The BBC : Aunty Beeb or Mummy knows best?

The management may have chopped the Savile programme, but no journalist resigned in protest either.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was set up in the early 1920s, in order to establish a radio service for both the UK and its empire. Its first Director General was a fiery Scot called John Reith, who despite saying that he’d little idea of what broadcasting actually was, set a commendable corporate ethos, which was that its mission was to inform, educate and entertain.

It’s funded by a compulsory tax, called a television license, levied on any household which has a television set. It is annually in receipt of 3.5 billion pounds sterling via the license charge, on which it pays no taxation. To this income is added profits from marketing its products domestically and to other countries, which brings the turnover up to about the 5 billion pound mark.

It styles itself as being totally independent of the government of the day and any particular political party. As its current Director General said recently, it’s owned by the people. Well, it’s certainly financed by the people but whether they actually own it or have any effective say in what it broadcasts, is a highly debatable point.

Like any massive bureaucratic organisation, it has gone through some highs and lows, but the BBC, more than most, has had a lot more of the latter. In its very early days, it reflected solely the views of the ruling upper class and the elitists amongst them too. In the ten years prior to the outbreak of WWII, it pushed the line of appeasement with the Nazis, and simply denied access to its programmes to any dissenting viewpoint. Does that sound familiar? In that decade, Churchill, who saw Hitler and National Socialism for what they really were and the danger they would become, only managed to get on it once a year.

During the war years, it basically did as it was told by Churchill and the coalition government, and it did it well. While it certainly turned out its own fair share of propaganda, it was those six years that really earned it a worldwide reputation as a trustworthy source of information, irrespective of to whom it might be inconvenient.

Throughout the fifties and early sixties, it didn’t seem to be able to escape the iron control it had been placed under during the war years, resulting in the widespread perception that it was simply a right-wing mouthpiece of government. That perception was essentially correct, but since it had both a wireless and television monopoly, nothing could be done about it.

The sixties and seventies were better eras for it. All the old schedules were thrown out and new ones, more focused on the ordinary person put in place. Out went the plum Oxbridge accents, to be replaced by a few originating from outside the London catchment area. This change was forced upon them by plunging audiences, caused by the appearance of commercial television channels and later by the deregulation of radio broadcasting, courtesy of the pirate stations broadcasting from outside territorial waters. Again, all the radio schedules were scrapped in favour of programmes that did things like playing the music the people actually wanted to listen to. The quality of the news, reporting and especially the entertainment, became exceptional, to the point where the new programmes were sold to other countries, for development into local formats.

Having made the change to be more representative of the ordinary person, the trend continued into the eighties but not to good effect. Increasingly, it lost contact with and any interest in nationwide concerns and concentrated more and more on minority issues, at lot of which were highly political. News output gradually made that subtle shift from reporting the news to presenting the news. This was supposed to make it more hard-hitting and relevant but all that was actually happening was the distinction between news reporting and news commentary was now blurring. Mainly, this took the form of spin but it also included a less than even-handed selection of what exactly was to be reported or not.

They were still trying to compete mindlessly with commercial broadcasters in the same style and genres, instead of using their unique advantage of not having to earn an income, to produce quality rather than populist content.

Looking back over its 90 year history, certain trends are apparent in its evolution. The most obvious one is that like any big organisation, it only changes in response to threatening situations. Given that its income stream in guaranteed, irrespective of the reception of its product, it more than most has no incentive to change unless its very existence is under threat, and it never has changed without that compulsion. That only happens when its audience share plunges to dangerous lows.

The second observation is more subtle but nonetheless just as real. It started off as a vehicle for the upper class, run by the upper class and exclusively for the benefit and pleasure of the upper class, or aspirants to that bracket. During the war years, it really came of age when it became the voice of the nation, talking to the world. It was then as close as it’s ever been to talking to the ordinary british person. After that, it moved to being London centric. Watching it, you’d hardly know life existed north of Watford, and with a few terrific exceptions like Alan Bleasdale’s plays, life up there was not painted in any realistic light. It still isn’t, in my opinion, and the same applies to the south, east and western directions from London as well. In the last twenty years, it’s evolved to cater for an even more specific niche; medialand.

