Precarity is opportunity. Fuck social mobility. Fuck security. Fuck money. Fuck rising above your class rather than with it. Fuck marriage, mortgage, monogamy, and every other small, ugly ambition we were bullied into pursuing.
We are the new young left: precarious, rootless, ruthless, entitled, digitally enabled, and we are beginning to set the agenda….. a new class of dissident — the social group that economic journalist Paul Mason calls “the graduate with no future.” ‘
Paul ‘Occupy’ Mason would be proud to know he is at the forefront, the ‘spearhead’, of a Redvolution.
Redvolution? Typo but I like it. The above of course from Laurie Penny ‘producing dazzling, meaningful prose and finding her audience.’…more like banging a stick in a swill bin to attract the pigs. And surely not ‘a graduate with no future’…working for the Independent, the Guardian and the New Statesman…the Telegraph naming her ‘the 55th most influential left wingher in Britain, reporting that she is “without doubt the loudest and most controversial female voice on the radical left.’
“Penny is re-inventing the language of dissent, delivering verbal taser-barbs to the left and right, and causing apoplexy among the old men in cardigans who run the British blogosphere.” – Paul Mason, BBC Newsnight It must be love!
Hope no one is choking on their Werther’s Originals……Enjoy the new open thread…..
Some left-wing pigs are more equal than others, like the nobility of the bBBC, the Guardian and the Labour Party.
Incidentally, I note that this particular pig won the Orwell Prize – which is annually presented by the somewhat censorious Media Standards Trust. Oink!
Is not that a Common Purpose outfit?
Too true.
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/joining-dots.html
‘The graduate with no future.’ Graduates in what subjects? Computer science, maths, engineering, physics, biochemistry, cell pathology, immunobiology, nanoscience, modern languages? Or graduates in entitlement, red revisionism, indoctrination & agit/prop – the dinosaur degrees that lead to rootless, retarded nihilism? The sort of courses where critical thinking has been replaced by critical theory. Malcolm Bradbury nailed this step backwards in The History Man; a novel in which Paul Mason, the excitable, indulged, court fool of the BBC, who described homicidal looters as ‘political trailblazers’, would not be out of place.
“Graduates in what subjects?”
Northampton University did a degree course in “Waste Management with Dance”.
Sounds like a joke, but it’s true.
In a way you do have to feel sorry for the “graduate with no future” Penny talks about but not in the way she wants you to. They have in a way been the victim of a massive con trick. As higher education expanded massively in the 90s and later they believed what they were told. That they were the most clever generation ever , that more graduates than ever before were needed so that the time and debt was worth while even if they weren’t bright enough to do the “hard” subjects graphene mentions above.
The problem was in order to keep their pass rates high even with a massive surge in numbers the Universities were busying themselves dumbing down their degrees to the point where they are almost worthless.
So Penny’s friends emerge as newly minted media studies graduates expecting that high paid job in the media they had been told about. Except they are graduating with 10000 or so other media studies graduates a year into a world that knows their degree isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Suddenly then they are competing with 16 and 18 year olds for basement level jobs but they are up to their necks in debt and find that employers don’t like their sense of entitlement (I have interviewed a few myself). At this point they split into two groups. The first realises they had better grow up quick , stop whining and get some real skills. The second group doesn’t do any of this and Penny is truly the voice of that group.
Perhaps Laurie Penny will mate with Owen Jones and form a Commie commune somewhere. Brave New World, Mad Max or Logan’s Run? It’ll be like one of them.
Pol Pot’s Cambodia, maybe ?
Actually, seeing as how they love the academic, technocratic approach of the happy masses governed by their intellectual betters, it would be like a Bizarro Cambodia. Instead of killing all the educated professionals or turning them into slave labor, they’d kill the middle class folk, the investor class, and the white working class people who don’t sing the Red Flag.
Then they’d have their utopian, socially extremist-liberal, anarcho-syndicalist commune, only without anyone who actually knows how to build or fix anything, or will do the actual physical labor required to sustain the community. I doubt that one guy from Man Lab would be able to keep the whole show from falling apart by himself.
They’ll be able to provide free university courses for everyone in things like philosophy, gender studies, and social policy, only nobody will be left to make the free iPads they’d need to read the course material. But it will still be paradise because, hey, no more racists or wealthy people (except the nomenklatura), and nobody will be left to spread unapproved thoughts.
‘..utopian, socially extremist-liberal, anarcho-syndicalist commune, only without anyone who actually knows how to build or fix anything, or will do the actual physical labor required to sustain the community..
All they need is a ‘B’ Ark and bingo!
The “A Ark” was supposed to contain leaders, the “C Ark” to contain workers, and the “B Ark” to contain middle-men. I am afaid we need a D Ark for all the unemployable graduates that will never qualify for the A, B or C Arks. Unfortunately they will have to build it for themselves as the A,B and C Arks have all left, taking with them every one that could have. Good luck, media students.
They wouldn’t pass the rough hands test
Surely you could have found some more recent left wing psychobabble, or have they gone quiet? This article was published Feb 2012 over a year ago !
Interview at 08:30 with Lib Dem about their having a ‘shortage of candidates, has to be one of the most incompetently researched ever. “But is it the case you aren’t fielding candidates in some Liverpool wards a council which up to two years ago a city council you controlled?” response ” Well there aren’t council elections in Liverpool this year!”
thoughtful …. most interesting. Have you got link please? Love to point this out to them: “hope they are paying trainee interviewers, trainee wages, if not stop wasting my stealth tax.”
Here you go
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s4q5g/Today_01_05_2013/
The interview starts at 2:31:35 and the howler follows almost immediately…2:32:25.
There’s a further reference at the end of the interview…2:37:40 !!!
Listen, laugh out loud and enjoy!
‘Not going to be the end of that one’
Well, no, as it rather highlights what is served up to the talking heads who are market rate why again?
Just heard that. Funny. If defenders of the indefensible held the BBC to the same high standard to which they hold us, Today would now be permanently discredited, known for making up facts.
“Making up facts”
http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/praise-indeed.html?
‘”Pretty damn near seamless” says John Humphrys.
Well, bar the cracks, possibly.
http://fireflyforest.net/images/firefly/2005/November/aerial-grand-canyon.jpg
Nice place. Top kit.
Shame about the GIGO passing though on the human side.
Had to laugh at all ‘da yoof’ spokespersons of Radio 1, who appear to all be about 40.
More… interesting… to see where the licence fee is going, as accurate content seems to have taken a place behind bunkers, Beeboid-bewildering doors and escalators and unacceptable levels of coffee.
Given the choice, I may have had other uses for such unique funding.
My mother was a LibDem voter, but she now votes UKIP, so for the first time in my life , I am voting the same way as my mother. Her non-political sister, my aunty, has suddenly come out as a UKIP voter.
So a consensus of political harmony has broken out in the family, as the two people in the family, brought up in the home of a working class aircraft fitter in Hull, with outside toilets. Have joined the younger members of the family in voting UKIP.
Is anybody else wondering if the staff at BBC HQ are all facing Moscow and singing The Red Flag this morning?
Laurie Penney won the Orwell prize! Good god, she is exactly the type Orwell warned us about in his essay, Politics and the English language. Time for another turn George!
‘Laurie Penney won the Orwell prize!’
Track record to be proud of then, Har, Har.
And we all know the calibre of previous winners in the left-wing self deluded nut job category ;like Johann Hari !
Yep! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari …Oh dear.
And as for ultra leftie crackpot Laurie Penny, she’s easily put in her place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw&w=560&h=315 …Piece of piss! LOL
Yesterday afternoon the BBC’s trendy but slightly naughty Blue Peter Pan figure – Richard Bacon – presented us with an exemplary manifestation of the themes at the top of this thread.
There was a time when it was skill at the snooker table that was frowned upon as the sign of a misspent youth. Now the best turned out of our sportsmen frequent the Crucible Theatre; whilst the dodgy youthful indisretions of former presenters left in loco parentis by Biddy Baxter are the very passport to a BBC career and a show on BBC 5 Skive – the home of grievances, news lite, and Lefty flavoured sport.
To hell with the guys and gels in the corduroys and the knit jerseys…. we want to sign up the garden trashers for our new CBB’s (Do they have an agent? Tell them they don’t have to do PAYE….. it’s the BBC darling!)
Bacon was excited – as per usual – he was meeting a hero of his, one Nat Silver.
To you and I Mr silver is an accomplished American statistician, sabermetrician and psephologist .
(That middle one is what you call someone who does for baseball what our Motty does for soccer).
Of course Silver called the US election for Obama and so to Bacon he is the hero – a soothsayer – a veritable auger.
Bacon makes few bones about his support for the Democrats and his love for Obama, the Daily Show and everything americana – so long as it is lefty-liberal.
In fact that satement is a litttle sweeping. To be fair Bacon’s preference is actually a negative one. He hates with a passion everything americana so long as it is from the right, is Christian or conservative and especially Fox News.
Nat Silver comes over as a thoughtful – rather liberal – but as a very sensible and realistic commentator.
Silver’s heads up on the 2012 election was to see that other pollsters were either wishful thinking or ignoring the mobile phone electors. 40% of Americans now have no landline and the pollsters didn’t call them.
It seems many many obama supporters are from this generation moby. They are the transient and young sections of the population (Go figure -as the Yanks would say).
But apart from loving Obama as if he were out of a Mills and Boon and following his wooing of the liberal press at America’s answer to the Runcorn and district double glazing saleman of the year awards bash claiming that he is the greatest entertainer ever to occupy the White House….. I thought that was Reagan…..
Yes apart from all that what sort of a Democrat is Bacon?
He is a cultural lefty. His priority is not economic as such. His preoccupations are cultural and social. He is a top down liberal elitist. He is a life-long Beeboid.
And a recovering coke-a-nut.
i note he did his usual snide, sniggering attempt at humour – the target, as usual christian republicans
man that sh-ts gettin old.
This may sound a bit unfair to Silver, but if he had successfully predicted the election and re-election of a Republican instead, he would not be on Bacon’s show, or have anything like the beatified status he currently enjoys.
Another bold statement of a fictional fact.
Another bold drive-by, anonymous sneer, with another silly confusion of opinion with declaration of fact.
How should the bBBC handle the news of another downside to the enrichment of society, with more half-caste children being abducted?
Invent a new phrase ‘international families’!
Though there are areas where a bit of diversity and enrichment might improve things – Radio 4, just after 08:30 on Saturday 20th April:
Justin Webb : “Only one person round this table had a father who wrote the BBC Style Guide.”
Sian Williams : “Yes it was me, it was me which is why I know it is to ‘try to’ do things correctly, not ‘try and’.”
Justin Webb : “And another, another fact your father worked with my father and both of them with John Humphrys.”
