ‘British’ achievements while attempting to give the credit to a ‘minority’ figure.
It is racial propaganda that the Nazis would have been proud of….the ‘rubbishing’ of White history in order to create a myth of racial superiority of Black people in Britain.
The Nightingale Society has long had to deal with these attempts to defame her name and reputation.
And it isn’t only on CBBC that the misinformation is peddled...however…but if you don’t complain within 30 days the BBC refuses to alter the material even if proven misleading…just too much effort apparently:
Re: BBC School Radio. History–The Victorians. 9. The Life of Mary Seacole. BBC 2010. Still available.
‘Clause 2.3 of the BBC’s complaints framework clearly states that complaints about content currently published on a BBC website should be made within 30 working days of the date when it first appeared online.
The notes and activity you refer to have been online continuously since 2010. Therefore we do not feel that it is practicable and cost-effective to investigate this part of your complaint.’
That’s Okay then…4 years of misleading information and ithe BBC will keep pumping it out.
The BBC also dismisses complaints about the veracity of dialogue…it may be fictional but as there was a Crimean war at the time and Seacole was there we can pretty well guess what Seacole might have said if we put ourselves in her boots…..we don’t want to be ‘shackled by the lack of documentary evidence’ do we?….
‘The dialogue and the specifics of events are of course fictional but that is in keeping with the nature of the content which is, as I’ve stated above, clearly presented as a dramatised account of history.’
Of course we have heard all this before:
The BBC’s Lisa Jardine gives us her point of view…..
A point of view: When historical fiction is more truthful than historical fact
Fiction has the power to fill in the imaginative gaps left by history, writes Lisa Jardine.
In my search for understanding the motivation of those who joined the race to produce the bomb whose use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalled the world, I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so.
How long before the BBC re-writes its own history?
“O Come And Listen To The Gay White Coons” (Radio Times, February 5, 1937, page 3).
The BBC are always going on about their bloody “Coon Show”!
Bloody unfunny Seacombe, Bentine, Godawful Spike and the racist Peter Sellars(Goodness Gracious Me!).
Shut them down-hate crimes since 1955 with the hopeless Neddy SeaCoon!
How come we can appeal the Hairy Cornflakes past but not the bloody BBCs!
Oh Lord, that’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages!
To many at the BBC aren’t children just items that save you from actually having to relocate to Manchester? You can commute 3 days a week instead to avoid moving the little dears out of their London prep school.
They failed at everything these lefties so infiltrated the media,education and the arts in order to push cultural marxism down our throats.
Things like this are par for the course. A hopeless bunch of misfits. At home only in their narrow little world. The BBC is worthless.
From “The Story of Black History” (by Roy Kerridge, The Claridge Press, London, 1998, ISBN 1-870626-22-2):
“Mary Seacole, a Jamaican nurse who journeyed at her own expense to the Crimean War to tend to the wounded, is the patron saint of Black Presence History because she lived for a time in London. Somehow, the fact that she was born in Jamaica is glossed over, overshadowed by the greater fact that she had been left out of English History schoolbooks, while Florence Nightingale had been put in. … … …
Mary Seacole and her bold exploits were chronicled in the Press of her day. However, the fact that until recently she remained a small footnote in schoolbooks has been recognised exultantly by Black Presence Historians as the Big Cover -up, or Black Presence Concealed! Good, decent Mary Seacole has inadvertently become the one big proof of the White Falsification of History Theory. She sits uneasily beneath such laurels, for as her autobiography makes clear, she did not regard herself as a black person until she came to England. … … … A truthful historian cannot accord her the same place in history books as Florence Nightingale, who was the founder of the modern profession of nursing.
However, School Information Packs on History have now elevated Mary Seacole to the role of English History Personified. Recently, I tried to help a twelve year old girl with her history homework, only to be told, “What! You don’t know the date when Mary Seacole was born? I thought you said you knew history?”
If Mary Seacole had never existed, it would have been necessary to invent her, as Voltaire might have said. Even though she did exist, it was still thought necessary to reinvent her, for political purposes.
The BBC should be prosecuted for allowing this website depicting these lies to be there for four years now that they have been proved to be lies. The 30 day deadline for complaints is totally unacceptable and is crazy if the article is still available on the website and hasn’t been archived . It’s like saying I can break the law if I’ve been doing it for more than 30 days and no one has complained. Is there a lawyer out there brave enough to have a go ?
I have a suspicion that if a broadcaster falsely claimed that say Martin Luther King Jr was a racist the BBC would be at the front of those demanding prosecution under our inane race relations legislation.
what are the maniacs at the BBC up too, ‘horrible racist marxist history’ .. ever wondered how 1400 children can be raped inconsequentially, bbc over to you..
That 30-day deadline to complain is an absolute gem.
And completely different to their 10-day deadline to respond to complaints.
