Something In The Airwaves



Curious how things all come together sometimes….such as Rotherham, JK Rowling and the BBC’s  hatred for the Middle Classes….especially the white variety.

A potent mix at election time.

First of course we had a devastating report on Rotherham Council‘s response, the lack of, in regard to the sex abuse scandal….it’s culture of denial and misplaced political correctness.

Now you could make the easy comparison with the BBC there…how the Media played its part in Rotherham allowing the crimes to go under the radar, allowing the authorities, the Establishment, to look the other way, as the Media refused to report them…..a Media also in denial due to its own misplaced political correctness….a Media not fit for purpose.

The problem is this still goes on, even in regard to Rotherham, as the BBC struggles with the concept of racially or religiously targeted attacks…at least by an ethnic minority….and of course it makes no mention of the Media’s role in helping to perpetuate the crimes by not reporting them.

But it isn’t just Rotherham and the sex abuse scandal, the BBC adopted precisely the same attitude towards the ‘Trojan Horse’ plot which it at first ignored, then tried to dismiss as a hoax and a paranoia based upon prejudice, Islamophobia and racism.  Even now it claims the letter outlining the plot was a hoax…and has never reported that the Muslim Council of Britain published its own ‘Trojan Horse’ type guide for education authorities in 2007…the author being the same man at the centre of the current Trojan Horse plot.  You might think that was highly relevant and damning piece of evidence…but the BBC prefers to ignore it….as it would confirm that the Trojan Horse plot was true whilst they would always like to maintain an element of doubt.

And Birmingham Council was similarly in denial about the plot absolutely refusing to admit there was a problem…so is Birmingham Council ‘fit for purpose’?

In contrast the BBC has no problem attacking the white, Middle Class ‘crimes’ of being successful, responsible and ambitious…..


The New Statesman tells us….

After Question Time on 5 February the BBC aired a new TV ad for their flagship radio current affairs programme, Today:

It features the voice of the artist Grayson Perry, punchily taking on male privilege: “The Great White Male – white, middle-class men – probably only make up about 10 per cent of the population, and yet 70 per cent of government, I don’t know, 80 per cent of boardroom directors, 90 per cent of Hollywood film directors are male. The middle-class male thinks he has the monopoly on objectivity.”

John Humphrys: “Positive discrimination, that’s what’s got to happen.”

Perry: “Yeah, and anyone who complains about it, that’s because their privilege is being ripped out of their claws.”

It ends with the slogan: To see the world clearly, listen to the Today programme.


That’ll be the same John Humphrys who decries the ‘stranglehold’ that the Middle Classes apparently have on education….I’d say it was the Middle Classes embracing education…..if others don’t see the value of it that’s their look out.


All of which plays into the BBC’s next great project to undermine the white Middle Classes….who obviously all vote Tory…

BBC accused of political bias in adaptation of JK Rowling drama The Casual Vacancy just weeks before Election

The BBC has come under fire over its adaptation of J K Rowling’s novel The Casual Vacancy just weeks before the General Election.

The broadcaster has been accused of ramping up Left-wing issues in the book – by adding scenes which do not even appear in the novel.

Tory MP and former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said the timing of the broadcast struck him as being ‘very odd at least’.

He said: ‘In the run-up to a General Election, the Government quite rightly has to go into purdah and refrain from doing anything provocative. I think the BBC should have to apply the same criteria.’

The drama does not mention any political parties but critics say the battle over Sweetlove House is a thinly disguised attack on the Government’s welfare cuts, which will be one of the crucial issues for the May 7 Election.

In an interview in The Mail on Sunday, Rowling defended herself against accusations that her novel was a Left-wing attack on the middle classes.

She said: ‘I’m not anti-middle class in the slightest.’

Broadcaster Melvyn Bragg defended the BBC’s right to adapt the work of a novelist who he insisted was partisan and political in the same way as Dickens.

The Labour peer said: ‘This is a political novel in the sense that it is addressing what happens when society cuts off those people who they think are inadequate.’

Yes…a political novel being televised just before an election in which the BBC’s favoured Party has based much of its campaign on the very same issues raised in the series.