Sian Williams (hushed) : “Oh dear.”
John Humphrys : “It didn’t work did it.”
Justin Webb : : “It didn’t work out.”
Sian Williams: “What an incestuous business this is – clearly.“
And we can’t even cry nepotism over Justin Webb’s presence, as he was drawn to the BBC all on his own. It was just in his DNA to become a Beeboid.
Briefly breaking my self-imposed exile to direct your attention to series 8 of the usually excellent Coast.
.
Previous series have included wonderful slices of history, marine life, geography – well worth a watch. But episode 3 of the current series is entitled “The Workers”, and the soundtrack to the first 5-10 minutes is some stirring Soviet Revolutionary music.
.
The analysis of Jimmy Reid “work-in” showed a little balance, anyway. Neil Oliver is usually pretty good.
It’s communism by stealth.
ANC-supporting BBC-NUJ doesn’t like this:-
“Britain axes £19m aid to South Africa as Greening says relationship should be about trade and not handouts”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317446/Britain-axes-19m-aid-South-Africa-Greening-says-relationship-trade-handouts.html#ixzz2S1mMxtNx
BBC-NUJ-Labour ‘report’ supports ANC, of course:
“South Africa criticises UK decision to end direct aid”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22348326
In the above ‘report’, BBC-NUJ adopts a Labour Party political stance and uses British licence-payers’ money to advocate that more of their tax money should be given to ANC government of South Africa.
“ANC under attack for ‘parading Nelson Mandela like a zoo animal for political gain'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317355/Disgraceful-Leave-Outrage-African-National-Congress-parading-Nelson-Mandela-like-zoo-animal-political-gain.html#ixzz2S1otzrox
More like Weekend at Bernies.
Here you go Penny – fixed it for you (we all know you wouldn’t want to give up any of your money or ugly ambition, so I added a bit at the end):
“…Fuck your social mobility. Fuck your security. Fuck your money. Fuck your rising above your class rather than with it. Fuck your marriage, mortgage, monogamy, and every other small hope you might once have cherished and worked for.
We are the new Left fuckwits, intending to ruin your lives just like the hypocritical old Left fuckwits Blair, Brown, Clegg, Miliband(s).
They all sound much more like the 1930s early German rightists rather than leftwingers.
Philo’thewisp
I may have to ban you if you come up with anymore ideas like that…genuinely scary!!!
The key word in your quote there is “entitled”. Entitled to what, Miss Penny, and why? Entitled to keep spending other people’s money on things you think worthy, or which benefit you? Entitled to keep sucking on the teat of the state instead of standing on your own two feet? Entitled to a job where you don’t add enough value to cover the cost of employing you? Although I am classed by the BBC as “elite” on their new class ranking I have worked pretty much relentlessly since I was fifteen; yes, I have a decent education (paid for via the State’s assisted places program) but I have more than paid back the cost of it through tax. What’s Laurie’s experience of crappy dead-end manual jobs, shop work, bar work, night shift, going down a coal mine? I have done all of these to earn a crust and in return I get homilies about the nobility of manual labour from Lefties who never set foot outside major cities while they stick their hands in my pocket.
Ah, the joys of Pisarev’s “new men”. Every time people like her suggest what they really think, it reminds me of the darkest areas of the 19th Century Russian nihilists.
The NHS needs more managers.
Who would think that but another bloated public-sector monopoly? And a few rent-a-quotes from, surprise, surprise, the NHS.
Biggest laugh I’ve had of the year so far…
‘Before I was an economist I was once a musicologist’
Paul ‘Just For Men Autostop’ Mason.
When the **** were you ever an economist, son.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
This won’t surprise you (from Wikipedia):
“Mason lived in Leicester from 1982–1988, working as a music teacher, special needs teacher[citation needed] and lecturer in music at Loughborough University.[1] Mason wrote the music for Tony Stephens’ With the Sun on Our Backs (1985), a play about the miners’ strike produced by Utility Theatre.”
Pity I missed it, must have been a scream.
“Mason wrote the music for Tony Stephens’ With the Sun on Our Backs (1985), a play about the miners’ strike produced by Utility Theatre.”
Just happend to get that gig?
No left wing bias at the BBC?
The official line of defense is that they’re all highly trained and respected professionals who leave their personal politics at the door. So it’s no problem to keep hiring Obamessiah campaign workers like Matt Danzico, or dedicated Marxists like Paul Mason, etc.
Part 2 of the defense: Andrew Neil! Andrew Neil! Nick Robinson! Nick Robinson!
There, thousands of Left-wingers balanced out perfectly by those two, plus, possibly, Andrew Lansley and Tim Willcox.
‘all highly trained and respected professionals who leave their personal politics at the door. ‘
Or, in the case of Mr. Robinson, never left them at University, despite what he ‘sources’ and says several decades later.
As to the ‘respected professionalism’, when that was the line taken by CECUTT for Nick phoning in an ‘analysis’ from holiday on a situation he subsequently had to admit he initially had no idea about, the level of delusion the BBC can fall back on was made clear to me.
Also, I once wrote incidental music for a play about the struggle of homelessness. But that on its own doesn’t make me a bleeding heart liberal or Socialist. The writer/director was my housemate’s friend, and he commissioned me because I was the only music person he knew, and he figured, what the hell.
It’s when so much of Mason’s other behavior adds up that the pattern becomes clear. You wouldn’t catch someone not so ideologically inclined encouraging somebody like Laurie Penny to rush out and report on some Occupier incident.
Writing incidental music for a play about homelessness is not equivalent to writing the music for a play written by a Trotskyite about the miners strike. Would you write the music for a play about 9/11 written by Michael Moore?
Not that there is anything wrong with that I hasten to add, but pretending that if you were to do this it does not reveal something about your political mindset is silly.
I get the impression you only made that (uncharacteristically) feeble point in order to boast about your musical talents, which again is fine if you enjoy listening to people boast about themselves.
By the way have I mentioned that a friend of mine had a symphony performed which I am told (by a third party) is based on his childhood experiences with me. Never made any attempt to hear it but I am sure it is a masterpiece.
Anyway I digress. This comment is meant with affection not malice by the way.
You misunderstood. I’m sorry you got that impression.
“It’s when so much of Mason’s other behavior adds up that the pattern becomes clear.”
Exactly. Colditz & co overlook the pattern when they claim that x or y is not evidence of bias. Maybe not when viewed in isolation, but it’s the irritating drip drip drip that we have to contend with most of the time.
The drip, drip, drip seems strong on this thread, with avatars such as ‘This is what’s wrong with B-BBC’ being created opportunistically to capitalise on what seems, at worst, an inconsistency that has disturbed some in The Farce.
Best I can judge, the Site Editorial posted some detail under the heading of an Open Thread.
This got a bunch of procedural hall monitors up in arms, ironically mostly from those who will break any thread convention in a heartbeat if it will serve their disruptive, contrarian aims. Plus a few regulars debating endlessly how many ethnics danced on the head of The Victory’s crow’s nest. Or something.
Meanwhile, the same champions of democratic free speech, and the pursuit of BBC bias, seem noticeable by their absence from a thread where a BBC headline, copy and social media edit has clearly been designed to tar an entire faith with a very dark brush, with less than community cohesive consequences.
That some ignore such a travesty on a £4Bpa media monopoly whilst harping on trivial procedure on a free blog rather puts the priority sets of some in context.
‘When the **** were you ever an economist, son.’
I believe it was when doctorates in ‘We also do sciencey stuff, we do’ were bestowed upon the likes of Black, Harrabin & Shuckman, to enable the world’s most respected and trusted broadcaster to ‘report’ on Scientific and Environmental matters from a position of… well, from a position best described as ‘settled’ (by whom… less clear).
Something to do with knowing more which #prasnews fax numbers to trust, cut and and paste, vs. those to find ‘unsettling’ and censor after secret briefings on which is which. Joseph would have approved.
The career path followed by such folk over the few in the corporation who may actually grasp such things through education and background (excepting Ms. Watts, who seems to have slept through her degree and the professional ethics part of her journalism course at the BBC CoJ) must rather rankle.
Still, it was never going to be really about truth and accuracy over hype and agenda was it?
And anyone says different can try to get past Hugs and her battalion of FoI exemption lawyers to prove it.
…and turning on the radio yesterday to hear the Lions selection, the presenter was one of albeebeezeera’s batallion of pig-thick shrieking wimmin.
The sports droid explained that Andy Irvine would name the squad then Warren Gatland would name the captain. Once Irvine named the squad on came Gatland.
At that stage out came Pig-thickshire with,
‘Shall we listen to Warren Gatland or shall we come back to the studio?’
With a rather bemused tone to his voice the sports droid said,
‘Well he is going to name the captain, so it seems the decent thing to do’.
Vikki, treacle, if you’re not even going to listen to your own quote unquote show then why the **** would you expect anyone else to.
(My apologies for the bad language there, and the hanging participle)
The BBC’s inherent credulous nanny-stateism meets its market-rate ratings obsessions and its obsession with wanting ‘views’ via a Wild West-based free social media site, and the result can only be predictable:
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews?
(Have to love appropriateness of the question mark at the end)
Bullied children using ‘wrong jokes’
links also to this URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22354326
Should we teach children how to make the “right” kind of jokes?
Guessing on what is ‘right’, the ‘we’ to do the ‘teaching’ is actually the BBC.. now possibly sans Reginald D. Hunter?
And for a perfect storm on the views… there are those the BBC garners from Facebook and the article HYS:
FB Highest rated:
‘Stee Barnes – Bullies need to learn to laugh so here we go
I once new a dental nurse who loved giving blow jobs and smoked weed
She was known as oral high jean
The HYS is still open…. but given the po-faced nature of the BBC to any not taking their latest venture into #prasnews ‘research’ seriously, I reckon a few more moddings and closing beckon.
So I guess the tale of the gay magician who disappeared with a poof is out of bounds?
(Apologies if this post is repeated, my last attempt at posting seemed to copy said magician.)
…or the one about the two gay ghosts…who put the willies up each other. 😯
Then there’s the gay Scotsmen: Ben Doone and Phil McCraken.
Or the gay Irishmen, Patrick FitzGerald and Gerald FitzPatrick.
I had wondered if they saw it more as a monthly…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_editors/
‘Please remember to add this page to your bookmarks, and get in touch if you have any comments.’
Why you would add it, and how to get in touch… not so apparent.
I’m sorry I can’t supply link to the programme I have in mind, but I was listening to it in the car on an iphone which cut out. However, this little snippet was broadcast on a psychology (?) show giving an hilarious insight into the R4 mindset:
“When you’re having a conversation with your 4 or 8 year old about important topics like global warming or gender issues…”
Now back in the day, when I talked to my 8 year old, it was usually about cleaning his room or doing his homework. But GLOBAL WARMING OR GENDER ISSUES? Never.