It’s that famous bbc commitment to balance.
They can take their own sweet time, blow deadlines, etc, and no consequence so long as an insincere ‘sorry’ is eventually oozed out.
A complainant fails to meet their self-imposed rules on any basis… whammo!
It’s just another of those things that makes the BBC so unique.
If an author wants to present fiction as history, then it should be made clear that it is fiction.
It doesn’t really work as the lines between fiction and fact become blurred in the viewers eyes even if there is a label at the beginning of the drama. And with statements like eg inspired by the truth ( what exactly does that mean!)
i/ Considering Carol Thatcher was fired for saying (off camera) that a tennis player looked like a golliwog, doubtless the BBC has also taken firm action against the people behind a pre-meditated attempt to smear an important white cultural figure, right?
ii/ You could probably have a whole other website dedicated to just the stuff the BBC has denounced as crazed right-wing conspiracy theories, right up until they suddenly admit it’s true, without acknowledging their years of stonewalling and denial
iii/ Note the important role of the Tories in all this….
…wait, I meant the impotent role. Yet again it’s down to grass roots activists to expose the BBC while the Party of Dave does nothing
Presumably the BBC Trust doesn’t share this world view then given they upheld the complaint? Ditto the BBC News which has reported it?
Besides the conspiracy rant, my favourite bit was that Seacole wasn’t black, she was more Scottish than black apparently. Are the two mutually exclusive?Scottish isn’t a colour as far as I know, unless you mean tartan.
Apparently CBBC is just like Nazi racial propaganda. Yeah, its just like that Al.
Ditto the BBC News which has reported it
I must have missed that on last night’s News at Ten.
..she was more Scottish than black apparently. Are the two mutually exclusive?
Substitute “British” for “black” and you’ll realise you’re havering. You can quite easily be more Scottish than British, but that doesn’t make them mutually exclusive.
Maybe you did miss it on the News at Ten, I’ll have to pass on that as I didn’t see it. But you will find it in the link Alan himself provided.
Yes, substituting black with British will change the non mutually exclusive nature of being ‘Scottish’ and ‘black” – granted. But then that will because you’ve substituted ‘black’ with a nationality….which ‘black’ isn’t.
Where you trying to be intentionally funny? Try replacing ‘Roland’ with ‘moron’ and you’ll still be a moron.
Whoops, speaking of W1A alumni, the mask slipping a bit there.
On top of the ‘no one bowed to my will so I will just sulk and lie like a good ‘un from now on’, I’m not sure that last line is going to help when trying for the ‘but I am the only civilised debater in the village’ claim.
Not that anyone familiar has used that before, you understand.
Now as you’re out and about, as clearly missed before, any thoughts on how a complete fabrication was fought all the way through complaints and ECU until the Trust couldn’t wish it away or ban the complainant?
‘Presumably the BBC Trust doesn’t share this world view then given they upheld the complaint?’
One can tell they’re tempted, but even the BBC can probably on occasion recognise that a Comical Ali approach to 110% gettingitaboutright may be a just one tractor in excess of a production stat.
‘The BBC Trust, which examined the complaint, has now partially upheld the accusations’
And other than pulling the offending piece what, exactly, has happened to prevent repetition, other than a possible ‘don’t get caught next time’ memo posted on the editorial Beware of the Leopard cabinet.
Especially when up against those not minded to give up as the BBC attrition machine rouses itself to full wagon-circle using public funds.
‘Prof McDonald said it had been a “long struggle” against the BBC, which had fought the accusations “all the way”.
“It is thoroughly dishonest. The portrayal of Mrs Seacole was a complete fabrication…”
As you appear in fine defensive fettle, and alluded to having the inside track on the innermost workings of the secret CECUTT coven any outside the BBC can easily be denied, care to comment on how a complete fabrication was fought all the way through complaints and ECU until the Trust couldn’t wish it away or ban the complainant?
For a champion of holding power to account, the BBC seems a power very unwilling to be so held when it is the the one in the spotlight.
Not sure ‘unique’ really serves as an excuse.
Once again you are playing fast and loose with the truth. Mary Seacole was a half creole and a half Scottish or white if you prefer. Her creole ancestry came from a black grandparent making her one quarter black.
To describe her as black is akin to the Nazi concept of the ‘Mischling’ where anyone with one Jewish great-grandparent was considered an untermenche. She didn’t consider herself black so why would anyone want to call her that unless they had an agenda?
The question that you should be asking yourself is ‘do I want to remember her for her deeds or her colour?’ Only one of those things was important to Mary herself so why should the other be important to you?
Can anyone name any other nurse in the Crimea, an ordinary soldier come to that. I generally expect the answer to be NO. Nightingale campaigned for nursing for most of her life. It is for that reason she has been given a place in history. For the bBC this is not a good reason, only painting their version of social history is acceptable.
