John Simpson, no doubt grateful to be handed an extended employment contract with the Beeb, does his usual fawning pro-BBC, ‘it’s not biased’, shameless promotion:
John Simpson: “The BBC faces an existential crisis”
It has always been an article of faith among a certain type of Conservative politician and in the right-wing press that the BBC is instinctively left-wing. It started as early as 1926, when the BBC was only four years old, and Winston Churchill tried and failed to make the BBC toe the government line in its reporting of the General Strike. Interestingly, the counter-view, that the BBC is always instinctively pro-Conservative, began at the same time and is held no less strongly. That’s what happens if you’re balanced.
I do believe that we are now facing a genuine existential threat. And knee-jerk, ill-thought-through decisions could do us and Britain’s national life as a whole irreparable damage.
Just the usual self-serving, uncritical, dismissive of criticism, type of response we have come to expect from those reliant on the BBC shilling.
“Well, having worked for BBC news for 40 years, I’m immensely proud of its rock-solid culture of honest, balanced truth-telling.
LOL
The nation faces an existential crisis. Population replacement means exactly that. A threat to our very existence as a people. What does the last one and a half thousand years mean to these BBC apologists? Nothing at all. So what does the BBc mean to me?.Nothing at all.
Times have changed. The liberal elite has all but destroyed the nation and it’s mouthpiece has been complicit throughout. One day a reckoning must be made. That is the way of the world.
I was out in Central London last night and trust me, our very existence as a people is not under threat. In fact everyone seems in great form.
I’ve commented on this before. London is a big place and the enrichers tend to avoid the centre and certainly anything remotely cultural or traditional.
Go to a smaller, more vulnerable place like Bradford or Rotherham and it’s a different story.
Sounds like Central London has yet to benefit from the ‘Tower Hamlets Effect’, but it will – inevitably.
Exactly. And smug people in places like Devon, Wiltshire, N Yorkshire, Herefordshire, Northumberland etc. will also reap the benefits of diversity.
Might take some time, but they will. In the meantime they’ll have changes imposed by white flight to endure.
Politicians, including the ones sent to Westminster by constituencies in the above mentioned places, have a lot to answer for.
Just wait for a Leftist administration to start telling the local authorities to ensure the ‘correct’ ethnic mix in a country town.Local Authorities could prevent white flight by means of planning rules ,and positively encourage ethnic ‘displacement’ to country towns.
Not Likely , you might think? But I have heard this argued by leftist nutters .
I no longer use the word “never” with regard to politics, and rarely say that anything is “unlikely”.
The thing about demographics is that it is very difficult to ignore. London is now a majority minority city. This is the very first time in recorded history that this is true of it. Figures are 2001 White British 59.79%. 2011 44.89%.
These are from the census not some right wing outfit.
So what will 2021 be ? and 2031? and 2041?
Please do not insult our intelligence with trite comments.
Now you probably think this is great. Get rid of the stupid white British. Useless are they not, lazy and everything you probably deplore.
Now I think this is a potential disaster. That it has been allowed to happen without thought and in defiance of our wishes and of the reality of human nature.
Our leaders have been remiss which is a polite way of saying they have been useless.
So keep on calling yourself Cockney and look up the origin of the word. You will be surprised.
Dave S. , it is not clear to whom your comment is directed?
Please elaborate.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Dave s was replying to our visually impaired friend, ‘cockney’.
I recently walked, on a weekday evening, from the British Museum down the full length of Oxford St. Stranger in a Strange Land had a strong resonance.
Thanks for that.
Sometimes ,it’s difficult to see where the replies relate to , especially when you don’t have time to read all the prior posts…perhaps a link could be shown for this reason,David V.?
I do agree. The threading can be hard to follow.
Went to the Tate Britain Turner exhibition the other day . Everyone was `Hideously White` with the odd Japanese ,Korean or Chinese present . The Arts Council won`t like it . No black or brown un`s there.