Medialand reflects its inhabitants. They’re all enlightened people intent on building a beautiful new world, and they know exactly how well they’re doing in that endeavour, because they constantly tell each other how well they’re doing. Beyond a few personal bitchy spats, they rarely disagree with each other. They’ve all done Media Studies, did politics, journalism or marketing at college and do the obligatory stint at the BBC, before heading out to the Guardian. Their politics are overwhelmingly liberal, which is medialand speak for left of centre. On any serious political question, there is only one approved viewpoint, with a complete and dismissive intolerance of any other.

If you thought consensus science was bad, you’ve never had an encounter with consensus journalism.

They’re obviously aware there are people out there who don’t live in medialand but they’re very patient with them, since it’s their mission to lead such people to the light. Although they all of course agree with Voltaire’s maxim of I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it – that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll ever get to say it using any organ of medialand. That makes complete sense to them, because you see there are one set of laws for those who live in medialand, and another for the rest of us poor Morlocks, shambling around in the darkness of our unenlightened underworld.

Over its lifespan, the BBC’s class divide became a geographic divide, then a political divide, and now a cultural one, but what has never changed is that its mindset was always and is still elitist, in the very worst sense of that word. It’s always been about broadcasting to the common folk what their betters consider is best for them, and they know exactly what that is.

You may disagree that the BBC inhabits an elitist medialand, which is out of touch with its audience, but if that’s the case, you’ll have to come up with an alternative explanation for the string of furores it’s been involved in.

Who on earth thought that two sniggering louts ringing up a retired and well-loved elderly actor out of the blue and regaling him in explicit detail with the sexual exploits of his granddaughter was a good idea? Who thought that broadcasting live and without his knowledge on national radio, an elderly man in his seventies trying to defend his extended family could possibly be tasteful, never mind fair? Did they even ask the poor girl before they trashed her reputation to the nation? What sort of reaction did they think that would provoke from the ordinary person?

How could it possibly be alright to stand in high judgement on other people’s shady deals when all along, they’d retained all their highly paid stars and top executives via external service companies, which meant both the BBC and the people themselves ended up paying considerably less tax?

How can it possibly be right to take the decision to give no time to the climate realist viewpoint and furthermore, go to court to defend the identities of the cabal of people who actually were the only input into that decision? How can you possibly defend giving something as important as the global warming question, the same unique protection you once gave to the policy of appeasement?

So many times, they offend the sentiments of ordinary people, because they simply don’t know what that those sentiments are. They seem incapable of understanding the very idea of some basic things like love of country and respect for the men and women who are prepared to put everything on the line, to protect that old-fashioned idea. Notions like that are very out fashion in medialand.

They desperately wanted to spin the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as some sort of variant of Britain’s very own Vietnam, by almost eagerly reporting each casualty on the evening news, but their silly agenda was beaten by the quiet dignity of a bunch of villagers nobody had ever heard of. The people of Brize Norton heard the transports droning in with the bodies aboard, so they knew the hearses would be driving by in a while. Everything stopped in the village for five minutes, as they lined the streets to pay their final respects to the hearses driving by.

They knew each of those hearses contained someone’s son or daughter and irrespective of the politics of the thing, it was a person who’d lost their life in the service of their country. Old fashioned stuff but even a bunch of sophisticates like you couldn’t sneer at it for too long, because people found it grossly offensive, which yet again surprised you. You repackaged it as your very own condescending take on little England but let’s face it, you’ll never understand anything like that. That would involve something called patriotism.