If your average Beeboid talks to their 4 or 8 year old about gender issues, suddenly a lot becomes clearer.
““When you’re having a conversation with your 4 or 8 year old about important topics like global warming or gender issues…”
Now back in the day, when I talked to my 8 year old…”
I rather think the BBC expect the victims of the
educationindoctrination system to start telling you what to believe:http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/i-guess-this-is-why-literacy-and.html
Well I do recall the six year old mention Windy Miller, but I did not ask her if Windy Miller hated disabled black lesbian climate sceptics who oppose wind farms.
“When you’re having a conversation with your 4 or 8 year old about important topics like global warming or gender issues…”
Oh come on Louis, be reasonable. You can’t expect teachers to do everything!
I think you probably misheard, Louis.
From the context, it’s far more likely that they said :
“When you’re having a conversation like a 4 or 8 year old”
Seems much more appropriate, I think.
This is why B-BBC is such a joke. Another of the increasingly regular posts with no link, no program name… no PROOF this ever happened. You’re not building up a great edifice of proof of BBC bias since Vance left you’re just shouting at each other in a massive echo chamber.
“This is why B-BBC is such a joke.”
Given what you go on to write, it may have helped to specify what of ‘Another of the increasingly regular posts with no link, no program name… no PROOF this ever happened’ you are referring to.
‘You’re not building up a great edifice of proof of BBC bias’
Or who the ‘you’ is.
‘ since Vance left’
Has he?
‘you’re just shouting at each other in a massive echo chamber.’
And yet you feel in a position to create an account and name to chime in, within, in the exact same way, with no sense of irony?
Free, (near) unmodded sites will attract all sorts. Possibly false flag set-ups. Some current exchanges on this thread are sadly examples of this.
But posts like yours trying to capitalise on the problems of light touch modding are really rather obvious, especially if with the aim of serving the BBC by attacking its critics in such a vague manner, under the banner of needing detail.
But you’re right on the OT diversions that can distract, and the notion of a Sin Bin side bar for comments such as yours, and mine in reply, which indeed are nothing to do with cited examples of BBC bias, could satisfy the need for free speaking opportunity without the censorship you’d be subjected to on a BBC thread (other than FaceBook – the genie they have unleashed with their recent faith conflict story in the Far East puts anything on these pages in the shade. I look forward to you sharing your concerns with the BBC on this here, and their reply).
Got any whacky left-wing ideas folks?
Call the BBC and it’s straight to air for you comrade.
Seems the capitalist system is marketing too many pink fluffy toys to the younger testosterone challenged half of humanity (girls).
Stop the apartheid or boycott Toys R Us now!
Barbie… Action Man….. welcome to the same shelf…. haven’t the two of you every been introduced?
Not quite sure how the BBC might square this notion with the crescent moon and apply it muticulti-wise?
Shelagh Fogarty don’t care… she’s got airtime to fill.
Marks and Sparks to be compelled to display their hijabs alongside their cravats?
Suit you…. Sir/ Ma’am/Imam?
Burkha Barbie – comes complete with miniature bottle of acid for splashing on underdressed Barbies’ faces.
Ouch!
Am I the only one who thought the Harperson’s interview on the Today programme this morning was a car crash to compare with the Millipede’s the other day? (7.10 a.m.).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s4q5g#programme-broadcasts
In spite of Sarah Montague agreeing with her (using the word ‘sure’ ‘sure’ several times I thought that Harriet kept digging a bigger and bigger hole. Sarah kept asking her ‘for the sake of clarity’, if Labour would increase spending in the short term….eventually Harriet said ‘yes’ but it was like drawing teeth…making the answer sound like the shifty response it was. At the end of the interview Harperson was asked about Labour’s plan to pay companies to provide jobs for the long term unemployed…again it was obvious that Harperson was totally flummoxed by the question – what has gone wrong with Labour and the Today’s editors agreeing questions in advance? But Harriet said these jobs would be funded by increased taxes on people earning above £150k – surely Miss Montague the obvious question would have been ‘And how many people are there earning over £150K?’ followed by the question ‘and how many longterm unemployed would need to be offered jobs under this scheme?’. I am fairly sure that the numbers wouldn’t add up – but be sure that a Today interviewer wouldn’t ask them.
Deborah, you are so right, I also noticed that Sarah Montague actually succeeded in getting a Harperson confession that Labour spending would be more than coalition. Such a shock. What is this a Toady on the road to Damascus moment?
I thought Montague was completely intimidated by Harperson. I think one point Harperson said something along the lines of – we’ve always said the coalition has been cutting too far too fast, with which you agree with. Montague did not rebuke Harperson for the assumption, or for airing private knowledge in public.
My view is that the Quisling Party is little more than an empty vessel, and even its broadcasting arm cannot fully hide the rot. Though as Deborah notes with the lack of follow up questions it is trying to do its best.
The Miliband Set – or the Party formerly known as New Labour – would do well to leave all their agit prop to the BBC. They make more car crashes than a group of Birmingham men with a tame lawyer and serial whiplash.
“Financing jobs into the private sector”. LOL. Montague did give her a hard time, which is rather unusual for a Labour figure on this show, so credit where due. Having said that, once Harman started floundering on the whole job creation thing, it’s never a pretty picture when a Today presenter starts trying to help a Labour pol get a good answer out.
Agreed.
I thought Harman was pasted by Montague-first time a Beeboid has ever turned on a sista in this way, so was surprised…and pathetically grateful for small mercies, or portents of worm-turns.
The Tories though were hopeless…Hague was dreadful, and ought surely to have put Justin Webb in his box, what with his interview consisting of what he thinks of the UKIP splitters-as opposed to the Tory policies that he was supposed to be talking about.
Webb is a thick oil slick, but Hague doesn`t care enough to deal with him..and if Labour ever become a Government again, it`ll be due to the betrayal of the necessary alternative that any decent Tory ought surely to be providing by now.
On Today this morning (start @ 10:30 in), Justin Webb and correspondent Jane Little had a good moan about how the President is still unable to force an intransigent Congress to close Guantanamo. He “does need Congress on side to close it,” said Little.
Actually, that’s not entirely what’s going on here, or even the only solution to the current hunger strike problem. Even the doyenne of the liberal metropolitan elite pundits, Maureen Dowd in the NY Times says that in fact, last year Congress gave the Secretary of Defense the power to wave restrictions on sending the lower-priority inmates back to their home countries.
Not only that, but Little left out exactly what the President really wants to do with the prisoners of the war which shall not be named. She mentioned only the bit about trying them all in the “federal system”, like we’ve done with the failed Times Square bomber and the “Underpants bomber”. He wants to put them all in a “supermax” prison in Illinois, hardly an improvement in comfort or freedom. It will be a superficial change, and not much else, as far as public impressions go. What would that accomplish, really, other than postponing the hunger strike and violence for a few months? And I bet it would be much, much harder for the inmates to make weapons in the supermax prison than where they are now.
Also, there’s more to the concerns than merely a security issue, as she framed it. There are also serious objections to the fact that the more generous rules of domestic courts (habeas corpus, and the burden of proof, for example) will complicate the trials, and even make it difficult or impossible to actually prosecute them in some cases. That’s a much bigger deal than a security issue.
So blaming Congress, full stop, for the whole thing, simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Fortunately, the BBC isn’t going to cast the harsh glare on Him. It’s not His fault, you see. Of course, I’ll grant you that even admitting that He’s been unable to get Congress to do the right thing is a tiny suggestion that He’s failed, like Little said about the gun control attempt, so there’s that.
Oh, and once again the BBC speaks of “Congress” as a unified block opposed to Him, even though the Democrats still control the Senate. Yet no mention that He could have released a bunch of these people already, without Congress, but has done nothing. If He realizes how awful this makes the US, and how much it will lower our international standing and be an ever greater recruiting tool for terrorists, surely He’d have let at least one of them go in the last year. But the BBC isn’t interested in that. Instead, it’s all about how He’s trapped in a world He never made.
Ooh, the very last segment on Today had ol’ Justin talking to a Leftoid legal academic and former legal advisor for Bush. The latter actually mentioned that the opposition to closing Guantanamo was bi-partisan, and that the Democrats who controlled the Senate also opposed the President’s stated desire to close it. Now, if only a Beeboid would mention this when reporting on Congress and the President.
goodness david continuing hunger strike! 😀
i bet VD, Drearybyshire is on flight as we speak, to go all “hearts n flowers”, and tut tut!
at those prison officers eh!. to do another hour long special from gitmo
whats new! ….
ps i bet theres no shortage of exposure for
certain groups affilliated to those “victims”
bbc, half the story all the time.
Latest reporting on Boston Islamic jihad massacre.
1.) ‘Jihadwatch’:-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-srch.cgi?search=boston&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
2.) INBBC:-
“Boston bombings: Three suspects taken into custody”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22370695
Just a series of unconnected lone wolves, with very straightforward, run-of-the-mill anti-war complaints, right, BBC?
I’d like to ask our defenders of the indefensible: if this turns out to be real (i.e. they’re not released tomorrow with no charges, with no serious connection to the bombers after all), should the BBC be required to issue a correction about those lone wolf claims? Should BBC staff be required to at last learn a lesson here?
yep! lone wolf, acted alone, ya da ya da
bbc worst example of MSM
… couldn t lie straight in bed
if they are really connected 😀
well … oid larf i would
Before a defender of the indefensible chimes in, I should point out that I realize that the “lone wolf” label is meant to imply that the bomber(s) were not officially part of any group or were specifically working as part of a larger cell or whatever. But it’s pretty obvious from so much evidence now that at least the older brother received some training somewhere and was in contact with others the whole time. In other words, not completely self-inspired or self-taught, not completely acting in a vacuum, not a lone wolf like the Times Square attempt or Breivik.
Calling the Boston bomber a “lone wolf” is no longer acceptable, and only misleads the audience about what he was up to. Which is the point.
well one thing is for sure
he certainly got a LOT of assistance from ahem! “certain quarters”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/30/russia-tsarnaev-surveillance/2125095/
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/Saudi-official-Kingdom-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Boston-Bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/robert-spencer/obama-adminstration-bans-the-truth-about-islam-and-jihad/
scrubbing counter-terror training materials about Islam/Jihad is like scrubbing medical schools of the teaching of germ theory.
The consequence is a plague epidemic
What you always have to remember with Penny is that its about her and how she can get more attention. This seems to have manifested itself in many ways during her life but right now the lefty journalism thing gets her what she wants. Were the media to ignore her (lets pray it will happen) then she will do something else possibly more extreme in order to gain the attention she craves so badly.
