BBC Censorship: Spot Another Missing Book Report Edition

Last  year, a book about the President came out in which it was revealed that His White House was a hostile workplace for women. Even the lapdog US media had to talk about it, although they quickly moved on. The BBC censored all news of it, because it made the President look bad. Now another one is coming out, and the mainstream US media is all over it. Once again, the BBC is censoring the story, so you don’t get to learn anything which might make Him look bad.

The one book involving the President which the BBC did find time to briefly mention was “Obama’s Wars” by Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame). That didn’t make Him look too bad at all, so it was okay to tell you about its existence. At the time, Matt Frei, while realizing that the book showed Him as “thoughtful and serious”, had a concern:

But will the nuance of his finely-tuned brain be lost amongst the bold print of the headlines?

Of course, the BBC did find time to mention three different books about George Bush which came out during his time in office. One was about insider stuff from his Administration, one was an attempt to paint a portrait of the man from interviews with six people close to him, and one was by a psychiatrist who wondered if Bush was disabled. They even thought it was worth telling you about a biography of his wife. I’m not sure a regular biography of Bush was published while he was President. I can’t find one online anywhere. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that we knew all about him by the time he ran for office, while The Obamessiah’s background was shrouded in mystery or simply covered up, any negatives dismissed as racism or falsehoods.

So now that a second book about Him has come out, one has to wonder why the BBC refuses to acknowledge its existence. It may have something to do with the biggest story about it so far:

The Choom Gang: President Obama’s pot-smoking high school days detailed in Maraniss book

The Internet is buzzing after the Washingtonian published a review of Washington Post associate editor David Maraniss’s forthcoming book “Barack Obama: The Story,” including an excerpt about President Obama’s high school clique and their favorite pastime.

Let’s just say jobs weren’t the president’s first green initiative. The group of friends smoked marijuana frequently enough to nickname themselves the “Choom Gang.”

And it’s not just the internet buzzing. The mainstream media has been talking about it as well, plenty of links in the above WaPo post, and of course the rightosphere is bursting with amusing bits from the book. The following, though is from left-leaning Time:

Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted, “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

The boy is the father of the man.

Just do an internet search for “Choom” (mooch spelled backwards – so apt) and you’ll see just how much the BBC is out of step with the rest of the media on this one. It’s just another reason why their usual excuse for doing something because the rest of the media is doing it rings so hollow.

The BBC found plenty of time to remind you of George Bush’s youthful indiscretions, including here, here, and here. After he was inaugurated in 2001, Gavin Hewitt thought it important enough to grill Bush’s former pastor about it for a Panorama special. Even the late Alistair Cooke mentioned it once. So why does the BBC censor such stories about the current President?

The thing is, I don’t think this is going to hurt Him much at all. Perhaps it whittles away a little more at His shining image in the mainstream press, but anybody turned off by this revelation wasn’t going to vote for Him anyway, and anyone still dedicated to His cause certainly isn’t going to be dissuaded by this silliness. I doubt this will cost the President a single vote. But it makes Him look less than the supreme intellectual, smartest man in the room, superstar destined for greatness we’ve been hearing about from the BBC for the last four years. It’s also more evidence that the media failed in their jobs and refused to look too deep into His past in 2008, something else the BBC would hate to admit.


B-BBC contributor Alan observes…

“The caring broadcaster that is Victoria Derbyshire who gives a voice to the disaffected of Britain, whether Muslim extremists, student protesters or rioting, house burning, thieving chavs, is so dedicated to getting those voices heard that she commutes from her London home to Salford, Manchester (most days).

How does she do that? By flying. The woman who castigates bankers and irresponsible capitalism ‘jets’ to work most days like any highly paid executive. Not paid for by the BBC….well yes the ticket is paid for by her, but from her BBC salary, paid from our license money….or as she might put it ‘the public’s money’.

‘….raised eyebrows at her flying to Manchester each day to do the show, although this is not paid for by the BBC.’
Read more:

#OccupyFail: Three Occupiers Exercise Their Freedom of Speech by Bringing Mortars in Glass Jars

The BBC will never report this, because their thought-leaders in the US media and Left-wing blogosphere won’t.