‘Biased BBC’ had a look at much of this way back in 2012…

‘It seems to be JK Rowling week on the BBC.’

A whole class of people has been betrayed and abandoned…to protect the authorities from claims of racism but also the ethnic communities that the sex gangs come from…especially as it turns out that it was particularly white girls being picked on as the Muslims didn’t want to attack girls of their own faith.

The BBC (and other media) must have also played its part in hiding the truth…there must have been complicity with the police and social workers in agreeing what would and would not be reported.

It is remarkable that any of those journalists who ducked the issue and agreed to censorship can now hold their heads up without any shame or remorse.

Their behaviour is of course in stark contrast to that normally at the BBC where working class ‘victims’ of government cuts and inaction are meat’n’veg to BBC anti-cuts agitators with always a ready welcome in a warm BBC studio if you have a tale to tell that paints a doom laden scenario of how ‘cuts’ are affecting you.


Have a look at this, an interview with J.K. Rowling about her new book ‘Casual Vacancy’….dealing with class warfare, drugs and teen sex.

Rowling states that the book is essentially about a girl named Krystal…and it is asking ‘What are we going to do about Krystal?’ (and girls like her).

Clearly ‘Krystal’ is from the same sort of background as the real victims in Rotherham and the book raises all sorts of questions about ‘society’ and of course Middle Class attitudes.

The BBC laps it up….apparently the Guardian and the BBC were given privileged access to the book…so work that out.

However, apart from the interviewer, James Runcie, being a good friend of Rowling, he is pretty keen to bring out all these social issues and start insinuating blame.

Funny how caring the BBC can be about the white, working class drug addled girls whose knickers, in the eyes of the BBC and its ilk, are kept up purely by the power of their elastic when it suits the BBC’s own agenda.

But the really interesting point was made by Rowling in which she said she was fed up with the point scoring and soundbite culture of modern politics…which she blamed on the ‘beauty parade’ that is democracy.

But who is really to blame?

The media…it is the media that sets the agenda…it decides who gets airtime, how much airtime and on which subject…it then decides the questions, and decides the answers…in the editing suite…if it’s live they can interrupt and cut you off or bring in another guest to quash your point or to take up time.

Politicians have very little say in what they can get over to the public especially in the face of a hostile interview…however subtle that hostility is.


So in one post from 2012 we have a very neat summation of what is happening now….the politically correct denial, the BBC’s fascination with poor white girls only when it suits their political agenda, it’s anti-Middle Class take on life,  and the Media’s role in distorting not just the political narrative but in hiding crimes due to political correctness.

The BBC is dangerously biased and is intent on manipulating the election result.



Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Something In The Airwaves

  1. Thoughtful says:

    Of course I’ll never be able to prove this, but I don’t believe Rotherham’s Labour council in denial, or bothered in the slightest by Political Correctness.
    I believe they knew what was going on and tacitly approved of it, in much the same way as Jo Brands disgraceful rant on racism and how you can’t be racist against white people.

    It was their favourite brown eyed boys abusing their hated untermensch and the loonie lefties just thought that they deserved it.

    If after all this came out we had seen some contrition from those involved, and a realisation that they had put PC first in some misguided way then that might have flown as a theory, but they haven’t shown any kind of remorse at all. Not for the victims, not for the families, not for anyone white at all.

    The worst of all this is the lack of insight by politicians who these days seem to want to take the path of least resistance when it comes to Muslims misbehaving, so the Fascist left is allowed to grow, and to gain strength.

    I’m sure that if a number of voices did have the bottle to talk about the split in the Labour Party between its traditionalist and Fascist wings then Millipede would have a great deal of difficulty dealing with it, and it might well cost him the election.


  2. Deborah(another) says:

    Rowling wrote the book under a pseudonym and if I remember rightly,it was panned by the critics before they knew if was hers.It Just goes to show not only the bias but hypocracy of dramatising a book which is not very good according to all the reviews.
    In respect of election bias I believe and hope there is a silent majority out there who want the state cut back and I speak as someone who used to work for it and saw it become bloated with cash wasted right left and centre .And dont get me started on the poverty lobby.