I have come across a couple like her myself. The saddest case was the daughter of a business contact when I was working in IT. He begged a favour that I have his daughter who he said was bright and good with IT but had no work experience as an unpaid intern. On the first day she turned up with pink hair and assorted piercings plus badges for various left wing causes. Now this may be “different” for an 18 year old but for a 26 year old its just rather sad. I soon came to realise that while intelligent she really didn’t have anything to say and no real personality as such. If she didn’t have the pink hair no one would notice her and without the lefty causes there might not be any friends either.
Quite. Dreadful woman in my opinion. I really think her quest for publicity far outweighs any ’cause’ she purports to champion. A ludicrous piece of fawning by Mr. Mason.
Penney (sp?)
Proving that there’s no end to the number of different ways you can write,
‘Yoohoo everyone, it’s me, me, me, and I’m on A DEMO !!!!!!’
and still get paid by the New Statesman,
Here is a glorious rant about the Boston bombers and their crazy spomging jihadist mother. Probably 80% of Americans agrfee with every word of the rant – a poll has shown 70% want the death penalty for the remaining bomber.
The sort of rant that would never be allowed on the BBC. Why not ? Why can’t the real public view get through ?
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/27/judge-jeanine-pirros-strong-message-boston-bombing-suspects-mother
Any chance of kirsty Sqwark leading off newsnight
like that?
Spam is getting seriously out of hand lately. I think it’s time to introduce Captcha or something. Closing comments on all posts older than two weeks would be a start.
Just make sure to avoid this…
http://crapcha.com/
Someone is certainly doing sterling work tidying up pretty fast, if the overnight dross by email that is no longer on site is any measure.
As with any modding, it’s tricky one, but this is less of a contentious subject.
Almost if not all are utter rubbish. Which raises the question of why do it at all. I am unsure if they are spam or more denial of service attempts disguised as spam (with nothing to sell).
If a human-check is required so be it, but I have to say some really try one’s patience.
As to the duration limit, that would be a pity, and if there’s a bot-catcher at the start surely would not be necessary?
But again, if there is a pressing need, it’s your game.
Two weeks is certainly better than some:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22354326
Now closed, as predicted.
>1. JP
1ST MAY 2013 – 9:20
“Bullied children using wrong words”
Give me strength…….
Auntie your HYS selections beggar belief, your own most popular stories including the attempted EDL bombing are suspiciously missing.
I wonder why?
Pathetic….. why do we bother?
1 May 2013 Last updated (for some reason) at 03:34
Closed for comments on or around:
1ST MAY 2013 – 18:57
Another BBC HYS that neatly isolates the thoughts of those with daytime access to the internet from the majority of those working.
I think the reason why the BBC HYS pages close comments just as the working day in the UK finishes is nothing more than a convenient coincidence for them… It is most likely that threads are closed at these times becouse most of thier regular online activists are based in the Middle East and are a few hours ahead of GMT… I have noticed this for some time on their facebook groups…. Most of thier mods and such seem to be just a bit too pro Islamic etc… The spelling mistakes, the anti semetism, the broken English…… Try any Friday after evening prayers…. It goes nuts… then the thread gets closed at around 6.00 pm GMT…. I am not into conspiricy theories… I just know from experience that this is the case…
‘..nothing more than a convenient coincidence for them’
As you go on to explain, much around what the BBC does is seldom a coincidence, but is, yes, usually, more designed for their convenience.
Given the nation they carry in their name, and where all live compelled to pay for their ‘service’, it seems less than generous to only open the mechanisms of public interaction with their public broadcaster when the vast majority are unable to communicate.
Some may feel being forced to pay so a rich diversity of global contributors can go nuts spreading their wisdom seems… novel as a business model at best, unless there is no also mechanism to withdraw support.
Question Time panel – Starkey alert !!!!!!!!!!! 😯
Justine Greening….Conservative blah
Harriet Harman…….Kill it with fire
Shirley Williams…..Ditto
David Starkey……….Hurrah! Stir it up, be rude! (like he needs prompting)
Victoria Coren………Tries to be the humourous one, usually falls flat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s9bk6
Still won’t watch. Perhaps some brave soul will review it and post highlights.
Quality broadcasting. For some reason BBc 2 was on last night (I seem to watch less and less of the Bc these days).
Ooh it’s “celebrity” mastermind. First question who are these celebrities (probably my own lack of knowledge)?
Grief these questions are easy, hang on a second the spiel on here sounds familiar. Yes it was a repeat. Why oh why would anyone, but a fan or participant, want to watch this again. Knowing the vast catalogue of programs I would like to see again one case in point being the repeats of top of the pops why repeat programs that have recently been o
They do it all the time, particularly repeating stuff time and time again, which has either just been shown on BBC2, or BBC4 – I am heartily sick of Canals, Coaches, Ocean Liners, Railways, etc., etc, even though they may have been brilliant at the time, they are now all just done to death.
Why do the BBC need all these channels anyway? They seem hard-pushed to find anything half-decent to show on them, that hasn’t already been viewed again, and again, and again…
The answer to everything!
Today program 8:40 Tax evasion
” So many of these places are ex British territories / dependencies, couldn’t we just shut them down, offer the people [British] citizenship?”
Come one come all we’ve got some much room there’s enough for everyone!
Direct references to the local elections is embargoed so last night Newsnight led with a fairly de rigueur Labour attack line… Cameron’s Eton Chums.
Just for balance there was a passing mention of Ed Miliband and the Union Baron’s who hover at his shoulder – but little real discussion of Hampstead Socialism.
I suppose at least this anti-Tory item kept the Arab Civil War at bay and quietened the BBC Wimmins Auxiliaries….. oh no… here they come (I paraphrase) ‘…..and this group of Eton old boys leaves no room for the gels ‘cos the gels don’t go to Eton’
One brave soul risks a sudden mobbing by the left-orientated discussion group when he suggests that the lack of social mobility in the UK just recently might have just a tad to with the failure of our low quality State schools.
And sure enough this heresy against the public sector – never to be spoken within BBC studios – has him black balled and mobbed by the bullies, led by Flashman Paxman (the supposedly balanced chairman of the discussion).
BBC : Lost cause, I’m afraid.
The left wing discussion group? The one which was comprised of just one students union rep, the headmaster of Winchester Public school, a Tory MP, and David Cameron’s cousin? It’s difficult to imagine a more Tory biased panel.
The problem as they discussed wasn’t with public schoolboys but that Cameron is filling his cabinet and advisors with the products of just one school! The only defence offered by Cameron’s cousin was that they were all intellectuals. The allegation of a Prime Minister using ‘patronage’ is worrying when he is using our money to give high paid employment to his friends & acquaintances.
There was the illustration that Milliband was no better when he was quoted as saying his brother would ‘serve the UK in one way or another’ if he was returned as Prime Minister. In other words he will find him some kind of highly paid position.
And talk about damning with faint praise the head of Winchester – well there are some very good state schools which teach the same values the public schools teach.
In other words the state schools which are up to the mark are few and far between and it’s unsurprising government is full of public school products.
I didn’t see this section of the program as left wing at all!
I’m sorry but if this was a right-wing debate then I’m missing something. My complaint is that lefty Newsnight selects the subject matter here. If a group of CINOs are willing to show up to shoot themselves in the foot then that’s more fool them. The other point of bias I noted was the rapid cover up on behalf of State schools. Led by Paxman. The BBC know their main Twitter following is lefty and they dare not offend.
So Today [08:55] decides to cover the Reginald D Hunter Football show and who does it get to comment Ronan(?), & Marcus Brigstock, who defend the use of ‘the N word’. How to have an example of double think, that a black guy can use the word but if a white person does it Waycism!
Apparently all comedians are far left caring people and would never say anything which causes offence deliberately!
Yes what a cozy interview!
Reg is one of us and can do no wrong, there must be something wrong with the PFA!
Towards the end our ‘tough’ interviewer was giggling away like a little schoolgirl at a sleepover with his two best mates.
I thought Rhona Cameron was going to give us the history of ‘stand-up’ comedy, (what no Max Miller?), but then she quickly confined it to the ‘real’ stuff, you know the lefty ‘compassionate’ stuff that monopolises our airwaves now (and the ‘analytical’ interviews!).
Clearly it is a matter of perspective, my outrage is legitimate protest, your outrage is bigotted intolerance etc., but I have never understood why this clique believe that it is not ‘acceptable’ to target certain chosen groupings but others and individuals are fair game. The ‘mean’ joke against Jews or Scots ,for example, may be embraced by members of those groups, (“Yes! We are careful with our money and proud of it”, or “‘mean!’ you should see my brother!”), or partially rejected, (“true of some, but not of me”). Only a fool would take a ‘group’ insult personally yet both Cameron and Brigstock are not averse to directing ‘humour’ at named individuals and that cannot be ignored as easily.
Interesting item on Toady about terrorism in Pakistan (Executive Summary: It’s bad).
The item itself was OK but I got to thinking: how does this tie up with the BBC’s habit of blaming every problem in Iraq on Chimpy McHitlerburton’s invasion? There’s bombing in Iraq, bombings in Syria, bombings in Pakistan…. maybe there some common factor we’re missing?
And no, I don’t expect the BBC itself covering the deranged nature of much of Pakistani society will have any impact on it’s boosting for the Open Borders lobby.
Now then, what COULD that common factor be……let me think……
At the beeb, tumblweed blows …….
…. the tumbleweed blows across the room ….. then comes to a dead stop as there is an elephant in the way…
I see Acer has already brought up this article above. That’s what I get for starting at the bottom of the thread and reading upwards.
Indeed. At some point, the soft racism endemic at the BBC might fade, and they’ll start to accept that people with brown skin might actually be adult enough to be responsible for their own actions, and not mere weak-minded victims in perpetual repose.
Oh, hang on, it looks live they’ve already taken a baby step in that direction:
Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?
YCMIU.
Actually, it’s not an illegitimate discussion to have in the grand scheme of things, and the gist of it is more about political power used against a minority than anything openly trying to de-stigmatize Mohammedan violence (if you know what I mean) with a “Buddhists quoque” dodge. But let’s not pretend this article was commissioned in a vacuum.
An interesting next step would be to get somebody to try and explain why the Boston bombers chose mass murder as the outlet for their anger. We already know the official and unofficial reasons for the anger, and we’ll never get to the end of that debate, so how about asking why the esponse to grievance is, as Huw Edwards once put it, less nuanced?
Talking about ‘inquality and human need’:-
“BBC pay reform is a ‘debacle’:
” Corporation in chaos after trying to force highly paid presenters to become members of staff.
“Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce could become employees.
“John Humphrys has signed a nine month extension to his contract.”