3 men claiming to be Occupy Portland protesters arrested in Marion County for possession of explosives

Inside the car, the deputy also found a number of firecrackers and two commercially made mortars inside glass canning jars, designed to be fired into the area during professional pyrotechnic displays. One was found in the floorboard of the vehicle, and the other was allegedly in Luff’s jacket.

The deputy also found two gas masks, protective eye goggles and a safety helmet. All three men told the deputy that they had spent the night at the Occupy Portland demonstration, and they brought the mortars and safety equipment to the demonstration in preparation of the expected confrontation between police and protesters Sunday morning.

The three had been at the demonstration during the confrontation Sunday morning and had left about an hour before the vehicle was stopped. During that confrontation, a police officer was injured by a firework, but the three men denied being involved in the incident.

When asked about the explosives, the three men told authorities that they knew the canning jar would explode, causing glass shrapnel to fly and possibly cause injury.

(emphasis mine)

A reminder of Mark Mardell’s partisan bias and hypocrisy:

Healthcare row gets physical?

We are used to terms like “Nazi” being bandied around in the health debate at overheated town hall meetings.

But a new way of persuading opponents has just emerged – biting off their finger.

It reportedly happened in California and the man took his detached little finger to a local hospital to be sewed back on.

I don’t yet know how he fares. But as we in the media are always on the look-out for real-life case studies to illustrate political debates, this seems ideal.

Did he have insurance and did it cover Severed Pinkie Syndrome?

As he was 65, was he covered by a government-run, taxpayer-funded scheme?

And can any Americans out there explain why this debate has got quite so heated?

Mardell can tut-tut about this non-story, and openly sneer at what he assumes to be the senior citizen’s own hypocrisy, simply because he disagrees with the victim’s political views.

Yet there has been utter silence from him and the BBC about all the violence and foul behavior by their darling Occupiers.  And all this while the BBC has increased spending and hiring for their US coverage.

#OccupyFail.  #BBCFail.


Here is an interesting question;

“Does the BBC DG have knowledge of and take responsibility for the BBC journalist who has been barred from Parliament? ‘Gobby (Paul Lambert) has had his Pass withdrawn, reportedly for filming the aftermath of yesterday’s attack on Rupert Murdoch.

The Rules of the House are simply that you must cut away from any disruption in the Chamber or Committees, and you may not film in Parliament without a Special Permit. The Authorities have kindly issued me with permits in the past, and usually, where they can help, they do.’

Should there be an inquiry and a falling on of swords?

How Many Wars Is A Nobel Peace Prize Winner Allowed To Have Before The BBC Will Raise An Eyebrow?

The winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace is currently involved in military attacks on six different countries. Where is the BBC on this? Now the US President has even sent troops to invade yet another Muslim country: Somalia. Where are the BBC’s war correspondents? Where is the BBC North America editor to give expert analysis on why The Obamessiah isn’t a cowboy warmonger? Fortunately, Matt Frei is no longer around to tell you that He is a “reluctant warrior”.

In case anyone here relies solely on the BBC for their information, I’ll list the countries in which the US is currently militarily involved:

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia.

Back when the President was dithering deliberating over whether to join in the war on Libya, Mardell sneered at those who wanted to see “an unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead, out front, leading those who have the guts to follow”. He also said that the President “didn’t want to be seen leading the posse to lynch the bad guy.” So what about now? Why is there no BBC discussion of how the US is blowing people up and targeting them for assassination without UN resolutions and without joining an international, NATO-led effort?

As Mardell himself said before hostilities against Ghaddafi commenced:

Many in Britain and the rest of Europe cheered when Obama was elected. They were fed up with the guy in the cowboy boots who shot from the hip. They seemed pleased with a US President who had no aspirations to be the world’s sheriff. Now, some are shaking their heads, looking for a leader.

So he is perfectly capable of criticizing people who wanted the President to go to war. Why, then, is he incapable of criticizing – publicly, anyway – the President Himself for not only going to a war that Mardell didn’t like, but taking war into even more countries than Bush could ever have dreamt of?