    • Scott says:

      Rowling wrote the book under a pseudonym and if I remember rightly,it was panned by the critics before they knew if was hers.

      Wrong. While she used a pseudonym for her Cormoran Strike crime novels, JK Rowling was always identified as the author of this, her first non-Harry Potter book. And while it got some negative reviews, it got far more positive ones.

      It Just goes to show not only the bias but hypocracy of dramatising a book which is not very good according to all the reviews.

      So if “all the reviews” tend towards a favourable review of a book which was one of the fastest-selling novels of all time, that would suggest that the “bias and hypocrisy” are as imagined as your other points?


      • Guest Who says:

        “…favoured newspapers and broadcasters — namely, the Left-leaning Guardian and the BBC — were given access to Miss Rowling before the launch. Cue positive publicity for the novel.”

        Thoughts on what factors can lead to speed of sales, such as the commitment of a £4bpa PR machine for free?

        Guessing you’re steering clear of such as QT being outed as a blatant agenda rigging circus by one if its once-favoured sons, ironically?


        • Scott says:

          “…favoured newspapers and broadcasters — namely, the Left-leaning Guardian and the BBC — were given access to Miss Rowling before the launch. Cue positive publicity for the novel.”

          Thoughts on what factors can lead to speed of sales, such as the commitment of a £4bpa PR machine for free?

          “a needle sharp and darkly comic expose of today’s class-ridden society… Pagford will strike a chord with anyone who’s ever lived in a small town. Parish council seats aren’t usually as hotly contested as this but Rowling perfectly encapsulates the petty in-fighting… The Casual Vacancy is a highly readable morality tale for our times.”

          A review from the hardly left-leaning Daily Express.

          But yeah, you and Alan carry on believing in your left wing conspiracy theories if you like. I mean, it’s not like you’ve ever let a lack of factual evidence stop you before…


          • Scotty says:

            You tell them Scott.

            Most of the people on this site want to live in a woldl they thought existed in 1950, but didn’t.


            • Deborah(another) says:

              As for going back to the 1950,s how appropriate that you chose the decade of my birth, born into abject poverty , mother died when aged 3, father worked all hours and no welfare state intervention. Result,i am someone who knows about real poverty and hardship and how to stand on my own two feet and have passed it on to my family.
              Dont assume anything about who posts on this site .


              • Scotty says:

                I meant the moral way society was run before the swinging 60’s.

                Not poverty, even the people living on benefits are better off than 99% of people living in 1900.


                • pah says:

                  even the people living on benefits are better off than 99% of people living in 1900

                  In what sense?


            • Doublethinker says:

              In 1950 1400 white girls ( plus many more across the North) weren’t sexually attacked by Muslims with the connivance of the political elite, police and media. If you think we have progressed since 1950 in this regard you must be a cretin.


          • I Can See Clearly Now says:

            Know nothing about books, but I thought you might have been well-placed to address the other Deborah’s point about waste – from an arts point-of-view. As the UK declines into poverty, government spending on the arts will be more difficult to justify, if it can be justified at all. The record under Labour was scandalous:

            Arts centre ‘complete waste of money’

            As for Rowling, isn’t she just a classic champagne socialist?

            In work and in life, JK Rowling embraces the middle-class values she claims to despise

            From the comments:

            ” whereas she was an educated single mother on benefits who struck gold.” – who also had a lot of help and support. The flat she lived in was in a very nice part of Edinburgh (Morningside I believe) and it was owned by a friend. The cafe she wrote in was owned by a realtive, so she was hardly going to get chucked out for nursing a coffee. At the time of the first book she was doing a PGCE and using the college WP facilities to type the manuscript up (this was confirmed by her tutor in an interview on the STV news when she got her first whiff of fame).

            JKR admitted a couple of years ago that she bigged the “poverty strick, practically destitute single mother on welfare” bit up. It’s not as if she was living on one of the Edinburgh sink estates with all the drug dealers, addicts and assorted other lowlifes. I find she has a very middle class, champagne socialist take on the lives of the poor. She would have fitted in well in Islington with all the other NuLabour lot.