For years your reporters stood there in a helmet and flak jacket, twenty miles away from where the metal met the meat, looking suitably heroic as they rehashed the press handout just given to them by the liaison officer. It took a soap star called Ross Kemp to actually live with the troops, go out on foot patrol with them and dodge bullets with them, to shame you into doing some real war correspondent reporting and you’ve still not caught up with him. I’ve never watched the soap he was in and probably never will, but I have to hand it to him, he’s got brass ones. Like all good interviewers, he asked a decent question, stayed quiet and let them talk for themselves about what they thought of the war and by doing that, gave us a good picture of its realities from their viewpoint. You’ve done a service to the troopers you’ve obviously grown to love Mr. Kemp, so my hat comes off to you.

You think we’ve no longer got things like the average family, where there is a Mom and a Dad and a few kids. That’s all been somehow replaced with transient partnerships of metro sexual hermaphrodites, with a rainbow alliance of brats from hell, all doing their own thing and being very creative, which as everyone knows, is shorthand for bringing down the quality of life for everyone else in their community. Believe it or not Ladies and Gentlemen of the BBC, there is a world where parents love their children and the children return that love. It doesn’t even involve sexual abuse, it’s just ordinary. Yes, I know that might be hard for you to believe but it’s true. Apart from the usual family squabbles, it may not exactly make a riveting programme but that’s the way it is.

When it comes to the entertainment part of the BBC’s offering, we get well into that divergence of reality between that fabled medialand they live in and the world everyone else lives in.

I turn on the television and am treated to programmes about people you obviously value and think I should be interested in but whom I just naturally find either depressive or totally abhorrent. The “good” criminal who’s spent most of their adult life preying on the vulnerable but who’s now written a book, totally justifying all the pain and misery they’ve meted out to ordinary people, because it was all somehow society’s fault, which is to say, our fault.

The brainless penis on legs, whose only claim to fame is how many women he’s porked and how many children he’s fathered, before he did a runner on to the next one. The blowsy cow with five children of various colours, who’s never heard of contraception but definitely knows how to claim each and every state benefit going. She’s never worked in her life and never will either. If she should perchance miss one benefit allowance, there’ll be some grim-faced believer in the big society, determined to get it for her and get it backdated too.

Do you really seriously think the average person is interested in the incoherent philosophical musings of trailer trash like that? I’m sure you feel it’s part of you doing your own particular penance for living in the more fashionable areas of London or something, but we actually don’t feel that need. It’s no wonder people are deserting the channel.

Elitism, because it breeds an over class, will always lead to betrayal of the under class and betrayal is systemic; it doesn’t confine itself to just the intellectual but the personal and very human. The latest scandal to hit the BBC falls into that category and it’s a complete new low. One of their major stars of light entertainment, Jimmy Savile, has recently been exposed as a serial paedophile with a 40 year history of preying on young people of both sexes. Some of the offenses are alleged to have been committed at parties on BBC premises and it’s yet to be ascertained if any staffers were involved.

The people who let their adolescent children go to the Top of the Pops programme at the BBC, trusted implicitly that they would be safe, not knowing they were handing them over to the mercy of a predatory and protected sub-culture of paedophiles. It is no defense by middle and especially upper management, to say that they didn’t know. It’s their job to know and don’t forget, over and above that obvious duty, we’re talking here about a journalistic organisation. If there’s one thing I know about any organisation, is that more information always flows up the structure than down it.

The fact that the director of the charity Children in Need, which holds an annual 24 hour fund-raising telethon at the BBC, stipulated explicitly that Savile was not to be involved in any way, is particularly damning. You can read into that as you wish, but to my mind, it means a senior person outside the corporation had picked up on the rumours about him, which leaves senior people within the BBC without any credible excuse for not having done the same. It all happened on their watch and it continued for decades.

It simply verges on the incredible that they didn’t know.

The most outrageous part of the whole episode is that when for the first time in years, BBC journalists actually did some investigative journalism – the mess was right on their own doorstep after all - and produced a programme exposing Savile, it was dropped by management in favour broadcasting tributes to him, as he’d just recently died.