By PAUL REVOIR and MILES GOSLETT
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318052/BBC-pay-reform-debacle-Corporation-chaos-trying-force-highly-paid-presenters-members-staff.html#ixzz2S7ZTrQRt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Beeboids: foreigners first.
Beeboids now see their political role as lobbying for charities on behalf of the ANC government of South Africa.
The ‘Daily Mail’ takes a different line which may not have occurred to Beeboids:-
“How to make foreign aid work for Britain”
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2318008/How-make-foreign-aid-work-Britain.html#ixzz2S7b5wrxK
Beeboid political line:-
“Charities criticise UK for ending South African aid”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22365355
Did pre-“Rainbow-Nation” South Africa ever need or receive any aid? Just asking.
As I was waking up this morning to the Today programme – ie only half awake – some young female from UKUncut (I think) was on discussing(?) with someone about Goldman Sacks’s tax bill. I did explain that I was only half awake but the young woman could only keep repeating that it wasn’t fair that Goldman Sacks didn’t pay enough tax. Whoever the other guest was, he was able to put up a coherent argument why it can be difficult to calculate tax due – this young lady was unable to put forward a proper argument only say again what she had been taught. Surprisingly (!) the Today rundown has not given details for me to quote and I don’t think the play again option is yet on line. Not bias – but perhaps the Today programme should check the ‘quality’ of their guests – but here is this bias – there are obviously favoured organisations that get easy access to the programme.
I was awake! The article was about UKuncut suing HMRC because they decided to cancel the interest on the monies owed by Goldman Sachs from tax avoidance. Why HMRC is still doing these cosy deals is a mystery as they were supposed to have been stamped on.
I doubt they have a chance of winning though there are some significant vested interests against them
It was actually worse than that. On the 8:00 Radio 4 News, this big-mouth (for UKUnCut Legal – a Labour front organisation) was allowed to deliver a message that there is “£25 billion” in tax owed annually which HMRC refuses to collect. However, its “per annum” basis is, AFAIAA, unconfirmed outside Labour and Labour-leaning (which includes the PAC) sources. Furthermore, the BBC newsreader and the UKUnCut rep somehow failed to mention – on the news – that the £25 billion is corporation tax disputed rather than owing.
In another (sort of) related item and in respect of the tax information agreements concerning BVI and other jurisdictions, of all the “independent” organisations in the world interested in and informed about these matters, the Tax “Justice” Network was chosen to be quoted on the news as a source of comment. There was no mention that TJN is a lefty lobbying group which receives a substantial part of its funding from trade unions and other Labour-related sources.
The treatment of these items – and the choice of organisations quoted – on the news was massive and deliberate bias.
thanks Umbongo – I was just hearing ‘bimbo’ and then spent the ‘sleep to waking’ process considering why she couldn’t make a good argument.
Yes a new droid neologism – ‘buzzihininasmawprin’
The BBC on FHAO this morning about the news that 1.3 million people with interest-only mortgages haven’t quite got round yet to deciding how to pay off the capital when the time comes.
‘Chuckling Nikki’ Camel this morning interviewing someone from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. ‘The Chuckler’ was heaping the blame on the left’s bane, ‘greebankers’. The CML chap explained to The Chuckler, in the sort of manner I explain things to young Mohandas who’s four (-sh), that at some stage along the process whereby customers apply for their INTEREST ONLY mortgage, be interviewed about their INTEREST ONLY mortgage, sign the forms for their INTEREST ONLY mortgage, and buy a house with their INTEREST ONLY mortgage, that the customer should really have worked out what an INTEREST ONLY mortgage actually is.
But ever keen to blame ‘greebankers’ Chuckling Nikki took to running round and round the study shouting ‘buzzihininasmawprin, buzzihininasmawprin, buzzihininasmawprin*’ while his catamites Rachel Halfwit and the Adenoidal Dalek corpsed with laughter. I believe the English translation of ‘buzzihininasmawprin’ approximates to ‘but is it hidden in the small print’.
Of course these are stupid products, but even for a dope like Chuckling Nikki it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that people bought these products not knowing exactly what they were putting their names to.
Apologies for the tautology in the opening sentence.
And FHAO?
That’s Full Howl All Outlets. One step below defcon1 which is of course MSAOITWS – Maximum Shriek All Outlets Including The World Service.
for ‘study’ read ‘studio’.
My bad.
Yes take out an interest only mortgage and only pay off the interest in the words of that well worn phrase does what it says on the tin.
That’s why we don’t have an interest only mortgage.
Yes, they were on about it on Today.
Now, in fairness, I was one of those who, in my dim and distant youth, took out an interest-only loan backed up by an endowment policy. I can clearly remember being told “It will produce a lump sum at the end of the term to pay off the mortgage and there will be a surplus left over”. Not may. Will. Of course, when looking at the small print many years later I discovered it said nothing of the sort, but that is my clear recollection of what I was told and any contemporaries I ask tell the same story. Needless to say I was not impressed by this, to put it mildly.
However, the chap they had on Today gave the clear impression that he had only found this out a year or so before maturity, and I simply don’t believe it. I was getting red letters from the endowment companies for years and made plans accordingly. It seems more likely that he had ignored them for years and there comes a point when you have to take responsibility for your own actions, not blame it on someone else when you had a chance to rectify matters.
Around mid-day on bBBC News 24 they were trying to stoke compensation claims, suggesting that interest-only mortgages were mis-sold to people who actually thought they were being given a seed to a free money-tree.
‘a seed to a free money-tree’
Thank you for the lovely turn of phrase in describing this latest compofest being given full grief counsel and support by the MSM (SKY was all over it too).
I have had some sympathy in the past on certain mis-selling issues, but this one is a red-line (not an Obama wobbly one either) if it gets pushed by the usual suspects.
My family did not go without to fulfil our debt obligations to find we’re getting called upon to subsidise any who didn’t know what ‘interest-only mortgage’ really meant, forced on us by weak pols scared by policy-setting media monopolies whose audiences are at home during the working day.
Jeremy Vine was at it too – if people have not worked out that the sum they need to repay on an interest only mortgage at the end is the same sum they borrowed in the first place they really shouldn’t have been lent the money. However I had assumed the mortgage brokers write on an annual basis whatever type of mortgage people had – is that a wrong assumption?
Evan Davis had already been told by the new head of the Financial Conduct Authority( who?…what?) that those numpties who didn`t know that an interest-only mortgage have only themselves to blame for being a bit…well, you know…thick to be honest.
This was before the 8am news, and was the WRONG ANSWER.
After 8am therefore it was Evan that was suggesting that the sellers of said crap mortgages will clearly have to turf people out of their houses…and this is the story about bad banks, bad business and helpless poor people who were not not to know that a interest-only mortgage was an “interest-only mortgage”.
I myself had long lost interest in Evan doing his little Nell impression, and had baled out to the wondrous Chris Evans.
All In The Mind suggested that continual news causes us stress and misery-and we need to get well and turn off the BBCs rolling crap.
Sounds right to me!
I’m very unsure about why this thread is dedicated to the reproduction of Laurie Penny’s vulgar expletive heavy ‘writings’.
I’ll be frank. This site has gone downhill irrevocably since Alan has taken over with his incessant hysterics and poor judgement.
I’ve personally had enough. The BBC is institutionally left-wing, but I don’t need to endure any more of Alan’s literary aspergers style rants in order to know that.
I’d agree we didn’t need to see the f word plastered over the front page of the site.
Alan, i enjoy his posts, to the point, and relevant
so, sorry have to agree to disagree there.
not a big fan of swearing, but hey
I think Alan’s posts add variety (not diversity).
Para 1 – fair enough critique, though the body of work and ideological framework for a BBC favoured daughter and Paul Mason muse does seem pertinent to who the BBC serves up and with what intentions.
It was only by seeing Mr. Hasan’s ‘Off Broadway’ musings on sites such as this that a few got to grasp that he was not the cuddly besuited voice of reason being portrayed, and I don’t miss his pervasive contributions since he appears to have fallen from favour.
Paras 2 & 3 fall into a familiar ‘frown, frank & flounce’ category that are entirely legitimate but sadly familiar, and if levelled on a BBC site about a BBC author would be unlikely to get seen at all, let alone last long.
While I would reach for the remote if Paul Mason gushingly introduces a Jonnie Marbles ‘report’ of the darlings of the #Occupy movement, it seems going beyond ignoring, and past counter argument to personal ad homs is deemed a higher standard for here. As is the logic of projecting one to a whole entity. Were that the BBC subject to a ‘had enough’ on such a basis, eh?
I find such reactions such as ‘aspergers style rants’ equally distastefully distracting as say, certain ‘jokes’ some recently felt the need to bandwagon around to provoke the less sanguine niche ‘ism contrarians.
As to the ‘F-word’, it seems now past any shed you care to mention.
Last night I attended my son’s GCSE drama presentation and it was pervasive in the texts they were provided to perform.
And tomorrow they are repeating it all to other classes down to age 13, in front of the external examiner.
Seems Ms. Penny is the voice of something, perhaps in no small measure promoted by those who claim to educate and inform.
Blaming Alan for the career highlights of one the BBC seems keen on, at least in the way attempted, smacks of divide and rule in guise of idealistic prudishness.
My reservation re Alan and the Open Thread is that up to now the “open thread” has been just that. There has been little or no posting on the intro to the thread from the site’s organisers about what commenters on the open thread should address. Indeed the whole point of an open thread is that commenters can comment on anything which is not dealt with elsewhere on the site. If Alan wants to post about Mason and/or Penny then he’s quite at liberty to start a new thread specifically concerning them.
Fair point, politely made.
But might one hazard that, as a site author, Alan may be at more liberty to do what he likes, where he likes anyway?
Especially in face of those enjoying the free(dom) to post whatever they fancy subsequently but feeling the introduction should be left free of anything.
As with certain BBC presumptions on reader capabilities (ranging from folk being given mysterious abilities to divine the truth that lurks behind misleading/inaccurate headlines, to being deemed too thick to master most daily functions), it seems a stretch that anyone seeing ‘Open thread’ would feel constrained by anything more specific associated with it in the introductory copy.
Looking around, it doesn’t appear to have inhibited anyone much.
Oh sure – Alan’s blog, Alan’s rules. My point (and it’s only a point not a grab for power on the B-BBC site) is that there’s little to be gained by having a thread called an “open” thread if the commenters are to be “guided” – or should that be “nudged” – to comment on matters about which (if he’s so minded) the blog’s author can set up specific threads.
Nevertheless, as you say, it hasn’t inhibited anyone much so it’s not really a very big deal.
On that final para I am more than happy to agree. May we see this as finding areas of agreement upon which to build.