Bang goes their finding in that case. Our faux Conservative government is currently threatening all funded bodies (from the tiniest local museums upwards) with reduced funding if they fail to preach ‘diversity’.
Remember that at the next elections.
I’m not defending the “Conservatives” but it’s been said many times before. A lot of it is just hot air.
Hardly any black faces at the RAH Proms – probably the most accessible classical concerts. Far Eastern Asians don’t seem to have a problem though, for some reason.
The Art`s Council are implementing `Get those old Hideously Whitie`s outta way of the art`s ,or loose that fat juicy cheque ` directive .
Smaller organisations will lose out to ethnic ones, but that’s been happening for years.
Larger organisations have been criticised for the make up of their audiences for a couple of decades. IMO, the Arts Council, which is itself under attack, is not going to close down a major organisation for its failure to attract people who, as everybody quietly knows, would not be seen dead in the audience.
Yes and it is very patronising and indeed waycist to minorities to suggest that they should like the Proms but won’t attend because there aren’t any non-white faces present.
FFS you either like a piece of art or not. Why attend a festival of classical music if you are into Thrash Metal or Rap?
WTF does the colour of the artist matter except in BBC land?
Inevitably the proportion of White British people in London will decline over time. It’s an international city and people breed with each other. Is it a better and more successful place than it was in 2001? Yes and in turn that was better than 1999. Hardly destroying the nation is it? I’d spend less time obsessing with racial purity and more enjoying yourself. imported Asian corruption in tower hamlets and imported East African violence in we mobley is a problem. Poles marrying Italians and setting up micro businesses on the old street roundabout isn’t. By the way I appreciate London isn’t the uk but every time I visit the provinces they still seem pretty white British to me.
You have a weak grasp of history, cockney. London was probably at its peak in the late 19th Century.
Not much of your cherished ‘diversity’ then.
What makes a city thrive is a complex mix of factors. ‘Diveristy’ in your silly New Labour sense is a long way down the list. Considerably after ‘good drains’ for example.
London was at its peak in the 19th century? Possibly but I wasn’t around then. I do though have direct experience of the fact that its a significantly nicer place to live now than it was 10, 20 and 30 years ago, which is surely worth being happy about rather than pathologically miserable about the ethnicity trends of census results.
I was born in central London some 63 years ago (at the old Royal Free Hospital in the Grays Inn Road) and I have lived in London ALL my life.
‘Cockney’ , your views do not represent any of the real ‘cockneys’ that I know-you only represent yourself!
Ah the true liberal approach to the past. I was not there so it did not matter or it did not happen and who can be sure anyway. It is how the liberal deals with the past.
Control the past control the present and future. Now I seem to have heard this before. The cry of the wannabee totalitarian down the ages.
The liberal also has a gnostic approach to reality. If I experience it directly then it is either good or bad or whatever. But it is my experience that counts.
Dave, I’m intrigued to hear alternative views, but surely reality is the cumulative sum of everyone’s personal experiences so I thought I’d give you mine. I just don’t hear many direct personal experiences of the apparently massive negative impact of immigration in London, although I hear a lot of indirect concern from people who don’t live here – might be my demographic…
I too was in central London yesterday walking the Paddington trail and the language I heard less of was…English.
Did it spoil your day princess, like poor old Nigel on his train out to somewhere grim in Kent. Or did you enjoy the massively tarted-up Basin, and Soho, and Covent Garden, and Shoreditch. All that foreign money see. There’s been an incredible, even “vibrant”, influx of Peruvian restaurants recently. Hope you enjoyed one in tribute to the bear.
As many have previously stated, if the BBC is so right-wing why do the lefties squeal every time they think the Conservatives may either get rid of it or at least make it fulfil its impartiality obligation under its own charter!
The bbc ‘s version of impartiality is like averages
Take the looniest left wing , discount the same on the right except for making fun of and hey presto you’ve got the median average , a Labour view of the world .
Like all of the Left Hand dressers, deluded.
Why does he live in Dublin then?
Self serving and dismissive of criticism eh? Reminds me of someone.
Someone paid by uniquely compelled public funding, Jerry?
You can always opt to take your eyeballs and keyboard skills elsewhere but, oddly, don’t.
Nice to have the choice, though.
When a genuinely right of centre person, with a distinguished track record of opposing the left and not in the pay of the BBC, says that the BBC is not biased to the left, I may take the argument seriously. But as for BBC lifers telling me that the BBC isn’t biased, they may as well save their breath. It should also be noted that for everyone of them who does say this, there are those, now safely out of the clutches of the corporation, who give a very different appreciation of the state funded broadcaster.
I know some BBC staffers and they genuinely DON’T GET IT!!!!
They come from a leftist point of view and the centre ground is only slightly to the right of the SWP…. but they are intensely relaxed about their own inflated pay and conditions (since they will be the revolutionary elite ,one assumes).
Anyway ,till the Revolution comes, let’s crack open another bottle and drink to the overthrow of the Eeevil Toriezzz!
Beeboid Simpson:-
‘Of course, there will always be some people who say the BBC is too left-wing,
and some who say we are too right-wing.
‘I have been mouthing this misleading profundity all my life.
‘I must say I am enjoying my-job-for-life at the BBC.’
Off camera:
‘Is the cheque in the post?’
‘Interestingly, the counter-view, that the BBC is always instinctively pro-Conservative, began at the same time and is held no less strongly.’
Ha ha ha ha ha. Ho ho ho. Hee hee hee hee hee. Oh please stop, it’s hurting me.
Anybody remember Simpson throwing a hissy fit about Peter Arnett scooping him in Baghdad at the start of the first gulf war.
Arnett and his crew got the first live shots out of cruise missiles flying down the street at roof top level. Simpson threw his teddies out of the pram.
tell you what,liberals and lefties always complain that sites like this always give the biased bbc a hard time,well yes that is right because of your obvious left wing politacal bias you mugs,but lets give one bbc man a bit of credit here and his name is john simpson,i find john quiet fair and balanced in his reporting compared to the likes of the pro hamas jeremy bowen and his left biased journalists at the bbc and radio 5 live,i quiet like john simpson and i think we should give this guy some credit as one of the decent and fair journalist that the bbc have ever employed,simple as that.
Typical BBC half truth intended purely to both deceive the public whilst blowing false notes on their own trumpets. At the time of the General Strike in 1926 the British Broadcasting Corporation did not exist and did not do so until it was created by Royal Charter the following year. From 1922 until 1927 the BBC was a Private Company and was called the British Broadcasting Company. The fact that the current setup happens to have the same initials, something the Corporation deceptively uses to hide the difference between the two completely different setups, the original which was run by private funding and the later monstrosity funded by a Household Broadcast Reception Tax extracted from the public even if the do not make use of it’s output and only use those of other broadcasters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2872884/Our-faith-condones-raping-underage-slaves-ISIS-publishes-shocking-guidebook-telling-fighters-buy-sell-abuse-captured-women.html….paedophile isis
As will be pointed out, the vast majority of Muslims will be equally horrified by this. The problem is that the small number who do not and who subscribe to this very literal interpretation of Islam have Western elites and the BBC in their thrall (pun intended).
I met this guy in Afghanistan, a week or so after he’d ‘liberated Kabul’. What a pompous R Sole he was. He pretended not to hear me when I told him. We all know that the BBC is biased, we only have to watch Question Time to know that. But it seems that every now and then, one of the BBC’s feels the need to wheel themselves out and tell the world that opposite is true.
I don’t think any of them actually believe it’s true. If they did, they wouldn’t keep telling us that the BBC is completely impartial.
If those like Simpson think they BBC is so wonderful why not give the public a choice on funding them through a subscription not a tax. Let the people decide.