            • Scott says:

              Always good to see Biased BBC commenters bringing out the old “it’s okay to use an ad hominem argument if I do it” routine. Highlights their own shortcomings in so many ways.


              • Arthur Penney says:

                For real experts in ad hominem you need look no further than the Guardian. Funny how the left hate turnabout.


              • I Can See Clearly Now says:

                If we criticised the left for picking their noses, or drinking before 11am, you might have a point. But ordinary folk, after a lifetime of listening homilies by these hypocrites, have a right to comment on the disconnect between what they say and what they consistently practice themselves.

                Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

                Matthew 23:27


                • Scott says:

                  a right to comment on the disconnect between what they say and what they consistently practice themselves.

                  Let’s just overlook the whole “disconnect between what JK Rowling says, and what articles (which we’ve selectively chosen because they back up our own prejudices) say that she has said”, of course.

                  And oh, the irony of accusing others of hypocrisy (via Scripture, no less) from a Biased BBC commenter!


              • CCE says:

                Sigh, or should use the trademark “bless”. It is feeding time again as I seem to have lost a few goats by the bridge recently

                wheel out the ad hominem defense again

                Hypocrisy and worse an inability to detect irony from Scott, as usual.

                I am paraphrasing here as I cannot recall your assertions in detail – I seem to recall you deploying a concerted ad hominem rant recently, calling me a sad hypocritical little man, an idiot or words to that effect, asserting that this was true because you said so, accusing me of homophobia when there was none and demonstrating conclusively that you do not want to engage in a discussion but simply label people as your prejudice dictates. Here’s some ammunition for you, you may recall typing such stuff – you are indeed pseudonymous self important ‘no mark’ (WTF?) whose actual intellectual ability is massively outpaced by your self perception. I cannot comment on your height, your cheerfulness or success in life – as I do not have your powers of deduction or perhaps clairvoyance.

                But what does that count for because Scott you constantly inform posters that you inhabit a superior, more cerebral, moral and intellectual plain than the crass neanderthals you patronise so weakly; hence there is no need for you to apply your own arguments to yourself. Consistency and coherence don’t matter do they because there are (and I do agree that there are) homophobes, bigots and people with views that a lot of people – including myself – disagree with on this site.


                • Scott says:

                  wheel out the ad hominem defense again

                  Hypocrisy and worse an inability to detect irony from Scott, as usual


                  Yes, it’s all my fault. It’s my fault that “CCE” reads all of Biased BBC commenters bringing out the old “it’s okay to use an ad hominem argument if I do it” routine and then deliberately ignores the point.


                  • John Anderson says:

                    Ignore the troll


                    • Scott says:

                      Thank you as ever for your regular, if stale, contribution, John.

                      Care to explain why you ignore far worse behaviour from regular Biased BBC contributors? Is it because you think it’s okay, because you and they believe their own political and social viewpoints absolve them from any personal responsibility? Or is it because you’re frightened of them, that you’re just a snivelling little coward who goes after me because you’re not man enough to face up to the demented wannabe bullies who riddle this site?

                      Because, I mean, it can’t be just that you’re a sad little obsessive who has nothing of merit to contribute yourself. That can’t be it… can it?


          • Guest Who says:

            “.an inclusion he said that had not been agreed beforehand”

            I must make a note to remove the content of the Guardian from sources acceptable as factual evidence.

            Even if it is unlikely the BBC will do so.

            This may create certain dilemmas to your woldl view.


      • Sickofitall says:

        So if “all the reviews” tend towards a favourable review of a book which was one of the fastest-selling novels of all time, that would suggest that the “bias and hypocrisy” are as imagined as your other points?

        Ermmmmm, no? Not necessarily. Depends on who gave it favourable reviews, and their political leanings, you chump.


        • Scott says:

          See above, where I linked to a review from the Express – a paper so known for its leftward leanings that George R regularly includes it in his link dumps to publications that reinforce his own prejudices.


          • I Can See Clearly Now says:

            Good paper, the Express, for ordinary, working-class folk like me. The Express and UKIP cater for us now, since the Guardian and Labour re-positioned to speak for the sneering, metropolitan elite.