The executive who communicated that decision looks to have fallen on his sword, but it’ll take a lot more than that to remedy the reputational damage and restore a vestige of trust in the institution.

Longer term, it’s difficult to see how the corporation’s current licensing system can stay viable. When the handheld transistor radio became commonplace, any attempt to enforce a radio license became impossible. As broadband speeds increase, web users will find themselves with hundreds of television channels to watch on a netbook computer, rather than on a TV screen. Will a TV license have to be replaced by a computer license? I think not. The financial model will simply break down, and that may turn out to be a mercy killing.

John Reith’s mission statement for the corporation has slowly degenerated over the years until it now reads; to selectively inform, politically educate and provide a stream of grotesques for our amusement.

©Pointman

Related articles :

The death of journalism and the irresistible rise of the blogosphere.

The MSM and Climate Alarmism.

Internet Security 3: The Worst Sort Of Predator.

Another body floats by.

Click for a list of other articles.

About these ads
Comments
34 Responses to “The BBC : Aunty Beeb or Mummy knows best?”
  1. Keith AB says:

    But how did this media elite manage to capture the BBC? Why are we, the fee paying public, so supine that we tolerate the undeniable liberal/left bias?

    You are quite right, and it is a wonderful article Pointman, but it really isn’t just Aunty is it. It’s the entire mainstream media system. I watch SKY here in SA so as to keep current with British affairs but the talking points are the same as the BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Guardian, Independent etc. All the same topics and very much a similar spin/ take on things.

    The internet is the best place to find news and opinions because of the enormous variety of topics and takes but it still feels less substantial than the “old” news delivery system and I can’t quite put my finger on why that should be. Anyway I will continue to resist with all my will the moral and spiritual degeneration that the MSM seems determined to make the new normal and postings from Pointman certainly help in that endeavour. thanks.

  2. Fred Furkenburger says:

    Do I sense a bit of frustration there?? Great article as I must admit I am becoming more and more concerned for the future of the western world as the main stream media is increasingly taken over by the (trying to be well meaning??) left wing side of politics who don’t really seem to have a good grasp of reality.

    Obama should have not won if the general population had been provided with unbiased information devoid of spin which absolutely supported him and belittled Romney. Most likely Labor in Australia would not have gone within a bulls roar of winning the last election if the media had not been partisan. It would seem that they are already tracking down the same path with respect to making sure that “the mug punter’s” view of politics is twisted in their favour.

    Sadly the conservative side of politics not only have to “fight” their political opponents but also the media, the education system and the unions. The funding for their side massively outweighs anything from the conservative side of politics.

  3. Bob TI says:

    Great article as ever P

    Your comment on “computer licence” is sadly already a fact.
    My business was contacted by the licencing authority and was advised that even though the premises had no television sets, we had computers capable of real time TV streaming & viewing therefore the business required a licence.

    Bob

  4. Retired Dave says:

    Absolutely bang on the nail again Pointman.

    The bias at the BBC is now so endemic that they simply don’t grasp the situation. I bet that anyone at the Corporation reading your post will be in denial.

    I believe that a survey of BBC employees in 2010 or 11 had a question asking whether their views were liberal or conservative. It was apparently 11 to 1 and I don’t need to tell you which round it was. I was staggered that it was as close as that.

    It has become openly left in its presentation and content, as an organisation that gets its money easily, it has applied little control over its spending (until forced) and thinks the country can be run the same way. The reporting of political events in the UK in the last few years frequently gives prominence to Labour politician’s statements and is often openly hostile to the Coalitions position.

    The Pro Obama presentation of the recent election was very evident. I don’t think I ever saw a balanced comment on the GOP (not that they help themselves mind you), with no mention of the fiscal conservatism – only coverage of the loonies that do inhabit the outer reaches of the right in the US. Reporting of these nutters is fair game, but balance was never an option. No mention of the $1trillion a year extra debt that the Obama administration has run up.

