Gay advocacy is another perpetual BBC theme and it is picked up in this story being given great prominence on the main news portal this morning;
“Two female US sailors have become the first same-sex couple to share the traditional dockside “first kiss” since the US ended a ban on gays in the army.
Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta, who had been at sea for 80 days, won the right to be the first person to kiss her partner on shore in a raffle. The couple said the moment had been “a long time coming”. The US Army’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy was lifted in September, after years of debate.”
Now, I have nothing against Petty Officer Gaeta or her partner, but the entire tone of this BBC story is all about presenting the axing of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” as the very epitome of enlightenment. And that is only one side of the story. It seems to me that the BBC sees gay advocacy as central to its mission to inform and that is something that should be relentlessly challenged.
As Sue rightly points out, the BBC aren’t that bothered by the Hamas onslaught against Israel and that is understandable when you have such important issues to cover as…..a gay football player. Earlier this morning, on Today, they ran a 5 minute item on a Swedish football player who has declared he is gay. Naturally this caught the eye of the BBC and we got the usual 5 minutes bemoaning the homophobia rampant in the game. I was surprised that the BBC were intent to suggest that Hysen is the only gay that’s been in the game – surely this is wrong. Also, I’m not quite sure what the point of this item was other than some vague “isn’t it awful…”? I would have thought there were many more items worthy of coverage but then again the BBC knows better…
The guile of the BBC is a wonder to behold.
The BBC is facing action by gay viewers and listeners, who have been asked to withhold the licence fee in protest at a succession of broadcasts that have been criticised as homophobic.In an important development, the influential Pink News website has published an editorial calling for viewers to take co-ordinated action against the corporation as a way of making their voices heard on this issue. “No other group of people is subjected to the same level of insult by the BBC as the LGBT community,” it said, suggesting that viewers who only watched on-demand television could avoid paying the licence fee
Who would have guessed that “no other group of people” were subjected to greater insult by the BBC than the poor old LGBT? All the more surprising considering the number of gay people working for the BBC! I could venture to suggest that WCPH’s (White Christian Patriotic Heterosexuals) possibly edge ahead of the cruelly oppressed LGBT’s in the BBC insult stakes but hey, who am I to criticise Pink News? Ahem.
However that is all beside the point.
The complaint about the BBC is based on the fact that it allowed what is called a “fundamentalist” Christian, Stephen Green, to be the sole commentator in a report in its News at Six bulletin on the surrogate birth of a son to the gay couple Sir Elton John and David Furnish.
“This isn’t just a designer baby for Sir Elton John, this is a designer accessory,” said Green, who represents the group Christian Voice and is an outspoken critic of homosexual relationships.
Now then, the BBC knew exactly what it what was doing here in putting up Green and in generating this whinge from the perpetually outraged Gay fraternity. It helps the State Broadcaster justify a further year of pandering to militant gays and all in the name of equality!
But if a threat of co-ordinated refusal to pay License Tax until perceived editorial balance is restored has such an impact on BBC bosses then maybe those of us sickened by the left-wing only perspective of SO MANY of BBC stories might want to think how we can pressurise the State Broadcaster in this New Year? Just sayin’….
Wonder if you listened to this interview on the BBC this morning? It’s one more of those which in essence is gay advocacy dressed up as anti-discrimination. It concerns the news that the Roman Catholic Church has lost it’s campaign to restrict adoption services to heterosexual people. Naturally the BBC sees this as a judicious move, ensuring that gay couples are not denied that right to adopt kids. (Not sure where they stand on the transgendered community having the same right but I am sure we will get there in due course) My question is why did they choose to only interview the apparatchik from the government quango Charity Commission without allowing those genuine folks in the Catholic Church to posit their opinion? I know the BBC thinks that nothing could be more normal, more desirable, that children should be brought up by two fathers and no mother, but not everyone accepts that notion so why are THEY denied a voice on this debate?
When it comes to Northern Ireland, there is only ONE sort of Parade guaranteed to win slabbering approval from the BBC….have a listen. We’re all gay now.
BBC delighted to report that anyone who comes to the UK claiming asylum on the grounds that they are gay can stay. No dissent allowed. From Cameroon to the North of England – we’re all gay now. Not the first time Mike Lanchin has shown an interest in this subject… good to see Stonewall getting their say in as well. Nicely unbalanced from start to finish.
I thought the BBC ran a very peculiar item this morning @ 8.46am concerning what they see as the homosexual angle to Lib-Dem David Laws ripping off the tax payer to the tune of £40,000 on his expenses claims. Evan Davies (Gay) conducted the interview with fellow blogger Iain Dale (Gay) and Kelvin McKenzie. (Not Gay). I am unsure why the BBC seem to want to bring the gay factor into this story. Laws ripped us off – plain and simple. He has been exposed. The gay dimension to this seems a red herring. Surely the same ethical standards apply to us regardless of our sexuality?
Did you read this report concerning the decision by the Malawi President to pardon the gay couple who had been sentenced to 14 year in prison for their flouting of Malawi law? Helpfully, the BBC makes the point that intolerance of homosexual behaviour is a legacy of the evil Colonial times when..gasp..British values prevailed in law. So, even though Malawi has been independent for almost 50 years, it is still our fault that homosexual behaviour is not celebrated in the dark continent.
I wonder what it might be about gay corporatist Lord Browne that encourages the BBC to give him ANOTHER spot on the Today programme, second day running?
Anyone catch Naughtie’s swooning interview with former BP boss John Browne this morning? Browne is that rare beast – a corporatist that the BBC loves. Why do they love him? Because he came out and admitted he was gay. This simpering 6 minute interview was all about Browne’s gayness and how tough it was for him in that macho Oil world. But cheer up, Browne has a new “partner” and all is now well. I wonder if lying heterosexual corporatists will get the same easy ride from the BBC?
Interesting insight from someone who worked for the BBC
“My sexuality was formed behind bike sheds and in school dormitories, a most unimaginatively clichéd pattern of pubescent fumbling. This propelled me into a lifestyle, reinforced by a social milieu of flamboyant media gays. At the BBC, where I worked for seven years, homosexuality was very nearly compulsory.”
I see that Andrew Marr was able to provide gay activitist and luvvie Ian McKellan with a soap-box this morning. McKellan is able to spout all sorts of imagined “homophobic” allegations against our society in general without any challenge from Marr. The BBC is an established forum for the advocacy of gay propaganda.
So, Evan Davies trots along to the first Conservative Gay Pride bash in Manchester last night where blogger Iain Dale was compere. (There was also a Conservative Muslim Forum apparently but no report on it.) What gets me is that the context of the debate the BBC sets is always about how progressive one is about advancing the status of Gay Rights. Why should private individuals sexual preferences get ANY such elevated position (whoops!). Is there anybody out there who thinks the gay lobby may already be pandered to excessively and if so, why are they not provided with a voice? The BBC meme is that Gay Rights is something we must all embrace here. What gives them the right to say this? I have no issue with gay people other than the simple observation that what they do in their private lives is not any of my business nor any of my political concern.
I see that the BBC has afforded celebrity gay and businessman Sir Michael Bishop with a platform from which he can accuse the world of business of still holding prejudice against gay people. Peter Tatchell also gets the chance to put in his point of view. Naturally there is no contrary point of view. We’re all homophobes now…..
The BBC acts as an echo chamber for gay rights activists, Stonewall and this time around football is “institutionally homophobic.” Have a read of this pro gay rights propaganda.