            • Scott says:

              The Express and UKIP cater for us now

              Indeed. They also have a reputation for printing stories which have varying degrees of truth all the way to outright lies – as I’m sure the McCann family (about whom the Express admitted publishing over 100 false and defamatory articles) will attest.

              But I’m sure your love for the Express and its somewhat oblique approach to telling the truth aren’t in any way connected.


              • I Can See Clearly Now says:

                They also have a reputation for printing stories which have varying degrees of truth all the way to outright lies

                You regularly get very exercised by ‘selectively chosen articles’, but, hey! – you’re not averse to a little selectivity yourself! I’m more interested in the track record of the media and the political parties on major issues, than on the unfortunate McCanns. Immigration, for instance. Lest you accuse me of bias, haven’t Labour themselves admitted getting it wrong? At least, the BBC reported that Miliband shifts immigration policy, saying Labour ‘got it wrong’. And according to the Gruniard, the former news director of the BBC admitted that the corporation held a “deep liberal bias” in its coverage of immigation (sic). The Express and UKIP, notwithstanding the vile abuse heaped on them over the years, have been proved right.


          • Sickofitall says:

            OK, so that’s one that you ‘link dumped’.

            That’s not ‘all reviews’, is it…

            Any more? ‘Right leaning’ sources that may have given it a favourable review?

            One swallow does not a summer make, old chap.


            • Essex Man says:

              Must be Sunday , so no plays for Scott to watch/review ,so he comes here ,instead of going to Church or maybe mosque .


      • Flexdream says:

        While the R4 Today programme will make a news headline out of the latest Labour press release, I don’t think a serialisation of JK Rowling’s book will influence how any one will vote.


    • Deborah says:

      My book club are very keen for us to read this book. I am determined that we don’t as I am damned if either JK herself or the Labour Party through her donations are going to get a penny from me.


      • pah says:

        Download it from one of the many file sharing sites as an ebook. It’s bound to be there somewhere.

        She and, therefore they, won’t get a penny then.


      • Flexdream says:

        Get it from the library or a charity shop.


  3. Dominique du Slap says:

    Sorry off topic. But forgive me if my eyes fail me, but I cannot find the word Islam anywhere; maybe I’m wrong. It’s yet another ludicrous and ridiculous BBC report that forgets to mention one little thing in detail: it’s Muslims and Islam that is the problem. Anyone would think it’s Christians that are being radicalised. Personally, I view radicalised a a gutless lefty euphemism, similar to grooming, that aims to sidestep the issue because of fear of Muslims.

    Islam is incompatible with western culture and is causing all sorts of problems not just in Europe but all around the globe. And yet the Left spearheaded by the media, are petrified of saying anything. Thus, we have a situation where a soldier on the streets of our capital is beheaded and journalists in France are machine gunned and all the BBC is worried about is ‘Islamaphobia’!

    Disgraceful dhimmis!


    • Sickofitall says:

      Spot on. My eyes fail me also, as I cannot see the ‘M’ word mentioned at all.


    • DP111 says:

      Rotherham is the just a tip of the iceberg. Sex slaving gangs enslaved young white girls, numbers probably in the tens of thousands if not more.

      All this was under the tutelage of Labour. Votes, Votes and hang the women and the nation.

      The amazing thing is that all those involved will get away with it.

      When and if, the true scale of sex slavery in the UK comes to light, it will be day of shame on Britain, not seen in the history of any nation.


  4. George R says:

    Yes, the re-write and broadcasting of anti-Tory, pre-Election propaganda by Rowling is mere ‘polical correctness’ to BBC-NUJ.


  5. Guest Who says:

    Looking forward to ‘Midsomer Grooming in Paradise’, just commissioned by the BBC’s Drama Queen, to show whatever thinking there is, there is not much left.

    With Lenny Henry as the Vicar of the parish doing a literal Father Brown, cross-denominationally, a cross-dressing Kris Marshall bumbles around for a while before exposing PC Peter Griffin as a chicken, and really it was all the fault of society.


    There’s also a car crash between a texting Labour lord and Ed Balls & Hattie, who can’t remember who was driving.

    No.. sorry.. that was a Panorama, cancel… postponed while the Palace of Westminster got its story straight.