How about starting a campaign to withold the payment of the annual licence fee until the BBC acknowledges that it needs to broadcast an unbiased and factually correct service? Neither of the two main parties are currently prepared to reform the service, despite the financial contributions made by the long-suffering taxpayer.
It may have already started in some places.
‘Anyone else getting the impression that this year will see an increase in licence fee evasion in Scotland ?’
Given clearly stated intentions, it may already be happening.
The term ‘evasion’ is a bit loaded, as it is possible to simply not pay it legally (for now; James Purnell et al are trying to ‘fix’ this anomaly by loading it without exemption onto anything from internet supply to council tax) because the home owner can no longer stomach BBC activity. One simply needs to forgo the right to live broadcast, which almost everyone else worldwide enjoys.
It must be conceded that in this case an element of passive protest may see a Celtic surge in illegal reaction.
And I’m sure we all remember horrible history’s ridiculous take on the Crusades. Lies and propaganda aimed at children, in the guise of “humerous” educational programmes, are evil: the sort of thing Dr. Goebbels would have been proud of.
We’re waiting for Horrible Histories’ take on the last years of Mohammed, when he started putting his opponents to the sword in Mecca and had to flee to Medina.
Plus the little matter of the bloodthirstiness of the Islamic cunquerors in the first century after Islam was founded.
It’s also in todays Telegraph:
BBC accused of Racism. – CBBC ‘Horrible Histories. – ’The actors showed Nightingale as going down in history for her many achievements, while Seacole was forgotten because she was “just a poor, penniless black woman”. i.e. CBBC rewriting popular history for political correctness*.
The BBC Trust said; ‘Saying a charge of racism was “very serious”, it added the severity of “any imputation of racism” against Nightingale should have made it “incumbent on the programme makers to ensure that there was sound evidence”.
“In the Committee’s view, the programme makers had provided no such evidence,” it said. The original complaint was made by members of the Nightingale Society, including Prof Lynn McDonald and Dr Eileen Eileen Magnello, who argued it was unfair to bolster Seacole’s achievements at the expense of Nightingale for reasons of “political correctness”.
* Prof McDonald said it had been a “long struggle” against the BBC, which had fought the accusations “all the way”. Dr Magnello said the Horrible Histories books, which originally told the story, had been accurate, only to be unfairly adapted by the (BBC) television series.
So the BBC trust does have some uses. The BBC TV makers have accepted the inaccuracy and it will not be repeated – (believe that and you’ll believe pigs can fly).
The BBC left-wing mindset prefers the ignorance produced from censorship, so it can put the wishful thinking fiction of middle-class morons with arts and drama qualifications into all aspects of reality, to produce Fraser Steel facts. It’s a pity that Astronomers have yet to stand up to Fraser Steel and his gang of Communists, unlike the Historians of the Nightingale Society.
“BBC pulls ‘insulting’ Horrible Histories sketch.
Skit implied Florence Nightingale was racist”
The BBC’s take on slavery in Islam:
“Many societies throughout history have practised slavery, and Muslim societies were no exception”.
“It’s thought that as many people were enslaved in the Eastern slave trade as in the Atlantic slave trade.”
But don’t blame them.
“It’s misleading to use phrases such as ‘Islamic slavery’ and ‘Muslim slave trade’, even though slavery existed in many Muslim cultures at various times, since the Atlantic slave trade is not called the Christian slave trade, even though most of those responsible for it were Christians.”
Except that the only reference to slaves in the New Testament is in Revelations 18:23, which is about the destruction of Babylon as a result of its bad behavior, (such as keeping slaves?) So slavery was hardly Christian doctrine, unlike, as is admitted:-
“The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries). The impetus for the abolition of slavery came largely from colonial powers, although some Muslim thinkers argued strongly for abolition.”
That will be the ‘Christian’ colonial powers then, (but not worth pointing out).
“It’s thought that as many people were enslaved in the Eastern slave trade as in the Atlantic slave trade.”
Some think otherwise
And these figures refer only to african slaves not the millions of eastern european and slavic slaves
And the hundreds or thousands that were taken from Northern Europe, e.g. Ireland, South-West England etc. by Barbary pirates.
I’m not sure I’m in favour of Swiss charities buying slaves in order to free them, no matter how well meaning they are. Surely all they are doing is creating another market in slaves?
Anything that proclaims to be historic, and even includes the word “Histories” it it’s title, must be 100% accurate with the viewer, otherwise it is not a history program.
It might as well be called “Horrible made up shit”
It might as well be called “Horrible made up shit”
Everyday fair at the BBC.
be in no doubt these leftists and marxists bbc producers and script writers were forced to apologise for this disgusting attack on the good name of florence nightngale,these are the same people who admire the likes of robert mugabe,pol pot and lenin.when are we ever going to have a documentary made by these lot about the life of the prophet mohammed,we are always told what a peace loving man he was,so lets have documentary proof by you bbc producer brought onto are screens for us to judge.