Just before the US joined in with Cowboy Dave and Sancho Sarkozy, Mardell explained that the White House’s reticence was due to the fact that nobody wanted to make the US look like it was doing more of that nasty old imperialist aggression. So why does the bombing of Yemen and invasion of Somalia not look like it? If it walks like imperialist aggression and quacks like imperialist aggression……

Mardell at one point tried to convince you that The Obamessiah made the UN more relevant by forcing them to make the moral decision to attack Ghaddafi. He said it was a big deal because now nobody would think the US was “dictating what happens in the Muslim world”. How about now, BBC? Why is invading Somalia or bombing Yemen without a wink at the UN different?

There’s no dithering deliberation when it comes to wantonly bombing the crap out of Muslims in other countries. And not a single raised eyebrow at the BBC. Mardell can be critical of people who urge the President into war, but he cannot be critical of the President Himself for invading countries without any prompting from an uncouth public.

It was a big deal when everyone agreed that there would be no troops on the ground in Libya, as if that somehow certified the humanitarian bona fides of the “mission”. So why is the BBC completely silent when the US sends troops in to invade another country altogether? I assume Mardell is on yet another vacation, but there are several other Beeboids assigned to the US, some of whom are allowed to give their own expert analyses on US issues. Where are they?

The BBC has no trouble running articles telling you about criticism of the French supplying weapons to the rebels in Libya, but cannot find a single person to criticize the President for ordering drone bombing runs in Yemen or Somalia, never mind Libya. The criticisms of His ramping up the war in Pakistan have been kept extremely low key as well. What a difference between now and when Bush was in charge.

As has been pointed out on this blog by so many people, there is also a marked absence of anti-war protesters. This isn’t the BBC’s fault (much), but surely there must be one curious Beeboid on staff who wonders why the anti-war crowd simply doesn’t care about how many innocents The Obamessiah kills or may kill with His warmongering. I think they simply view the bombings and killings differently because it’s Him. Somehow, He knows what’s best, and wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t good for all of us. He works in mysterious ways, ours is not to reason why, etc.

The BBC’s integrity when it comes to reporting on war has been severely compromised by their deep, unwavering bias in favor of the leader of a foreign country. Your license fee hard at work.

BBC: A Woman’s Greatest Achievement Is Marrying A Powerful Man

I am disgusted by the way the BBC is hyping Michelle Obama’s supposed “message” that one can achieve great things if one is “ambitious and works hard”. Huw Edwards is holding a love-fest over her visit to some non-white school in London (BBC race-obsessed as always) and some speech she just did about preventing AIDS and inspiring women in Soweto. But it’s not the message in the abstract that’s the problem: it’s the way the BBC celebrates having a powerful husband as some kind of achievement to which women should aspire.

Edwards asks what the girls learned, and they gushed that they’ll take “her message” about achievement with them for the rest of their lives. Did they do this much for Laura Bush? Of course not, as she didn’t marry the right man.

It disgusts me that marrying a powerful man is considered a substantial achievement. This is sexism of the highest order. It actually belittles the real achievements of women. Yet cos she (and He) is black, the BBC can’t stick their collective tongues far enough up her backside.

“She’s married to America’s first black President, so that’s a very powerful statement as well,” says Huw.


Laud her work for this charity or that cause, fine. But don’t tell me marrying someone and going along on his ride to power is a massive achievement that should inspire a generation of young girls. I guess the advancement of women means something different to the otherwise progressive BBC. All their usual values go out the window when it comes to Obamessiah worship.


For as many years as I can remember, the BBC has propagated the line that the State always knows what is best for us. This is particularly accentuated when the Government is Socialist but the BBC default line is that State knows best. So I was somewhat surprised to hear John Humphrys suggest during this interview that the State should keep its nose out of our business. The subject: The sexualisation of children. Listen to his sneer at “Daily Mail” readers during this. I thought Nadine did alright but you could tell that she was a hostile witness.

False dawn

I switch on the radio. “They’re firing from mosques and hospitals” a voice is saying indignantly, “Fighting in a most underhand way. They’re taking off their uniforms and wearing civilian clothing and using women and children as shields”
“At Last!” I’m thinking. “The BBC has finally recognised exactly how Hamas operates, and understands what Israel faces whenever it tries to defend itself. “
But of course I was mistaken. It was not Hamas he was getting so worked up about. It was Gaddafi’s troops in Libya. But you knew that.