    No.. sorry… None of it ever happened, and it has been relocated to Glasgow to make sure it never will.


  6. Odo Saunders says:

    Radio Five “gets much worse” Live has again failed to mention the report on the Rotherham scandal, despite the fact that it was published on the 4th February!! The “news” station has been able to avoid any reference to the scandal this weekend, partly due to its wall -to -wall coverage of the Premier League and the Six Nations Rugby. This situation reminds me of Ancient Rome when the emperors would provide the populace with bread and circuses to keep them quiet! The BBC obviously hopes that all this sport will anaesthetise their listeners from raising any questions about the matter.

    However, the station did have a report on the state of care homes in this country, where it was alleged that a number of homes were not providing an adequate level of care for old people. It is only right that such a matter should be thoroughly investigated, particualrly as many of these residents have provided outstanding service to this country during the times of war and peace. But could not this investigation have been broadened to include local authority homes for young people, especially as their residents do represent the future of this country?

    The station also had a report on a speech by Prince Charles, in which he expressed his concern about extremism among young Moslems and the fate of Christians in the Middle East. An academic by the name of Kate Williams argued that this Prince should keep out of politcs as his mother has always done. Excuse me Ms. Williams! Succesive governments haqve ignored the rise of extremism among young Moslems for a long time, and I do not hear the Church of England speaking out about the beleagured Christian minorities in the Middle East and Pakistan. “Churchmen” like John Sentanu are more concerned with promoting a left-wing political agenda, and trying to make themselves “the Labour Party at prayer.”


  7. chrisH says:

    Where the hell is UKIPs new map for this country of ours?
    1. Haringey-Labour-Baby P.
    2. Lewisham(?)-Islam-Lee Rigby
    3. Oxfordshire-Labour 2003-David Kelly
    4. Birmingham-Labour-Trojan Horse
    5. Mid-Staffs-Labour-Mid-Staffs NHS
    6.Bradford-Labour /Co-op-Paul Flowers
    7.Rotherham-Labour/Islam-Industrial scale child abuse of underage girls in “public care”
    8.Belfast-Labour/IRA-“On the runs/deals with Adams and McGuinness TBA.
    9. Edinburgh-Labour/SNP-Defeated ScotsNats to run this country, continue free prescriptions, care homes and student fees whilst screwing England over and over again.
    Oh-and in both Rotherham and Edinburgh Nigel Farage was barracked and barricaded so he could not walk the streets of his own country.
    Is he not seeing?…with this map of the UK, Tomorrow WILL belong to the lavender/lime green nazis and their brownshirt union/SWP placards who face us down today.
    Wake up UKIP-you`re going to have to “fight for this love”


    • TigerOC says:

      Once again one has to ask at what level have the Police been politicised. In both instances the Police acted in favour of the demonstrators. In their opinion it was not safe or they could not ensure the safety of NF.

      Like Rotherham, have instructions come from on high to do the “right thing”. Simply put if the Police thought that individuals amongst the demonstrators were or could be violent why weren’t they removed. They have no such problem when it comes to the EDL.

      It is my belief that there is a concerted effort from the very highest levels to shut down anything that rocks the multiculti boat.


  8. George R says:

    Telegraph’ (£)-

    “Rotherham is yet another massive failure by our social workers.”

    By Christopher Booker.


  9. stuart says:

    yes, the oxbridge educated marxists of the bbc do hate and discriminate against the white middle classes,but there is a bigger hatred out there which people must understand and that is the complete hatred for the white working classes by the labour party and there councils up and down the country who abandoned 2000 working class white schoolchildren in rotherham into to the hands of these pakistani muslim paedophile rings who raped,tortured and sold them into sexual slavery as 2 goverment reports have revealed in the past few months,no doubt there will be more atrocitys revealed in the coming months where this same type of paedophila is going on under the leadership of labour councils up and down the country.lets hope one day all these labour councillors and even police officers who ignored the pleas and crys of the raped schoolchildren will be sharing the same prison cells as those paedophiles who they gave a nod and a wnk and turned a blind eye to carry on there campaign of terror and rape against these children,no justice no peace i say.