Let`s hope none of the above CBBC “actors” ever get work again.
Especially the sub-Mike Read trendy shit…and the eye-popping racist black woman doing an Eliza(Dolittle) for maximium effect.
Absolute crap-no wonder our kids know no history, apart from the Sex Pistols prancing round Bill Grundys beanbag.
The BBC would have preferred them to have filmed Jim Fixing it for them all…and they regret nothing.
Horrible Histories is written by Terry Deary (a popular children’s writer whose history books are cartoon style but historically accurate). Deary’s books each have it’s own timeline ‘period’ to make historical sense of time i.e. The Georgians (are not all mixed up with Romans). The BBC TV version – (that I have seen on CBBC with my daughter) – is a slapstick mixed up knockabout in period costumes (without any historical context). Totally pointless enactment with overtly BBC political ‘messages’ added to make it ‘relevant’ to children (as the BBC would say).
I would go further and say that the BBC history output is often mind dumbingly abysmal for our children’s education. When my own children found examples I would weep with embarrassment that this could ever be called our nations history as education…
I give you one GCSE ‘bitsesize’ history as an example, not the worst possibly but suitably awful.
Dreary is by his own admission on a mission to inform children of the alternatives to ‘standard’ history. He uses humour to impress his somewhat leftist political points. No wonder the BBC love him.
As a counter to BBC’s leftist ‘Horrible Histories’, there’s an interesting American series of books: ‘Politically Incorrect Guides’ (PIGs) here-
And, as a British alternative to ‘Horrible Histories’, there’s an interesting series of books
I recall a few years ago that this issue became rather fishy, when Seacole was described as a Doctor, therefore better qualified than Nightingale, I checked the facts and according to the feminists, the first female doctor was Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, ten years after the Crimean war, so Seacole must have been a quack. I am sure that there where plenty of quacks in those days, and a lot of them may well have been good at first aid. But it certainty shows how the lefty loonies can misinterpret history, turning a business woman into a Doctor and Charity worker.
Apparently it was the War office who turned Seacole down, something Nightingale had nothing to do with, as arrangements for departure were already underway. After she had made her own way to the Crimea, along with an acquaintance and a stock of supplies, with the intention of opening an establishment which was called the British Hotel to cater for sick and convalescing soldiers.
Whilst on route to set up the hotel she met Nightingale who offered her every assistance. In her own memoirs it would seem that Seacole herself described her meeting with Nightingale as being friendly.
That being the case either Seacole was lying about the meeting or her BBC and other re-inventors, sorry revisionist historians are being a little fast and loose with the facts, and I know which version I find more believable.
Fortunately this was a children’s programme or I have no doubt they would have included another blatant lie started for the same reason as the ‘Racist’ accusation in an attempt to discredit Nightingale. The claim is that she was, how can I put it delicately, over caring in her dealing with the soldiers and contracted syphilis. In those times there was no cure for syphilis and eventually no way to hide it’s effects, both physical and mental, and early death was almost inevitable.
Nightingale not only lived to a ripe old age, her 80s or 90s, but was constantly out and about in society where the long term effects of syphilis would certainly have been noticed and, almost certainly, have been commented on.
Reinterpreting history is one thing, that can often be a matter of differences of opinion or viewpoint, but a complete reinvention of history by adding parts which never existed and selectively excluding things which did in order to manipulate present attitudes and concepts is the worst kind of propaganda exercise only fit for the behaviour of the worst of totalitarian dictatorships, but, then again, we are talking about the BBC who, long ago, ceased to be anywhere close to being objective, honest or politically impartial.
Not surprising – this is a classic BBC tactic. This one is blatant whereas the stuff they put in the new series of Dr Who for example is more subtle but wants the same outcome
Important Ebola Note
So there is tremendous chatter about this guy from Liberia, and we now have enough of the backstory to see just how maliciously negligent the so-called protection agencies really are. But what I want to focus on is Thomas Eric Duncan – the Liberian who after hauling his sister’s still living yet rapidly disintegrating body to and from the hospital thought it would be a great idea to take a three-legged flight to Dallas, and then just casually forget to mention at the Dallas emergency room the whole “I hauled my sister, dying of Ebola, to and from the hospital a couple of weeks ago.”
I suppose if the bbc ever get around to presenting the history of Grace Darling, she’ll either be turned into an islamophobe for not rescuing the muslims from the wrecked ship or black from some obscure reference to an african slave being in her family tree. There, doesn’t this fictional depiction of a genuinely good person make you feel better than knowing the truth? After all, what is truth? It seems to me that as with all things communist/ socialist, the truth doesn’t matter, the propaganda is everything, which is where the bbc can rightly claim to be a world beater.