Sir Howard Davies is being treated by the BBC as if he were the first martyr of the London School of Economics given his resignation over LSE closeness to the Libyan tyranny. However I get the impression from BBC coverage of this issue (On Today 8.34am and 8.49am, a double whammy!) that the BBC thinks Sir Howard has perhaps been a little precipitative in his resignation over this “unfortunate” issue and anyway, isn’t UK business itself  guilty of taking money from some questionable sources? Never miss the opportunity to attack the capitalist system, right? Of course the biggest scandal of all is that millions of us Brits are forced by the BBC to given them our cash to fund their social engineering broadcasting network. That is every bit as big a scandal as anything the LSE do with Libyan blood money.


This past week saw the BBC jihad against Richard Keyes and Andy Gray. The outrage at their (stupid but off-air) comments was visceral and god help anyone who dared suggest that it was all a bit over the top. So, you might find the in-print comments of the BBC’s Perry Grove’s interesting;

In an article published in The Sun newspaper last year, Groves wrote: “I know a lot of women and they’re not consistent from hour to hour. Footballers want the rules to be applied consistently and this wouldn’t happen with women refs. “It’s hard enough for male refs to earn respect from players. With a woman in charge, players will be thinking: ‘You know nothing about football’. “Also, let’s face it, women have periods and we all know how hormones affect them. Would women refs be banned during their ‘time of the month’ because they might be more emotional, depressed or aggressive?

Perry appears regularly on BBC 5 Live.

The BBC response?

A BBC spokesman said: “If you know Perry, yes he does give an analysis of the game but he is also a light-hearted foil to Colin Murray and that’s the kind of attitude and style that they have. “I don’t think Perry would stand by that as a serious analysis of women’s refereeing standards. As a regular on Fighting Talk he has a stock in trade of banter and fun and this is indicative of the kind of place he goes.”


BBC Hypocrisy: Context Edition

The BBC has figured out their Narrative on these leaked documents from the Israel/Palestinian peace process. Naturally, Israel gets the worst of it. But there is a moment of glaring hypocrisy.

Jerusalem’s troubled geography

Right from the start, we see the direction it’s headed.

The release of thousands of leaked documents apparently showing Palestinian willingness to compromise over Israeli settlements once again highlights Jerusalem’s troubled geography – and damages the credibility of both sides, writes the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Both sides look bad? I suppose that’s why so many Palestinians have been complaining that Fatah is undermining their hopes and dreams, because the documents are equally damaging to Israel’s credibility? Color me skeptical. But first, we get the usual BBC agenda-driven historical moment in a vacuum.

As a main topic of the leaked documents concerns East Jerusalem, it’s only right that the BBC sets the scene. We’re told that Israel “captured” East Jerusalem in the Six Day War, but are provided zero context (remember that word for later) as to why they were in a position to do so. All we’re told is: “For the Palestinians and many in the Arab world this was a disaster.” Yes, it’s Arabist Gospel that Israel was an unprovoked aggressor in that war, but the BBC needs to be dealing in facts, not fiction. Israel’s move into East Jerusalem is presented in a vacuum, and the reader is left to assume whatever they like.

Of course, in 1967, there was no such thing as Palestinians, outside of Arafat’s little activist group. The people of East Jerusalem were Jordanians then. So the BBC creates a little alternate history. The propaganda is so deeply entrenched in their minds – and, most likely, in BBC editorial policy on the subject – that they write it as fact. But after being educated by the BBC, the average BBC audience member must find it very distasteful to learn that many Israelis viewed this “disaster” as a “miracle”. I think we can see the Narrative taking shape.

Now for the bit where Jonathan Marcus explains how these documents make Israel look bad. First, he carefully explains the Palestinian position on East Jerusalem, the Settlements, and some of the larger picture. There is no mention of any Israeli concerns, as if it’s unimportant, although there’s a lone subheading about ‘holy places’. We’ll get to that shortly. Then Marcus writes this:

While the main thrust of these documents is to show a Palestinian Authority far more willing to offer compromises than the Israelis have ever been willing to admit, the story is not entirely one of sharp divisions and unbridgeable gulfs.

Now we see how Israel is made to look the villain even here. Nasty old Israel has been dishonest and lying about Palestinian negotiations, right? Who’s really not the valid partner in the peace process, eh, BBC? Forget about all those people complaining that ceding a little territory is proof that Fatah is failing their people, etc. It’s really Israel who doesn’t want peace.