And, who knows, it may be that these exchanges have provided food for thought in other quarters that may see no need for them ever to be repeated.
oooh – are you the poster who regularly changes their name, informs the rest of us that they don’t like the site and they are never coming back……. and then post the same thing again a few weeks later? If you are, we are getting awfully bored with you and your absence would be welcome.
Is Alan playing a bit too rough for you????
Fill out the form, get a grown up to help you if you are still feeling a bit vunerable, you can even download it onto your mummys kindle so you can fill it in offline, but it might mean deleting one of your `Adventures For Boys` Annuals, so you might want to get yourself an extra large beach towel for your eyes, just in case…………
There’s a fair bit of it about.
But in this case I’d guess not.
There are some posters, honest good and true, who have notions of blog and thread purity that are admirably idealistic.
One thing I have never forgotten is that the owners of free sites can always offer full refunds and cancel subscriptions.
Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t (and the tolerance shown here suggests the level is high) be open to feedback, but there are ways to offer a nudge, and those that seem more designed to provoke a reaction to please a narrow audience hiding behind the curtains.
Since what I think was an unheralded arrival on the scene, I have tended to think of our hero in more generic terms, more as a brand than anything else. Hence happy to respond to or skirt over on the basis of argument than any personal feelings on style, etc.
If a real singular person then a trick surely lies in what his nemeses do near daily, and simply flip names. Starting with A, and then… well, the scope is wide.
It would then be interesting to see who gets agitated by a name and who restricts feedback to any errant comment.
Don’t you sometimes feel that there are a lot of distractions from the purpose of this blog, though?
‘Don’t you sometimes feel that there are a lot of distractions from the purpose of this blog, though?’
If directed at me (I can see it is a reply, but a quoted section helps), and though you do not specify what kind, yes.
But I’d say on a free, (mostly) unmodded blog they are inevitable.
I contribute to them I know. Sorry.
But then all do.
It’s like those wagging a finger with the sensible advice of not feeding the troll but feeling themselves exempt from providing the next morsel.
One of the most loathsome aspects of the BBC commenting system was/is its claims of being open, when they basically had a list of ways to refer that would apply to anything.
And if they were ever stumped on these they’d fall back on ‘off topic’, and that was that.
I saw too many exceptions allowed through to see ‘on topic’ as credible, or assessing it as anything other than simply another tool in the hands of a minority who saw themselves as operating on a higher plane; and one which needed ‘purifying’ by removing anything that they saw as tainting it.
There are some distractions I can live with, but get a lot of agonising, and some clearly designed to disrupt, which often get more slack cut than they to me appear to warrant.
I’d be hard pressed to see how anyone addresses one and not the other.
Alan if the language is necessary to illustrate the point, then go ahead and use it.
And dont cease posting.
I see from sky that “ex bbc presenter” Stuart hall has pleaded guilty to being a paedo.
Switch to news 24 and he is merely “broadcaster”
Hmmm, is he still on the payroll one wonders?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
Well, if it wasn’t already obvious enough, we pretty much have it confirmed in this article. This biased institution have gone all out to attack the faith of Buddhism and uphold their views that Muslims are peaceful. And what kind of question is this:
But aren’t Buddhist monks meant to be the good guys of religion?
I weep.
In fairness, I should quote from near the end:
“People believe radical Islam to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the world. They feel they are at the receiving end of conversion drives by the much more evangelical monotheistic faiths. And they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit. ”
Which could be translated as “you reap what you sow”.
Maybe the Quislings should meditate on this comment from the article:
‘The result can seem ironic. If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.’
And then look at themselves and their friends before spewing forth some enriched and vibrant propaganda.
Thanks for the comment, brilliant. the perfect description of the BBC
Can one imagine INBBC publishing an equivalent article with this conclusion, not on Burma, but relating to harassment/intimidation by Muslims on non-Muslims in Britain?
Certainly ‘But isn’t it supposed to be the Religion of Peace?’ seems an unlikely ‘just asking a question’ para, much less a promoted global social media theme, in association with any ‘analysis’ of instances where a few have by all accounts acted in ways contrary to how the majority would wish to be perceived.
So, no; hard to imagine.
Gosh.
I thought it was just on their FaceBook feed.
What the BBC chooses to highlight, or not, is now a real cause for concern, but now they seem to be selecting the most febrile phrases they can find to really stir the pot.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews?
This… from that article, as what they have opted to place front and centre:
BBC News
9 hours ago
Buddhist monks are supposed to be the good guys of religion.
But in two countries separated by well over 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean – Burma and Sri Lanka – the monks have been rallying against and joining attacks on Muslims. http://bbc.in/17yqJXf
Why?
I would dearly love this question, in this manner and taken out as the lead on FaceBook, explained by a BBC keen on being seen as objective and seeking calm in conflict.
“the world isn t only for muslims” ….
thats the bbc picture of significance?
with the sentence “why have monks been using ahem! “hate speech”?!*?*! against Muslims” ?
just underneath ….
sorry bbc, that simply a statement of fact.
al beeb will always be first to immediately prostrate itself to allah
others however … will not
that photograph says few words …
the most popular and widely read by muslims in modern times maududi
does not
Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it, no nation has the right to rule over muslims, and if they do the muslims have the right to remove them from that power, by any means neccessary.
The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.
Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.
One point that our muslim loving ‘intellectual’ from oxford fails to make clear in talking about buddhist dharma is that whereas a jihadi expects to reap 72 houris for his violence in the name of his religion, the buddhist monk understands that the consequences of his violence is karmic repercussion in future lives, but he does it anyway because he believes that making the world a better place is worth the sacrifice to his immortal soul.
When reading this piece, its instructive to imagine it being written the other way around – a catalogue of muslim atrocities over the centuries. It would certainly be a longer article, and far easier to get examples from islam’s inception 13 centuries ago to the modern day. Even finding quotes from the koran would be easier – you could just quote verbatim, without even needing to find some interpretative way to twist the meaning of the words as written.
Arguably even worse is the complete lack of context for a piece that the author no doubt believes is ‘analytical’. For example, a vague allusion is made to the true nature of the agents provocateur amongst the Burmese monks (“The exact nature of the relationship between the Buddhist extremists and the ruling parties in both countries is unclear”) without actually supplying the information that organisations such as Human Rights Watch have stated that they suspect that the monkhood has been infiltrated by state intelligence agencies. Of course, to highlight a (much more likely) secular / temporal cause for these monks to be inciting these riots would destroy the fantasy narrative the author is trying to create by painting buddhism as the ‘religion of hate’.
The BBC truly lives in a brave new world where up is down, falsehoods are regarded as true, and words in general mean only what you twist them to mean.
Your very perceptive comment, especially the first paragraph, really needs to be repeated in the ‘Buddhism Is Not A Religion Of Peace’ thread.
For anyone who thinks ITV is any better than the BBC:
Just read in the Grauniad that they are introducing a black character to Downton Abbey, new series in the autumn.
How contrived is that, when there were so very few black people in pre WW2 Britain?
But apparently he’s playing a jazz singer, which I suppose is credible for the period.
Whether they’ll be content with that is another matter, of course.
when there were so very few black people in pre WW2 Britain?
Why does it matter? I can see an objection pre 1600 as there were only a handful of recorded ‘blackamoors’ in England then, but between the World Wars there was a sizable (though not like today) ‘black’ population. Mostly in London and the major ports like Bristol and Liverpool.
Black footmen were popular with the toffs from the 18th Century onwards.
In fact there was a race riot in South Shields, of all places, just after WW1 IIRC so there must have been enough to take part!
Of course it depends what you mean by ‘black’. Historically it tends to mean ‘not white’ so would include Lascars, Arabs and so on. Not sure if it includes Chinamen … 😉
If the intention is to exaggerate, deceive or indoctrinate, it does matter.
People of Chinese descent have been here from the 19th century but they never seem to be shoehorned into historical TV dramas. Why is that?
If the intention is to exaggerate, deceive or indoctrinate, it does matter.
I couldn’t agree more but, and I say this having not watched Downton much, I’m not that sure the program is in the business of anything but gentle nostalgia. At least that’s what SWMBO says.
As to the Chinese being missing from historical TV shows – I have no idea. Perhaps because the numbers have always been small and highly concentrated in groups which have minimal contact with the rest of society.
In 30 years of work I have worked with or met socially hundreds of ‘non-whites’ but I have only had two Chinese colleagues, and one of them was a Kiwi. So maybe that’s just reflecting society at large.
maybe thats gentle “multicultural” nostalgia 😀
There was a two-page spread in the July 2012 issue of BBC History Magazine asking why black Africans have been more or less “airbrushed” out of tv shows and films about Tudor England.
Probably because there were probably only a handful in the whole country. IIRC the first attested black resident was one of Catherine of Aragon’s trumpeters – 1510s?
Again IIRC Elizabeth I expelled, or at least proclaimed an expulsion, of all ‘blackamoors’ from the country. Maybe she thought they were agents of Spain?
So there must have been some, enough to anger ER1 but hardly enough to warrant airbrushing I’d’ve thought.
Hey nonny nonny & bashrumie etc. 😉
It probably had more to do with the Corsairs and Barbary Pirates who were responsible for kidnapping fisherman for to sell as slaves along the S.Coast and raiding merchant shipping. Also after the recent reign of her sister bloody Mary… Elizabeth stated that the days of religious intolerance were at an end, this would not be possible without first ejecting all Moors who were encouraged to `follow` thier religion of peace somewhere else…
In Merlin we had a black knight of the round table and the Lady Guenivere was his sister!!!!!!! History re-written.
I don’t think Merlin and Arthur are actually historical. And besides nobody complained about the Rastafarian in Maid Marian and Her Merry Men.
One of my favourite BBC programmes in spite of Tony Robinson, and of course a strong female lead ‘Maid Marion’ who always had to rescue the weak Robin Hood and the rest of his gang.
Last I checked though, I don’t have to pay ITV a state-enforced tax to fund their operations. If I don’t like what they’re doing, I stop watching their programmes and if enough people do likewise, they either change their programming or they lose their advertisers and go bankrupt.
As a commercial organisation, if ITV wants to include historical non-sequiturs in its period drama, its free to do so (I suspect that this particular decision is based on the US market for its drama).
The BBCs protected position (due to the license fee and its [erstwhile?] reputation as a broadcaster of integrity) makes it critically important that their period dramas do not ‘rewrite’ history by incorporating modern day politically correct elements. Sadly, the BBC apparently believes its role instead is to promote such PC wherever it can, resulting in absurdities such as a black Guinevere in its recently ended ‘Merlin’ series.