    The BBC is now not fit for purpose as a taxpayer funded organisation. If someone wants to take it on and peddle left-wing views that’s fine, and if Aunty wants to move back to a balanced level of reporting that’s also fine – BUT its current stance is not viable into the future.

  5. Rob Moore says:

    Top article Pointman.
    As with most of your topics- they seem to be written for Australian conditions as well.Funny how Liberal is your left ( our right here) and Labor’Greens are our socialists.Our.
    ABC does their bidding and we even have a youngish TV presenter in Jail for kiddy porn. It is fondly known as the GayBC by all those in the click and seems the place to go to compensate for a bitter and twisted outlook on life
    They do sport ok and that should be the end of their charter imo.

  6. cark1 says:

    Wow!

    It’s like reading the history of my own country’s national television and radio company, SVT. I’m from Sweden and it seems that SVT (Sveriges television which means Swedens television) has been mimicking BBC right from the start. All the cover ups, all the scandals, everything but the sex with children scandals are there.

  7. Agouts says:

    “It [the BBC] started off as a vehicle for the upper class, run by the upper class and exclusively for the benefit and pleasure of the upper class, or aspirants to that bracket”.

    This could scarcely be more wrong or, given the social realities of the period, more crudely put. Under Reith, whose ethos still very, very dimly permeates the BBC, the organisation saw itself as a means of educating the middle and working classes, of improving them in every way: morals, tastes, interests. And on the whole, it was very successful. Reith was an is objected to on the grounds that he acted as a dictator, imposing his own frequently eccentric views on the BBC. But that on the whole he succeeded in establishing the notion, then quite new, of public service broadcasting as an overall force for good is undoubted.

    All of which is very far from any idea that the BBC was merely a mouthpiece of the ruling classes. It was much more ambitious than that and much more unpredictable.

    What is hugely ironic, however, given Reith’s iron-visaged rectitude as a grimly fearsome Son of the Manse, is that, as he aged, so he conceived a series of increasingly improbable obsessions with younger and younger women, culminating – I hesitate to say climaxing – in a wildly passionate though chaste pursuit of a 13-year-old Austrian girl, Barbara Maerz. Reith was 76 at the time.

  8. Petrossa says:

    What he says: http://biased-bbc.com/
    One long list of bias,lying, agitprop. It is like the BBC became a north Korean style ‘new’ soutlet.

  9. hillbilly33 says:

    Are you sure you’re not an Aussie Pointman, writing about “our” ABC?? Apart from a few decent people working at local level, it is rabidly left-wing from top to bottom. Your paragraphs on ‘Medialand reflects it’s inhabitants’ and “consensus journalism” are so apt and describe perfectly the situation here in Oz, especially in the fields of ABC News, Current Affairs, Politics, Law , Science – the list goes on!
    It is a parallel universe where the left of the ABC, MSM, academia and some other professions and organisations are in a self-imposed ideological bubble of denial and refusal to examine evidence, The real world is being played out on websites like michaelsmithnews.com where Mike is releasing hundreds of documents either already in the public domain, made available by concerned persons directly involved or obtained under FOI. They contain damning evidence of the involvement of Julia Gillard in unlawfully enabling her then lover, to open and operate two unauthorised bank a/c’s, through which he defrauded the Australian Workers Union of over half a million dollars. He has never been brought to justice. There was more money mis-appropriated from many other accounts and Unions across the country using the same method.
    In an interview of Michael Smith by Alan Jones on Radio 2GB yesterday, they laid out chapter and verse, backed by the documentation, the unlawful actions of the person currently occupying the office of Prime minister of Australia, who has so trashed the reputation and respect for that high office, that I refuse to even use her name in the same sentence.
    Not a peep out of the ABC nor any mention in the MSM, yet the recent hysterical unwarranted and untrue “misogynist” rant of the adulterous Prime Minister (defending a misogynist Speaker she herself appointed), against the happily married with three lovely daughters and a female Head of staff, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, went viral round the world and was lauded and promoted extensively by the leftist luvvies of the ABC, MSM, feminists of all persuasions and various other sycophants.
    Gillard stated in an article yesterday she takes the title “badass” bestowed on her by radical American feminist site “Jezebel” as a compliment. Gillard didn’t give the full title which was “badass mother-f****r”. What a charming PM Australia is forced to endure! Would any decent parents really want their daughters to follow this role model?