The leaked documents show that in August 2008 Israel’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was willing to break with his hardliners, accepting that Jerusalem would in some way be partitioned, allowing both Israelis and the Palestinians to use it as their capital.

Yep, those nasty old hardliners, the real obstacle to peace, eh, BBC? A joint capital was always the only way, don’t you know. And what about those holy places?

This offer, made just a few months before US President Barack Obama took office, included provisions for the token return of some Palestinian refugees and on potentially the most contentious issue of all – access to the holy places at the heart of the city – interim arrangements involving Israel, the Palestinians, the Saudis and the Jordanians.

Indeed, the Palestinian side too seems to have been willing to envisage imaginative solutions to resolve the problems of access and control over the holy basin.

So you see, it’s….wait…the holy what now? Who has access to which holy places now, BBC? No context whatsoever. In fact, as those who look to the BBC for their information wouldn’t know, Jews are not allowed to pray at the only actual holy site in the entire religion: the Temple Mount. They are permitted to worship only at the base of a retaining wall around the perimeter of the compound. Jews are not permitted to worship or even dress too orthodox on the actual premises. Only Muslims are permitted. The fact is, this is tolerated by the Israeli government because all hell would break loose if they did anything about it. The BBC never honestly addresses this issue. No special segments on any religion programmes about how Judaism is the only major religion in the world not in control of its own holy site. (This always begs the question of how this situation could exist if Jews really had so much power over world affairs. They control everything except that? But that’s for another time.) But they are more concerned about Palestinian rights.

To which holy sites do Palestinians not currently have access, BBC? Which sites would be blocked if Israel controlled East Jerusalem? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Israel would prevent Muslims from worshiping at the site? Based on what evidence? Again, the reader is left in a vacuum, with details supporting only one side of the argument.

Now here it comes, the moment we all expected:

This of course was all more than two years ago. Since then a more right-wing Israeli government has come to power. It has set itself firmly against any division of Jerusalem. A US effort to freeze settlement building and to get substantive talks under way has also failed.

This is the context in which these leaked documents must be read.

BBC hypocrisy on display. After providing zero context about the key issues involved, the BBC’s middle east correspondent has the temerity to lecture you about context: the context which fits the Narrative, of course.

Israel = bad. It’s the fault of those nasty right-wingers. The Obamessiah’s efforts failed – oh, wait, sorry, He can’t fail, it’s the “US effort” which failed – due to nasty right-winger Israeli racists. Nothing to do with Palestinian intransigence or anything. The only correct solution is a partition of Jerusalem, with the Jews ceding the most important areas. Fatah is clearly a willing partner in peace. Only Israel is at fault.

The peace process is damaged now, frets Marcus. Fatah leadership looks weak now because – this must come as a shock as it’s contrary to what the BBC often tries to tell us – the Palestinians actually don’t want any compromise at all. Israel looks bad because, well, the only thing one can draw from this article is that we’re supposed to come in with the perspective that they’ve always been bad, except for that brief moment of unicorns and rainbows under Olmert. There really isn’t any evidence provided as to how much from the leaked documents make Israel look bad, which is why Marcus needs to actually come right out and tell you how to interpret the story. The change in government isn’t new information, Israel’s various offers haven’t been kept secret, so what’s so damaging here? Instead, the revelations are spun to make Israel appear to be dishonest. There’s nothing of substance.

It seems that, in the alternate history in which the BBC lives, Israel is already the bad guy before we even begin. And don’t bother looking to them for any context worth trusting.

God And Man At The White House

During his entire Presidency, the BBC criticized, or gave plenty of unchallenged air time to critics of, George Bush’s religious faith. Sure, he wore it on his sleeve up to a point, but no more than many people in the US. For many people, this is an act of humility, an acknowledgment of a power greater than oneself. This kind of behavior is an anathema to most at the BBC, so it was always treated with disdain.

I’m sure everyone remembers Jeremy Paxman asking Tony Blair if his shared sense of faith with Bush bonded them, and giggled when asking if Blair had actually prayed with him. Most at the BBC never really understood Bush’s religious leanings, and in fact were quite frightened and concerned about the damage he did because of it. Justin Webb’s criticisms over his stopping federal funding for using embryos for stem-cell research come to mind.