Just a thought – can you imagine the BBC putting on a version of “Othello” with the lead being played by a white actor? Would the proposal even get as far as the dustbin?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2007/apr/05/blackorwhitecastingcanbe
Yet we have a BBC that has a ‘mission’ to ‘educate’ the population that, historically, Britain as always been visibly multi cultural
I noticed that everyone overlooked the chimney sweeps and Black and White Minstrels….. Waycists!!!
They did. Athony Hopkins played Othello and Bob Hoskins Iago.
It was awful.
I was told that Guinevere means “White fairy” in Welsh.
Othello was a Moor, the indigenous Moors of North Africa are a White Caucasian Berber-Arab race, the Black Moors where slaves and their descendants. The European slave trade had its origins in the Spanish trade with the Moors, when the Spanish needed slaves in the new world.
Africa was named after the Roman province of Africa, modern day Tunisia.
The Roman province of Africa was named after the White Caucasian Phoenician-Berber people of Carthage, called the Afri by the Romans.
As a Mensa member, I think that all this Political Correctness is caused by the fact that they do not want to talk about the differences in intelligence between the races, so the left-wing morons at the BBC can blame it all on the remarkable success of racism.
When in fact, white people who are inferior in intelligence, are drive to the left of politics.
The historical origin of left-wing politics is in representing the lower orders, in a meritocracy that means that left-wing people are genuinely inferior and can no longer claim that they are being held down by an aristocracy.
Shakespeare labeled Othello “a noble Moor”, Rodrigo and Iago call him a “black ram”, and a black actor portrayed him as early as 1833. How can you blame modern PC for that?
When you say that “When in fact, white people who are inferior in intelligence, are drive to the left of politics”, seeing as how Jews have been historically involved in left-wing politics, does that mean Jews are of inferior intelligence? Or are Jews part of the “lower orders” you say left-wing politics historically has meant to represent?
It is well known that Ashkenazi Jews come out at the top of the tree in IQ tests of ethnic groups. This could be ironically due to the type of jobs that they were restricted to do in a society that persecuted Jews over a long period of time.
In Britain, the Jews have been as prominent if not more prominent on the right of politics, unlike in the USA. Disraeli was Queen Victoria’s favourite Tory Prime Minister. Thatcherism was founded by two prominent Jews as well as Mrs Thatcher and Lord Lawson, another Jew who is still fighting against the “CO2 Global Warming” morons.
The national socialists hated Jews for typically socialist reasons, but in evolution, superiority is survival, NOT being intelligent. Therefore Socialist/Atheist regimes create a self fulfilling prophecy by killing people to prove that they are inferior.
One hundred years ago, before we had a meritocracy in Britain, the Labour party was founded by intelligent working class people who wanted to create a meritocracy. With the creation of Grammar Schools, working class people, which included my own grandfathers, became middle-class Tories. This turned the Labour Party against Grammar Schools, and today the Labour Party is now dominated by middle class morons with Arts and Humanities degrees. These people should be doing the menial jobs given to immigrants. Which shows you why they favour mass immigration.
This could be ironically due to the type of jobs that they were restricted to do in a society that persecuted Jews over a long period of time.
What, being money lenders and rag men made the Jews more intelligent? You really need to read up on Jewish history. Start by learning about Talmud scholars, yeshivas, pilpul, and the place of scholars in the hierarchy of Jewish society dating back about thousand years at least (and amongst the orthodox communities today). Then you might possibly understand where there could perhaps be a natural selection process going on, if you want to play that game.
And you still won’t be able to answer the questions about Jews’ close association with Left-wing politics. You’ve avoided it entirely so far.
It is all about average IQ, you can always pick the exceptions out if you like, there are always plenty of exceptions in the statistics of averages.
As I said, only if you have a genuine meritocracy will the left-wing people be genuinely inferior in intelligence. But the question is do we really live in a genuine meritocracy.
If the Jews have a close association with left-wing politics in the USA, then obviously the USA is not or was not a genuine meritocracy.
In the USA? More history lessons needed, apparently. Why do you suppose Jews were associated with Communism and Socialism in Europe?
Your statement about politics and meritocracy is illogical. Unless you really mean racist. In which case you’re contradicting yourself.
“How contrived is that, when there were so very few black people in pre WW2 Britain?”
Watch David Lean’s 1948 version of Oliver Twist. In the bar scene you will see West Indian and Chinese extras in the background. This was before PC, and was considered a gritty and realistic portrayal of 1830s London.
James you forgot to mention that it was a black and white production… Does that mean that even in those days half of London was made up of Rastafarians and Chinamen??? I never noticed any of them when I watched the film, although I did see a guy stood near the exit smoking what looked like a reefer…
Yes – the bronze plaques on Nelsons column show black sailors, Tom Molieaux was a famous black early 19th century prize fighter, and if you look at the Hogarth painting “Chairing the Member” (1755) there are two black children peeing on a monkey. (It’s a satire)
No one is denying that people from all over the world have lived in Britain from Roman times onwards. It’s just that their presence would have been considered very unusual and noteworthy outside of sea ports. The issue is the policy of the BBC to promote an a-historical image of the past. Why do they do it?
And famed violinist George Bridgetower (not born in or a life-long resident of Britain, but spent many years there). Among other things, he was an original member of the Royal Philharmonic Society. Although I guess if he was born a slave in Barbados, that makes him at least as British as certain “men” in BBC reports.
Of course, the figures we’re bringing up are rare because they were, not because there were vast amounts and we know about only a handful.
`the bronze plaques on Nelsons column show black sailors` …… Are you suggesting that the `black` sailors could be identified by something other than their colour??? Be careful now…..you could be accused of espousing eugenics theory…. . Or are you assuming that all of the sailors were black due to the dark tarnished surface of the bronze?? Are you sure it wasn`t a slave ship having that many `blacks` on board?? I think you are getting HMS Victory mixed up with a liner named the `Windrush`… Those weren`t reefers they had in their hands you know, those were lit fuses which enabled them to fire the the cannons…. You sound like Diane Abbot…. Next you will be suggesting that the blacks invented Robertsons jam ffs!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Nelson%27s_column_-_Death_of_Nelson_at_Trafalgar.JPG
What is it I am looking for??? They all look the same to me…… (no pun intended honest!!) I see no (ships) .. I mean black sailors… ???
On the far left, holding a musket. Dez will probably call me a racist again, but oh, well.
I had another look but my attention was more drawn towards the size of Nelsons Admirals hat… Its` proportions did not fit the bigger picture in my opinion.. A bit like the assertion regarding a vast black population of blacks being here since the Days Of Yawn…
Nope I can`t see it myself……. I`ve tried looking at it from various angles but all I see is that huge f*cking hat and nelsons small head…… and like I said, they all look the same to me… Apart from the nudist (bottom right) who also seems transfixed by the hat…..
David …. Do you see why I am confused???
Agreed about the hat. But that “naked dude” is wearing pants or something.
Have you not heard the saying ‘if you want to get ahead get a big hat?’
Originated from Nelson’s love of supersized head gear, IIRC. :p
What are they trying to imply? That the black dude with the musket accidentally shot Nelson?
@+James `What are they trying to imply? That the black dude with the musket accidentally shot Nelson? ` …. No I think the dude wearing the top hat is possibly the black guy as he has a darker complexion and it was also quite common to see recently freed slaves wearing tophats as they were part of thier traditional African pimp lifestyle… The guy with the gun looks like he might be a scouser (note the dodgy perm and he is wearing what looks like a shellsuit..possibly a hoodie… I just noticed the guy behind the scouser is also pointing towards the huge hat… and he is pointing directly at it…..
“It’s just that their presence would have been considered very unusual and noteworthy outside of sea ports.”
Exactly. Deptford has had a black population for some considerable time, which gives support to the bar scene in the 1948 Oliver Twist film. However, early photographs and film footage of ordinary people taken in ordinary circumstances outside our sea ports doesn’t support the image that the BBC and Danny Boyle like to promote.
I’m sure most sea ports around the world have had mixed populations for some considerable time, including white people in countries not regarded as “white”. But to extrapolate this, Danny Boyle fashion, to all parts of Britain, including rural areas, is a huge distortion, as is using the occasional documented black individual to justify the insertion of a black character into every historical drama, regardless of the situation.
The Roman influence is an interesting one. Some claim that Septimius Severus (died in York) was black because he was born in what is now Libya. That in itself doesn’t mean much – is Cliff Richard Indian? There are numerous busts and statues but these are all idealised heroic images and don’t help much. However, blurring the difference between north and south Africa is quite common – which takes us back to Othello and black actors.
Just to clarify, I’m talking about heroic busts and images of Septimius Severus, not Cliff Richard, in case you were confused!
BBC4 had a show last night about Roman Winchester and London. Fairly interesting but they had to bang on about just how multicultural and racial those two cities were. On quite flimsy evidence as far as I could tell.
AS the RE was an efficient all powerful system it would have been more surprising if there had been little evidence of Romans from elswhere.
The points being made were for present consumption and directed at those of us still unwilling to embrace the multicultural future.
I no longer give much credence to the BBC line on anything
No mention that the Roman Army was an Imperialist army of occupation. Nor the heroic struggle of the Peoples Front of Iceni.
Bloody Romans. 🙂
Biggus Dickus..
Yes, woger, or was it wodney?
The Roman Empire was pretty big, for the times, and encompassed a lot of different peoples. It would be unlikely that they managed to police it with Roman or even Italian soldiers only.
IIRC there is evidence of a Middle Eastern (Thracian?) legion on Hadrian’s Wall. If you go to the museum at Vindolanda they make much of how difficult the weather must have been for them …
Plus there is anecdotal evidence (Tacitus?) that Claudius used African elephants and their drivers from North Africa as part of his invasion force in AD43.
However the point is that those people did not stay. The average Roman Legionary would have been European, joined up for 25 years and expected a land grant at the end of it. There is not a lot of evidence that any took a land grant in Britannia. Why would they when there was better land to be had in Spain, Gaul, Italy or even Carthage?
Thrace was a province of Greece and were used mainly in Judea etc… and N.Africa, Gauls were the main contingent sent to Britania along with Dacians and other Germanic peoples, who after the Pax Romana ceased to exist went home and then returned to our shores after being pushed out of thier territories by Huns etc.. Also the translation of the word Tacitus from Latin is Wikipedia so using it as a reference does not add credence to your Horrible Histories narrative… It was Roman policy to recruit troops from regions that were similar in climate as a soldier from the African region would not be as effective in the more Northern regions…. Only auxillery forces were indigeonous to the lands in which they fought but this happened less after the Germanic auxilleries turned on thier paymasters…. Also Britain was approx 2-3 degrees warmer than it is now and the main reason why the Romans invaded was for minerals such as tin and iron and Vindolanda is named becouse once it was the perfect climate for the cultivation of grapes…… The first genuine Middle Eastern migrants probably came over with the rats carrying the Black Death.. After it had wiped out half of Europe…
Strange how foreigners bring these deadly diseases to Britain….