    As first female PM, she could have done so much for the cause of women,,but instead, by re-igniting the so-called gender wars which were done with many years ago, she has set the feminist movement back many, many years. None will accept that the justified scrutiny and criticism of Gillard has nothing to do with her gender, but is about the wasteful and destructive policy decisions she has made in her bid to cling to power which was won on a blatant lie (there will be no carbon tax), with the support of loopy minor party, the Greens, and three self-serving “Independents”.

    Gillard has imported a Scotsman with a dubious reputation, John McTernan, to handle the dirt campaign. UK readers will know him well. With the re-ignition of the old gender and class wars, entrenching Union, political and legal corruption, trashing honesty, integrity and fairness and substituting lies, deceit and blatant cover-ups, this Gillard Government has succeeded in dividing Australia in ways I’ve never, seen, known or previously thought possible before, in my long life.

    Please check out http://michaelsmithnews.com

    In the search box, look for “if you would like to download the audio file with thanks to 2GB”.
    If you like what you hear, it would be appreciated by many Aussies if you would link it to every website you visit. If you want to know what the decent people of Australia think and pine for, read the comments on a post of mine Michael was kind enough to feature. Search for:
    “Some of the wisest most timely words I’ve read on the state of our country”

    Apologies for the long post Pointman, but in the face of almost wall-to-wall control of the media through either sheer ideology or bullying and threats by the PM, we are hurting and desperately need to get the message out. Cheers and thanks to all. H/B

    • Keith AB says:

      You may have picked up on reports that the BBC “outed” Lord McAlpine as a pedo without even talking to him about the accusations. McAlpine is a Conservative. If it had been a Labour Grandee you can bet your bottom dollar it would have all been handled differently.

      The BBC has now apologised for its lapse but the conspiracy nonsense has already fired up and McAlpine ( 71 and poorly ) will find he is forever shackled to this. If you are white, conservative and successful you are fair game it would seem.

  10. hillbilly33 says:

    Apologies. left out the www. (Wish I knew how to C & P these website addresses)! Try this.

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com

    • Bazza says:

      Well said hilbilly33, I do wonder what the English think of McTernan. Of course they would know very little about the Welsh person. I wonder if they know she called married women prostitutes when she was President of the Students Union and declared 1983 “the year of the Lesbian”

  11. Before the Deluge says:

    Point of order Pointman, the repatriation of the bodies of service personnel from Iraq and Afaghanistan was from 2007 to 2011 actually through RAF Lyneham and respects were shown in the town of Wootton Basset.

    From Wikipedia:

    From April 2007, the bodies of servicemen and women of the British Armed Forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were repatriated to RAF Lyneham while repairs were done at RAF Brize Norton. The bodies would then be transported to John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, in coffins covered with a Union Jack, passing through the town on their way. In the summer of 2007, local members of The Royal British Legion became aware of the repatriation, and decided to formally show their respect to the soldiers as they passed through their town. This led to other people assembling along the route, with large gatherings of sometimes over 1,000 people. After Brize Norton was repaired, the RAF continued to use Lyneham because the “people of Wootton Bassett had done such a lot to lend their support, it was felt it would be insensitive to transfer the process back to Brize.” When RAF Lyneham closed in September 2011, the repatriations moved to RAF Brize Norton and go near to the village of Carterton.

    The town was renamed Royal Wootton Basset by the Queen in 2011 (Wikipedia):

    The town was granted royal patronage in March 2011 by Elizabeth II in recognition of its role in the early 21st century military funeral repatriations, which passed through the town. This honour was officially conferred in a ceremony on 16 October 2011 – the first royal patronage to be conferred upon a town (as distinguished from a borough or county) since 1909.