In any case, the BBC was never shy about shining a harsh light on the religious faith of George Bush.

Now the current President also has a problem about public perception of His religious faith. We’ve all heard the BBC reminding us constantly that so many foolish United Statesians think He’s a Muslim. The fact is – and we learned this just recently on Today – that the President was now Christian because He went through a conversion.

With this in mind, one would think the astute producers in the BBC News division would leap at the chance to prove once and for all that these fools are wrong and that the President is really a Christian, and has just as much faith as George Bush. On Friday, the President gave an interview in which He stated that He prays “every night” and reads the Bible.

Praying and reading the Bible are part of his everyday life, President Obama said in a wide-ranging interview broadcast Friday.

Speaking with Barbara Walters, Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama also described how they involve their daughters in daily prayer.

“Michelle and I have not only benefited from our prayer life, but I think the girls have too,” the president told Walters. “We say grace before we eat dinner every night. We take turns.”

What a sickening display of religiosity, eh? I’m sure all the comedians on various BBC shows will be taking notes. And it gets worse:

When asked if he prays himself, the president said: “I do. Every night.”

Oh dear, oh dear. I await the howls of laughter echoing through the halls of Broadcasting House.

Why isn’t the BBC reporting this? Why isn’t the BBC making a fuss about His faith? Could it be that they don’t like such low behavior and don’t wish to call attention to it? Does this make the President less appealing to them and their fellow travelers? As they censor nearly every other bit of news which might cause consternation at the right kind of dinner parties, I won’t hold my breath on this one.

But wait, there’s more new proof on offer that the President is not a Muslim. It’s Haj time in the Mohammedan world, and the President’s grandmother has been caught lamenting that He needs to come back to the fold:

Grandma prays for Obama to embrace Islam

The Kenyan grandmother of US President Barack Obama who was on Haj pilgrimage to Makkah has said that she prayed for the American leader to convert to Islam, a newspaper said on Thursday.

“I prayed for my grandson Barack to convert to Islam,” said Haja Sarah Omar, 88, in an interview with Al-Watan daily held in Jeddah after she had performed Haj.

The paper said that Haja Omar was in Saudi Arabia on pilgrimage along with her son, Obama’s uncle Saeed Hussein Obama, and four of her grandchildren as guests of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

And there you have it: Incontrovertible proof that the President is not a Muslim. Plus, there’s new proof that the President prays every night, reads the Bible, and seems to be as comfortable with His faith as Bush.

BBC: ZZzzzzzzzz

Protecting The BBC (Literally)

So hands up who knew that the BBC still has a secret underground bunker, 10-floors deep into a mountain in the middle of nowhere, built during the Cold War in case there was a nuclear Armageddon?

Buried 10 storeys into the hillside is a fully functioning nuclear bunker, built at great expense in 1966, at the height of the Cold War. So few people knew of its existence that, even when it was being built, visiting trainees were told not to ask why all that concrete was being mixed. Those involved in its construction were obliged to sign the Official Secrets Act, and even now you won’t get a peep out of the BBC press office to acknowledge the reality.

Measuring 175ft long, the bunker – known to high command as Pawn: Protected Area Wood Norton – remains ready for service in the event of an attack on London. It is said to have beds and ping-pong tables and is connected by tunnels dug into the hillside to a mast on top of the hill which is fitted with a super high-frequency satellite dish.

It made sense at the time to have a broadcaster on the air at a time of nuclear attack, but the Russians aren’t coming any more. So now the only question is…why on Earth would the Soviets have thought that silencing the BBC was in their interests?

The BBC are squealing that freezing the telly tax is equivalent to waterboarding – so how about selling this Cold War relic off to raise some money?

Cross-posted on AllSeeingEye


My thanks to B-BBC reader Martin for bringing up the curious reluctance of the BBC to take action against Strictly Come Dancing judge Anton du Beke who referred to contestant Laila Rouass as “a paki.” This compares with the alacrity with which the BBC moved to dismiss Carol Thatcher following her “golliwog” comment. Now then, I see no reason why Du Beke should be dismissed for what was a clumsy but not a nasty comment on the rather beguiling Ms Rouass, but since a precedent was set in the case of Carol Thatcher, surely it has no choice but to axe their Strictly star? Perhaps Arlene Philips could be brought back in his place?