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/multiculturalism-its-infectious.html
Also the translation of the word Tacitus from Latin is Wikipedia
LOL!
or ‘silence’ even. I wonder why he chose that name?
First recorded ‘black’ person found in England was during Roman times – from DNA evidence from a grave in York.
That history may be horrible to you though.
How did they know he was black??? DNA only proves the origin of the subject, it does not prove his skin colour.. I had this same debate with some of my colleagues recently whilst we were taking it turns to use the bunsen burner to melt blocks of ice so we could write a new article proving a direct link between the melting ice caps and our use of fossil fuels… One of our team of science buffs was a Paleantologist (that`s a guy who is a dinosaur professor to those who don`t know what that is) and another of our team of scientific expertise was a dermatologist who is head of research at the E45 research faciltiy (he invented the Dove soap concept) also we had a full time historian with us who you may have heard of or seen on the TV (Tony Robinson) getting a hard on over bits of pottery which he has to identify as an `exciting find` even though he knows it is not… So there we were, the four of us, sharing our bunsen burner when one of us asked the Paleantologist how come he knew that all Dinosaurs were a that blue/green/greyish colour…. and after looking through his notes regarding the topic he said he had no evidence to prove that they were NOT that colour (like that thing they do on the History Channel) therefore the lack of evidence to disprove the accepted colour of dinosaurs being greeen/blue/grey in colour left only one conclusion… It was at that point for a laugh i asked about that episode of Maury where a white ginger redneck was accused of fathering a child that was black had the DNA test anyway becouse Maury (who is the worlds top expert in the field of DNA research) insisted he took the test, okay it said that there was a 99% negative result BUT that 1% of doubt was enough to leave the remote possiblity that the black baby could be his afterall….. We ended up fighting in an attempt to resolve the issue and after a while we both agreed that DNA evidence is an unreliable means to prove skin pigmentation…. Then we moved onto our next experiment which was an attempt to prove that if you feed bumblebees a diet consisting of oranges instead of nectar… they will produce marmalade instead of honey… also if they are fed strawberries would they make jam…. I`ll let you know how the field tests turn out if you like….
BBC historians deliberately confuse the terms “multi-cultural” and “multi-ethnic”. Both have very different meanings.
The Roman Empire was multi-ETHNIC!
I wonder when or if the BBC will cover this story.
Human Rights Watch selects proponent of terrorism as finalist for award? The Martin Ennals award for human rights defenders, to be exact.
Ms. Seif supports attacking the Egypt-Israel-Jordan gas pipeline; invading the Israeli embassy in Cairo; intentionally targeting civilians; tags her tweets #F*ckIsrael – and yes, she opposed Mubarak.
For another take on this story suggesting that Mona Seif, who practically became a BBC journo during the Egyptian Arab Spring at Tahrir Square has intentionally or unintentionally supports actions that cause considerable damage to Egypt seeMoaning. Can’t be much of a medical researcher, either.
“BBC bullying is systemic and institutionalised, claim unions.
“Rose report, published after Savile scandal, shows inadequate complaints procedure which meant whistleblowers were ignored.”
By John Plunkett.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/02/bbc-bullying-systemic?
Yet they sure found a way to summarily deal with complaints against Carol Thatcher, and that woman who asked the cab company not to send an Asian driver to pick up her daughter, didn’t they? So is it the complaints procedure that’s the problem, or the people running the show?
Once again we have to ask the question about whether or not changing the structure (of management regarding Savile/Newsnight, or in this case, procedures) will improve anything if the same flawed people are still in place.
David don`t be such a pessimist…. Lessons have been learned… they had an open and transparent inquiry into all that…. Didn`t you read the report??? The one where they found that it was down to the culture of the time, it was forty years ago, when child rape was acceptable and the social norm….. They have moved on to more urgent issues such as bullying of staff over the whereabouts of missing laptops and about sixty pages of A4 from their report on the internal Jimmy Saville investigation….
Ah, of course. I forgot the line had already been drawn under it. 🙂 Which lessons did they learn, though? How to present the appearance of compliance and improvement without actually changing anything? Adding more boxes to tick and forms to fill out for legal ass-covering? I’m sure another online training course is in the offing….
Under it, over it, through it …. all with a magic marker stolen specially by `someone` on thier way out of BBC Television Centre from the foyer after an attempt to smuggle out a laptop through the automatic doors proved too difficult whilst holding a full cup of barista-made Fairtrade coffee….
Now I understand why the BBC made those front revolving doors so difficult to get through……
‘compliance and improvement’…
Let me tell you David that the UK ‘public sector’ standard, be it schools, crime, educashun, or (snigger) broadcasting is
‘we’re shit, but as demonstrated by easily gamed statistics (which we’ve gamed) we’re not as shit as we were last year.
Also, beware of any organisation which uses the word “excellence” in its publicity or mission statements. Their definition of “excellence” usually means “barely adequate”.
Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said: “It is quite clear that bullying has become an institutionalised problem at the BBC, one that has taken hold over many years.
“Many [staff] see that bullies have been allowed to get away with shocking behaviour right under the noses of senior management, so have no faith that complaining will bring any redress.”
Wait: I thought the BBC was “too vast, multi-layered and chaotic” for there to be any kind of institutionalized attitude or behavior. And this has taken hold over many years, has it? What a shock.
So … does that mean in a way (in the eyes of the BBC) that Jimmy Savilles` crimes were a `good thing` … becouse through it they have uncovered a much more pressing issue of in house bullying at the BBC??? I wonder who they will name in their investigation into it??? My moneys` on Gripper Stebson from Grange Hill … I saw him give Pogo Patterson a nasty Chinese burn in one episode and he took his lunch money (good job he wasn`t carrying a laptop)…..
Pity the NUJ bird quoted by the Guardian didn’t mention the female BBC executive who harassed her male underling to suicide. Instead it she just gave the party line, “women have been subjected to the most awful sexism”.
So were an astounding number of children…. But I guess it`s a lot worse if it`s someone being forced to touch Sandi Toksvigs` leg or being told to do lines (usually through sixty sheets of A4) becouse somebody snitched on the peadophile activities of BBC staff…. Imagine the suffering they endured drinking MaxPax coffee…..
It remains to be seen just how many elderly white celebrities (some dead) really are guilty of paedophile or adult sexual crimes going back three or four decades. So far only Stuart Hall has confessed.
Hasn’t it crossed your mind that endemic moslem grooming – which the police are at last being forced to take notice of – can be more easily forgotten if there are famous people to gossip about?
The BBC struck propaganda gold with Savile, as indeed did the police. Whether he was guilty or not didn’t matter – it was now a matter of forget the “Asians”, get whitey.
And the internal whitewash, which took the place of a proper police investigation of the Corporation, has resulted in a report with all the believability of an MI6 dossier – but which is now displayed as evidence that the BBC is getting tough with itself, in the true spirit of impartiality.
I wonder how many abusers successfully covered up for each other, as collaborators did after the War, during the course of this “inquiry”?
‘inadequate complaints procedure which meant whistleblowers were ignored.’
Luckily for CECUTT, the complaints procedure between the BBC and those who are compelled to fund it, is still deemed so perfect, they can carry on ignoring and/or expediting away for ever more.
Yet another BBC unique, where the needs of the few outweigh the interests of those they are paid by.
‘..bullies have been allowed to get away with shocking behaviour..
And, when it comes to taunting and flaunting from perceived positions of secret internal protection some still do, daily.
Shame licence fee payers do not have a union, or indeed any representation worth a damn in holding the BBC to account.
Be interesting if the Graun ever ‘probes’ that.
A united front to represent the interests of license fee payers? Now that would be interesting. I think you might be on to something there.
‘..bullies have been allowed to get away with shocking behaviour..`
Not anywhere near as shocking as the crimes of all the child rapists employed by the BBC during the so called forty year culture of depravity which only ever existed in the mindset of those responsible…
One of the ongoing investigations (I’ve lost count) is supposedly looking into whether or not the BBC has since put into place workplace rules and procedures to prevent that happening again, no? What I mean is, the vindication of the BBC on that score seems to be built into the remit of the inquiry.
Maybe “vindication” isn’t the best word choice here.
Don`t you feel it is an insult to your intelligence when you are told by the BBC that they have `put into place workplace rules and procedures to prevent it happening again` .. (taking into account that for over forty years it had been able to develop into a `culture` within thier corporation) after a few months whilst the official Operation Yew Tree is still only making preliminary enquiries and has not even finished collating witness and victims evidence???
Yes. And I think “acquittal” is the word I was looking for above.
The tragic case of the 2 yr old shot by her brother in Kentucky has been been tweeted extensively by BBC journalists.
The revelations in the Gosnell abortion trial have not.
The Kentucky story fits the BBC’s narrative and reaffirms prejudices about America.
The horrific testimony about Gosnell’s abortion clinic fits no such easy narrative. It is clearly not the talk of the BBC newsroom. If only the newborns put to death with a snip through the spinal column had been baby elephants in a zoo rather than people, BBC hacks would’ve been all over it.
John Redwood at The Commentator…
I realise the BBC is never going to represent the majority of people who value the flexibility of their car for work and pleasure, and resent the strident anti-motorist stance of the ultra-greens. I understand the BBC will not stand up for Granny when she complains that green energy is too dear for her to keep warm – or they will run a piece demanding more public subsidy. BBC journalists as a whole just do not understand how most of us feel, that we like belonging to the modern world, so we can use some of the great technology it offers, and need cheaper energy to enjoy it to the full.
I would like the BBC to even up its coverage of other parties by submitting the Greens and their more mainstream Lib Dem big brothers and sisters to some scrutiny for their policies of hounding the motorist and pricing people out of the energy market.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3422/who_is_the_greenest_of_them_all
But Redwood is just as bad at not bawling out the BBC for this bias, any time HE gets on the radio( few though these occasions are).
Any chance of the Tories refusing to let Webb or Kearney set the agendas for them- things like the “one other question” crap they pull as if they`re Columbo?
The Global warming /Nuclear Power division is obvious as is the Miliband /Unite union division which ought to be the size of the Cheddar Gorge if the Tories were doing their job.
The Clarkes, Hagues etc are lightweight dilletantes…at least the creepy Labour types seek and sniff power with some lupine relish.
…whilst the creepy BBC types seek and sniff powder.
Came across this on Yahoo tonight:
But Moz Dee, managing editor of Radio 5 Live from 1999 to 2008, told the station that he had heard no rumours about Hall.
Could this be the *Dez* that frequents this site? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? I’m fairly new around here.