    I’m not British, so am not given to any sentimentality about British culture. However, I was very taken by the quiet dignified patriotism shown spontaniously by the people of that small town. Old fashioned decency is not dead.

  12. Graeme No.3 says:

    hillbilly33 says:
    Some might think that he has gone “over the top” but unfortunately his version is far, far truer than anything you will hear from our ABC. Colloquially it is said to stand for All Bloody Communists. Comments have occasionally appeared about the tendency of those mentioned about to live in the same areas (inner cities), dress alike, and above all think alike.

    For 30 years the ABC has acted as the publicity arm of the environmental movement; any demonstration/protest involving 6 or more is judged fit for national news. Nothing that casts doubt on man made global warming/climate change/climate disruption etc. will appear on any broadcast (it’s doubtful if it even makes it through the front door). Lately the ABC has taken to campaigning against farmers, partly by exposure of cruel treatment of animals exported live overseas which the farmers have no control over, but is leading to a ban. The result will be a loss of business, as the buyers will not accept anything but live animals. They also back any claim that makes less water available for agriculture.

    As for the allegations about our Prime Minister appearing..the phrase involves hell and cold weather.

  13. Graeme No.3 says:

    I live in a small town which suddenly had a “refugee” camp dumped on it without consultation. As it looked like adversely affecting the economy there was wide spread opposition, fanned it must be admitted by a few racists.

    At the overflowing public meeting, not one politician had the guts to turn up, and it was left to a public servant (and a very poorly informed one) to make soothing noises, and a lot of promises which haven’t been kept. The opposition faded rapidly, and 3 months later the racists couldn’t get even 1% of the local population to attend a new meeting.

    But the ABC filmed the meeting, with 6 speakers supposedly representative of the local “rednecks”. They had to leave the sound off in some cases, as it would have destroyed the message, which is probably why the church minister and another lady in favour of the camp, never appeared. One bloke I know has appeared at least 4 times in various broadcasts waving his arms around and supposedly opposing the camp. What he actually said was “bring them up our way, they will be welcome, our local school would love to have more pupils”.

    He was from out of town, as in fact 5 of the 6 representatives were. And I won’t go into the coaching of front bar habitues before their (paid) interview.

    So now I get asked quite often if “things have quietened down” with the implication that we all wear white sheets and burn fiery crosses at night. The most persistent complaint around town I’ve heard is the refusal to let the children in the camp play with any of the local sporting groups.

  14. Woolly says:

    You’re wasted here in this backwater Pointman. Another well written, thought provoking post. You cover many varied topics very well. With the likes of Ben Pile and Andrew Orlowski you are showing the MSM how it should be done.

    I’ve just watched Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, on the BBC news quiz Have I Got News For You. I think his party came 2nd in the last Euro elections and he makes many great speeches in the Euro parliament but gets virtually no air-time, certainly compared to the Green Pixie Caroline Lucas who is wheeled out at every opportunity to spout her innumerate nonsense. Yet they have him on a comedy programme and spend the whole time trying to ridicule him.

    However, in all the polls I’ve seen and forums I’ve read there is still a big inexplicable affinity for the Beeb. So I don’t think abolishing it or a major restructure would be popular or achievable sadly.

    They think they can get away with anything and unfortunately that seems to be true.

    • Retired Dave says:

      I agree with your comment and assessment – sadly.

      Farage’s treatment is par for the course. I have absolutely NO time for the British National Party (BNP). Any party that has to have legal threats to make it accept anyone other than white people – tells you all you need to know.

      BUT – The ambushing of the BNP leader Nick Griffin on BBC’s Question Time a couple of years back was another low for Aunty. If you invite him on then he should get a fair hearing and the chairman David Dimbleby lead the ambush.

