Interesting insight from someone who worked for the BBC
I see that Andrew Marr was able to provide gay activitist and luvvie Ian McKellan with a soap-box this morning. McKellan is able to spout all sorts of imagined “homophobic” allegations against our society in general without any challenge from Marr. The BBC is an established forum for the advocacy of gay propaganda.
So, Evan Davies trots along to the first Conservative Gay Pride bash in Manchester last night where blogger Iain Dale was compere. (There was also a Conservative Muslim Forum apparently but no report on it.) What gets me is that the context of the debate the BBC sets is always about how progressive one is about advancing the status of Gay Rights. Why should private individuals sexual preferences get ANY such elevated position (whoops!). Is there anybody out there who thinks the gay lobby may already be pandered to excessively and if so, why are they not provided with a voice? The BBC meme is that Gay Rights is something we must all embrace here. What gives them the right to say this? I have no issue with gay people other than the simple observation that what they do in their private lives is not any of my business nor any of my political concern.
I see that the BBC has afforded celebrity gay and businessman Sir Michael Bishop with a platform from which he can accuse the world of business of still holding prejudice against gay people. Peter Tatchell also gets the chance to put in his point of view. Naturally there is no contrary point of view. We’re all homophobes now…..
The BBC acts as an echo chamber for gay rights activists, Stonewall and this time around football is “institutionally homophobic.” Have a read of this pro gay rights propaganda.
I see that the BBC has been running a Lancet generated sob story about the alarmingly high African male gay AIDS rate. It seems that the cause of this disease is “cultural, religious and political unwillingness to accept gay men as equal members of society”. The solution is to spend more money on it, apparently. We have to wade through several paragraphs of nonsense to discover that “gay men were also more likely to be involved in other high-risk behaviours, including sex work, having multiple partners and being in contact with intravenous drug users” You don’t say?
Hey Soap opera fans – good news!
“EastEnders is to tackle one of the last taboos left in soap, with a storyline featuring a Muslim character embarking on a gay love affair. MediaGuardian.co.uk can reveal that the plot, which will hit screens in mid-June, will see Syed Masood, a Muslim property developer with a girlfriend who arrived in Albert Square six weeks ago, fall for openly gay Christian Clarke. The pair will share an on-screen kiss.
The BBC has billed the storyline as a “traditional love affair, albeit with a modern multicultural twist”. The BBC1 soap’s production team researched the plot, which is bound to prove controversial with some viewers, contacting academics, gay Muslim support groups and members of the Muslim Council of Great Britain.
So, in BBC world, gay love affairs are “traditional” – and any effort to give the multiculti Muslim twist has been handled sensitively as the dialogue with the MCB indicates. I am sure Britain’s Muslims will take the gay Islam kiss in the spirit the BBC intends, or at least I hope so.
I fully accept that there are different opinions on the issue of whether active homosexuals should be Ministers of religion. So the current debate happening in the Church of Scotland merits consideration from both sides. I was disappointed but not surprised to listen to this item on BBC Today this morning which is plainly only offering a PRO-gay lifestyle perspective. Surely the BBC should have provided a debate on the issue rather than a cosy liberal consensus?
I was reading this BBC report concerning the decision by the Northern Ireland assembly not to prosecute DUP MLA Iris Robinson over comments she made about homosexuals last year. Robinson, chair of the Stormont health committee, called for homosexuals to seek psychiatric counselling.
Now, a few points; 1. I have no time for Mrs Robinson or her awful party. 2. I passionately believe in free speech. 3.This BBC item presents the issue purely in terms of the militant gay lobby screeching for Robinson to be prosecuted for hate crime versus the DUP chiming Iris is innocent. What about the views of us who are neither gay nor DUP (or even both!!) but who see that there is something inherently wrong in preventing the expression of opinion in the public sphere just because it offends one small but vocal minority. Why do WE not get a say on this? Is it because you can tell that the BBC line is very much in line with the gay lobbyists and whilst they cannot be overt about this, they seek to suggest that only the DUP are in favour of free speech?
?
I watched a debate on BBC1 Morning news this morning concerning as to whether it was a good idea for children as young as four to be taught about gay relationships, lesbianism etc. Naturally the BBC had a few pretty militant gay lobbyists to press for this systemic desecration of childhood innocence and to provide balance there was one sensible lady from the Campaign for Real Education who simply asserted that it was entirely inappropriate to be teaching such issues to young kids. However the thing that struck me was the wild-eyed look that entered the presenters eyes when the lady who opposed the teaching of gay propaganda to pre-primary school children stated that, as a matter of fact, gay relationships were “not the norm”! My goodness but they look startled. She said the unspeakable – doubt she’ll be invited back on!
