Peter Allen relates to Nicky Campbell how when as a young journalist he asked Mrs Thatcher this (5 mins 30 secs) about the Falklands War:
‘Why are you bothering to fight this war when you know perfectly well that you will have to give them back to the Argentinians eventually.‘
Give them back? The Argentinians never owned them. And if anything Spain has a stronger claim than anyone else…other than Britain of course.
‘Give them back, surrender quietly without a fight’ is a fairly typical attitude of the Left that has served this country so badly for decades….do not stand up for your own rights, do not defend your own lands, do not defend your own values and beliefs….but do celebrate every other culture, belief, value or territorial demand however daft, however unfounded.
Peter Allen was followed shortly after by historian and frequent BBC presenter, Dr Kate Williams who called the Falklands ‘Islas Malvinas’….and claimed that increasingly across the rest of the world they were using that name and that it’s going to be very difficult for the Prime minister who has to hand them back as he will have to eventually.
Not the first time the BBC has handed the Falklands over to the Argies:
Anger over ‘Malvinas’ gaffe on BBC
The lives of 257 servicemen were lost to ensure that the Falkland Islands remain a British dependency. But perhaps someone should remind the BBC.
For, to the astonishment of the Falklands’ hardy residents and soldiers who fought to liberate them almost 30 years ago, the islands were re-christened ‘the Malvinas’ — the contentious name for the islands used by Argentina — by the writers of children’s TV show The Sarah Jane Adventures.
No less a figure than Major-General Sir Jeremy Moore, who accepted the Argentinian surrender, refused to allow the use of ‘Islas Malvinas’ in the documents signed in 1982, dismissing it as a propaganda term.
John Humphrys has long thought along the same lines as Peter Allen and Kate Williams:
‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.’
If you Google BBC ‘Islas Malvinas’ you will find out that the BBC refers to the Falklands as ‘Islas Malvinas/Falklands’ on their foreign language service.
La población de las islas Malvinas/Falklands terminó de votar en un referendo de dos días sobre si quieren seguir siendo un territorio británico.
I suppose the BBC has a history of this type of rebranding and relocating sovereignty of particular countries as it suits….Londonderry becomes Derry to suit the IRA, Jerusalem is stripped of its status as capital of Israel to suit Palestinian terrorists, the Scottish ‘Administration’ becomes its ‘Government’.
The names all have massive political symbolism and the BBC seems all too ready to side with those it has decided it likes best regardless of international law, custom or tradition.
Once again the BBC, the oh so impartial BBC, plays politics.
This sort of BBC appeasement is most interesting and I’m wondering how to explain it, so I’ll think aloud. Is it:
(1) The BBC feels that the UK is in some way finished as a strong separate entity, doomed to dwindling importance and thus safer within the EU super-state. The appeasement is intended to try to make foreign and internal enemies nicer to us, since we will have been “nice” to them. You could call this fatalistic pragmatism. Or:
(2) The internal conspiracy theory: the BBC so hate the indigenous white British and their history that they wish them to be destroyed or at least subjugated by something (anything) else. It might as well be the Aztecs as Islam. Or:
(3) The external conspiracy theory: the BBC is doing the work of some foreign power or ideology (like Burgess, Philby, et al years ago). Or:
(4) Something else – tell me what you think!
I generally subscribe to the cock-up theory of history rather than the conspiracy theory. If, however, there is any truth in my (2) and (3) then we are talking about treason.
Theory number 2
On one level, it’s Theory 1, only without the appeasement bit. It’s more nihilism than fatalism.
But I subscribe more to Theory 4: An intellectual failure. It’s based on emotion and a false impression of history combined with postmodern relativism, rather than reason. It’s the same failure that makes them incapable of dealing properly with the clash of civilizations on their doorstep, and causes the bizarre worship of a US President.
OK, so let’s assume no conscious conspiracy for the moment. I agree about the intellectual failure: too much emotion and sentimentality (e.g. about the decline of mining, the blessed NHS in the UK); too strong a faith in the “Whig Interpretation of History” (liberal progressivism as desirable and inevitable); cultural relativism about other inferior cultures; Romanticism and fantasy rather than Classicism and reality; humanities rather then sciences.
Option 4: They are really really really clueless and have no grasp of reality whatsoever.
It helps me sleep at night……….
Isn’t it just an extension of the liberal view espoused by the Foreign Office, once described by Mrs Thatcher herself when she explained that we had a Trade Ministry for the traders, a Farm Ministry for the farmers and a Foreign Office for the foreigners?
I think a combination of 1 and 2. Plus a heavy dose of pseudo metropolitan sophistication.
Patriotism is just so yesterday. They know nothing of England outside their comfort zone of London and now the Manchester media village.
They have never worked the land or the sea. Never really looked at a small part of England with that real affection that only time and the passing on of family memories can bring.
i feel sorry for them. Rootless in reality or made rootless by education they will never understand why some of us will fight to the end for our way of life and our corner of England.
If you have to ask what England is then you will never know.
There are millions of us whose ancestry goes back over 1000years in this land. It is time we told these dreadful traitors, for that is what they are, that England is part of what we all are and is never to be abandoned to those who wish it ill.
We lost England once nearly 1000 years ago and had to fight hard for centuries to get it back. This must never happen again.
Alan,
“Peter Allen relates to Nicky Campbell how when as a young journalist he asked Mrs Thatcher… about the Falklands War”
He was of course working for ITN at the time (strange you didn’t mention that).
“…followed shortly after by historian and frequent BBC presenter, Dr Kate Williams…”
Who also happens to be “The Royal Historian” and frequently on Sky and Channel 5 (strange you didn’t mention that)
But she mentioned the “M” word, along with a character in a children’s TV drama once, two years ago.
And this is evidence that the BBC; “has handed the Falklands over to the Argies”?
Even by your pitiful standards Alan, this is truly pathetic stuff.
Where did Alan say or imply that Peter Allen ever worked for the BBC rather than just being yet another convenient, biased voice?
Pay attention, Colditz.
As for our ‘Royal Historian’ you’d expect a bit more historical accuracy, no?
Who also happens to be “The Royal Historian” and frequently on Sky and Channel 5 (strange you didn’t mention that)’
Dopey Dez The Dimwit Droid
———————————————————————-
Oi, Dopey, is ‘The Royal Historian’ some sort of position in the Royal Household that you’ve just made up. Better tell the Queen because as far as she’s aware, and I’ve just been talking to her, we’ve not had a Historiographer Royal for three centuries or so.
Still, her treason apart, Kate Williams is a dashed fine piece of English crumpet.
uncle bup,
“we’ve not had a Historiographer Royal for three centuries or so.”
Fair enough. I was wrong about that.
Oi, dopey, you’re usually the great one (in your own mind at any rate) for cutting comebacks?
What’s wrong, have you crawled away and hid under a stone, the forum’s laughter ringing in your ears?
Pwned.
Dez,
Did you miss the bit about this being related to Campbell on the BBC? Pitiful even by your BBC rose tinted lefty spectacles.
How did you find time to be on here when all the lefties are on the Beeb website complaing about the cost of Margaret Thatchers funeral and accusing the BBC of being controlled by the Tories? I wonder why comments were opened for that news item!
Anti Beeb,
“Did you miss the bit about this being related to Campbell on the BBC?”
Perhaps I did. Which bit was that?
I don’t know if these figures have been pulished but here are the figures for the mines closed down under labour and MAggie:
Labour
1964 545
1965 .. 504
1966 .. 442
1967 .. 406
1968 .. 330
1969 .. 304
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
Maggie:
1979 .. 219
1980 .. 213
1981 .. 200
1982 .. 191
1983 .. 170
1984 .. 169
1985 .. 133
1986 .. 110
1987 .. 94
1988 .. 86
1989 .. 73
1990 .. 65
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-availability-and-consumption-1853-to-2011
But according to the New Theology, closing coal plants (or taxing them to death or into oblivion) is supposed to save ‘da Planet or ‘summthing.
The planet-saving twenty/thirty-somethings that work for the green-activist “charities”, crafting media biefings all day on energy policy. ie where the BBC environment rcorrespondents get their stories from.
I see BBC is running a world-shaterring news item this morning on how the National Trust has a renewables target. What with Boston and Waco and Ricin, how did that find its way into the top news items of the day I wonder? The hidden hand of the greens at work.
The BBC is too slow to adapt to changing breaking news, most of their “news” is stuff they have been working on for some time and is not news at all.
I am rather more concerned about the John Humphries’ comment in Alan’s post. Where in the BBC’s mindset is this idea of giving the Falkands to Argentina? (I nearly wrote ‘the Falklands ‘back’ which tells you something about if the BBC repeat something often enough). Would the BBC eventually expect that Guernsey and Jersey become part of France – because they are near there?
That quote is from a 2011 piece where Humphrys was looking at the current state of the Falklands debate. He wasn’t stating his own opinion, he was summarising the beliefs of some others.
I think the difference is rather lost on poor Alan.
Where does that quote come from? Do you have a link to the full text?
Would the BBC eventually expect that Guernsey and Jersey become part of France – because they are near there?
——————————————————————————-
I don’t know, but I hear they’re petitioning to have Salford subsumed into the Gaza Strip, just, yerknow, to express solidarity with their pali brothers-in-arms.
They don’t have to do that….a little hop, skip n a jump, and presto, they are in the middle of Cheeham Hill…the scruffy twin of Gaza.
If the use of bad language and calling people names is supposed to win arguments the concept has fallen flat on its face as far as I am concerned. We are all entitled to our opinions provided they do not set out to hurt others. To belittle or bully those that you do not agree with always has a negative effect. I would not want such people in my house or on my blog.
Alan is very patient to put up with the abuse, which many would not do, and by picking up on silly minutia just sets us all against those that do it. Maybe that is what they want of course, to try and get banned. That of course is a BBC trick but it does not appear to be Alan’s. So, hats off to you Alan.
To even try and pretend that the BBC is not biased against Great Britain is a bit of a futile task of course so I suppose some kudos must be given to the odd bods that come on here and try.
However, like others I fail to see why the BBC is against Great Britain perhaps it’s an inverted sense of patriotism in the same way that inverted snobbery is supposed to be clever. Either way it is now entrenched to a degree that it needs a Mrs T. to sort it out. Also, the fact that the BBC gets its cash by force does give it a feeling of power over us plebs I suppose. They certainly do not like criticism and bearing in mind the size of this blog compared to the resources of the BBC it really is unbelievable that anyone would be bothered to get so intense and nasty about it.
“ It’s a strange old world”, as someone great once said and good luck to the British Falkland Islands.
Give no-one any kudos old timer, the contra views form part of an organised bbc campaign.
There are some who appear to be independent, but most seem to be part of a team. You can see where they all use Group-Speak, have access to well-hidden documents and flock together. Some work the day shift, others the night, but when the Beeb has dropped a major clanger they all come out together. Denying that they work for the BBC directly is irrelevant: the Left lie as a matter of routine.
I would slightly disagree. When the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation has dropped a major clanger they tend to stay silent. So far as I can remember none of them refuted observations – save one forlorn attempt by Colditz – that the Quislings displayed bias by trying to steer public perceptions that the Boston bombers were more likely to come from the far-right of the American political spectrum.
They tend to appear to point score on the equivalent of missing apostrophes, poor spelling or grammar.
Fair enough, but in some cases when they think they have a point they swarm out of the woodwork to protect one another’s attempts to disrupt the adults.
Agreed.
Yes, the ‘swarming’ is very noticeable.
In the spirit of reconciliation, may I suggest that we rename the Islands…The THATCHER ISLANDS/Archipelago.
Sounds good to me, and would screw the lefties forever as they spit out the name with their ill-fitting dentures very soon.
A referendum please!
I don’t know why replies aren’t nesting properly on this thread. And now I don’t have time to look into it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007129/David-Cameron-evil-says-Doctor-Who-writer-Russell-T-Davies.html
He not only writes about other worlds, he actually lives on one (does anyone remember the ‘Dr Who and the Planet of the Money Trees’ episode?).
‘the BBC has a history of this type of rebranding and relocating sovereignty of particular countries as it suits….Londonderry becomes Derry to suit the IRA’
It seems the below have also capitulated to the IRA Alan?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dalai-lama-visits-londonderry-urging-a-century-of-peace-8579108.html
http://www.u.tv/News/Dalai-Lama-preaches-peace-in-Derry/1db0c24c-50b4-43ad-8566-02c1980143cd
But that’s just the ‘Independent’ playing to it’s bourgeois leftist readership (537,000 still the same source) so doesn’t count right?