      I would guess that it must be available on YouTube if you didn’t see it

      H/T to Jack Wilder – thanks for the link to an astonishing article

  15. Pointman says:

    The standard of BBC journalism goes from bad to worse before the eyes of the world. First they kill a programme exposing a prolific paedophile and then they broadcast one accusing an innocent man of being one. Mud like that never comes off anyone’s reputation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9667947/BBC-in-chaos-as-abuse-victim-says-Lord-McAlpine-was-not-my-attacker.html

    Pointman

  16. Pointman says:

    “Director-General who turned a blind eye to BBC meltdown – and paid the ultimate price”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231210/Director-General-turned-blind-eye-BBC-meltdown–paid-ultimate-price.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Implosion?

    Pointman

  17. Pointman says:

    For all of them, no matter the uniform.

    Pointman

  18. Alex says:

    Great article Pointman. First time here after seeing your comment on Delingpole’s blog in the DT. I have bookmarked you. Many thanks.

    Most of what you wrote about the BBC is applicable to many other inetrnational mass media machines. The world is currently in their hands and the warp the minds of the young ones, boiling their brain slowly like boiling a frog.

  19. David, UK says:

    I have never bought a TV license, and never will. It’s not that I can’t afford one; I can. Easily.

    The reason I do not have a license is because the concept of a government selling permits to watch television is utterly abhorrent to me. Who the HELL granted anyone else the right to tell us we are allowed or not allowed to watch TV?

    In practice, living with an unlicensed TV is piss easy. I know this from over 20 years’ experience. In that time I have had callers from the TV Licensing Gestapo at my door on three occasions that I was home to be aware of it. Each time I told them I would not let them in. On a couple of occasions they just walked away with a resigned shrug.

    On the other occasion the woman at my door told me they will apply for a warrant to gain entry. I didn’t tell her my thoughts on that as I knew that her type – i.e. anyone who would threaten such a thing – simply wouldn’t understand. Needless to say they never returned with the police and a warrant and I didn’t think they would. After all, other than not buying a TV-Watching Permit I had done nothing to indicate that I had broken the law. You can’t get a warrant without at least some evidence.

    Sure it helps that I don’t like 99% of what is broadcast (soaps, sport, reality TV and liberal news). I watch all my film and TV from downloads through a media player and have no need nor desire for a Sky subscription. Nevertheless, I do operate a TV set and therefore routinely break the law. And I’m proud to break it, for the law is an ass.

    • Boney says:

      The BBC are keen on non-compliance of laws that do not suit them, witness the Poll Tax and Pass Laws in South Africa. Granted these laws may have been unjust; however, it is non-compliance to suit all the same. Each of us has the final say when it comes to law, we either obey or disobey, comply or non-comply that is our decision to make. In some instances there are consequences fortunately in Western countries it is not the ultimate price paid by the likes of Sir Thomas Moore, but it is still our choice. The left carry on about ‘choice’ and Cameron’s lot about ‘nudge’; just show them you are making choice and standing for your convictions and will not be nudged like a sheep into a pen.

  20. Pointman says:

    “The BBC displays incompetence, partisanship and self-satisfaction in equal measure. Perhaps there was a time when it deserved our respect and even our affection, but that time is long past.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100189084/can-we-just-get-rid-of-the-bbc-please/

    Pointman

  21. NoFixedAddress says:

    Pointman,

    Given TwentyEightGate I believe that the BBC should gain an honorary mention at the inaugural Prat Awards alongside whomever wins the voting.

    That way the Prat Awards can rival the AlGore/IPCC farce and everyone employed by the BBC will be entitled to be known as sharing in the Award.

  22. NoFixedAddress says:

    And if you want a bit of light but serious reading on matters BBC I highly recommend Anna Raccoon – http://www.annaraccoon.com/

  23. Jack Wilder says:

    Nigel Farage got torn apart on Have I Got News For You last night. The presenter’s not so secret anti-right wing agenda is pretty cringeworthy:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nw6hc/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_44_Episode_5/

    And I thought the Beeb was completely impartial?

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: