A Guardian report from 1975 about a Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference…the CHE has Labour peer Chris Smith as a vice president….the CHE was kicked out of ‘Liberty’ for its stance on child abuse…in 2009.

Cover-up has become part of the story of child abuse

From Nick Davies in the Guardian in 1998:

The sheer scale of child sexual abuse in Britain

The sexual abuse of children is a special crime, not simply because of the damage it does to its victims, nor even because of the anger and fear it provokes in communities, but more particularly because it is so easy – easy to commit, easy to get away with.

We have seen the results of cover-up and concealment, occasionally of corruption, of whistleblowers who are punished for trying to expose the truth, of local authorities, churches and other organisations who have closed ranks to deny or conceal allegations against their staff.

Of course it’s especially easy to get away with when people in positions of power or influence turn a blind eye to what is happening.

‘Speaking to the Radio 4 Today Programme O’Carroll said: ‘At the time Harman and Hewitt couldn’t just kick us out, or they could but they didn’t try. The reason was their careers in the NCCL depended upon them not rocking the boat too much.’ ‘

And it still goes on.

‘Is the BBC biased”s Craig, notes that Newsnight has again done a decent job:

Laura Kuennsberg v Harriet Harman (Part Two)

Perhaps a stint at ITV might be good for a few more BBC journo’s and might make them remember why they entered the job n the first place.

However, Newsnight apart, the BBC wanted to ignore this story and sweep it under the carpet.  Even now as they ‘report’ it they downplay the story itself and concentrate on the politics or try to spread the ‘blame’.

Here is a Labour spokesperson trying to dodge the bullet:

 “There’s an argument that the Daily Mail has got an agenda against certain senior figures in the Labour Party.”

And oddly enough here is Labour’s favourite BBC reporter, John Pienaar, giving us exactly the same line: (13:30)

Pienaar tells us that this story has plenty of mileage left in it especially for the Daily Mail which will keep digging away….‘objectively [?], this accounts for the deep hostility towards the paper from Harman’.

Really?  I thought it was because they’d dragged up something that was extremely uncomfortable for her from her past that she didn’t want to deal with.

Sheila Fogarty feeds Pienaar a question….

‘Is this  fight between the Daily Mail and Harriet Harman following a pattern such as when a paper tries to draw in an MP or politician?’

So dealing with the politics and not the substance of the issue.

Pienaar says….‘Not in this unpleasant form…..’

So now we know what he thinks…the Daily Mail raising the question is ‘unpleasant’….never mind the truth then.

Pienaar reduces it to a matter of a ‘feud and vendetta’ by the Daily Mail against Harman…..we must remember, he tells us, that it is important that the story is put against the background of not what Harriet Harman did but what she didn’t do…it’s crucial to reiterate that there’s no accusation that she acted in any way to support the paedophiles.…..the damage to her is by connecting the word paedophiles to her name in the same sentence…that’s what caused the outrage from Harriet Harman’.

So Harman didn’t work for an organisation that had close ties to PIE and she didn’t push for photos of naked children to be considered legal as long as the children weren’t ‘harmed’?

Pienaar goes on….‘The damage has been done and the war will continue but as far as this is concerned that context needs to be clear.’

So context is all…once again never mind the truth…or the actual context.

Pienaar portrays this as solely a political feud between a right wing paper and the Labour Party….downplaying the actual story itself.

But is it just a story cooked up by a right wing press to embarrass Labour?

Curious no mention of this from Labour’s Tom Watson only last year:

After 30 years without an answer it’s time to find out who protected the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange

It was established in 1974 to campaign for the age of consent to be lowered to four years old

Did previous Tory and Labour governments fund the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange?

Or this from the Daily Mirror recently:

There is a paedophile elephant in the corner of Labour’s living room

Everyone in the country is talking about perverts except people who have reasonable questions to answer about perverts

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman and her MP husband Jack Dromey waited three days until the scandal reached boiling point and then accused the newspaper which started it of being more pervy than they are and running a political smear campaign.

The Daily Mail is pretty pervy, but it’s not political for the simple reason that a Tory politician with the same provable, documented links to PIE would be front page too.

You can’t blame it on one newspaper because pretty much everyone’s done it, except the BBC which was conspicuous in its absence from reporting the allegations.

It’s undeniably a story.

And was the NCCL so innocent?  Apparently not….Patricia Hewitt has surfaced and done Harman up like a kipper:

Patricia Hewitt ‘sorry’ for stance on paedophile group

Did she have anything to apologise for?  And did the NCCL sideline the ‘appalling PIE’ as claimed by Harman?

It seems not…….

From the Daily Mail in 1983:

And even the Guardian digs for more dirt:

You may see the relevance of this photograph of Muslims making the Quenelle gesture when you listen to this broadcast about the decisive battle against Muslim invaders into Europe…

The Battle of Tours (Poitiers)

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the Battle of Tours. In 732 a large Arab army invaded Gaul from northern Spain, and travelled as far north as Poitiers. There they were defeated by Charles Martel, whose Frankish and Burgundian forces repelled the invaders. The result confirmed the regional supremacy of Charles, who went on to establish a strong Frankish dynasty. The Battle of Tours was the last major incursion of Muslim armies into northern Europe; some historians, including Edward Gibbon, have seen it as the decisive moment that determined that the continent would remain Christian.

Listening to 5Live I caught this look at Zoopla (17 mins) ending its sponsorship of West Brom because Anelka made what is an anti-Semitic gesture.

We heard that the owner of Zoopla was Jewish…but no indication of Anelka’s religion.

Anelka was quoted as saying this was an anti-‘system’ gesture not anti-religion….strange choice of word there by Anelka.

Lucy Grey, the BBC presenter, then asked ‘Is this Opportunistic of Zoopla?‘….Suggesting perhaps they weren’t really offended…that there was nothing to be offended about?

The equivocation, scepticism and lack of depth as to the nature of the Quenelle made me have another look at the subject…..

The BBC were slow to realise the significance of Zoopla’s move, reported 4 days ago but barely noticed by the BBC.

That seems to have changed today as it is given a prominent place on the Frontpage:

The BBC however still have problems with deciding whether the ‘Quenelle’ is anti-Semitic or merely an ‘up you‘ to government.  (Wonder how they would take it if it was a Tea Party member who made a similar salute?…the BBC’s disdain for white, anti-government Americans being well known).

Sky has no such problem:

The Truth Behind Footballer’s ‘Sick’ Salute

Nicolas Anelka may or may not have known what he was doing with his Nazi-like salute, but his great friend, the French comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, almost certainly does.

Dieudonne is smart. Very smart.  He’s smart enough to invert an idea, and invent a gesture, and direct them towards the same place – modern anti-Semitism.

Newsnight had a look at this with its now infamously coy description of the Neo-Nazi Alain Soral as merely a ‘writer and film-maker’ and a close friend of Dieudonne.  Paxman does says twice that the gesture is anti-Semitic but allows Soral to get away with several references to the ‘Zionist lobby’…or the ‘System’…Paxman should have been asking exactly what he meant by that as it was clear it was being used as a euphemism for Jewish….the ‘System’ also a euphemism…as Dieudonne claims the ‘System’ is being run by Jews.  Soral himself says ‘That’s the question’….except Paxman doesn’t take him up on that.

We are told supporters of Dieudonne say if there are no disturbances at Dieudonne’s shows, and there hasn’t been we are reassured by the BBC, then what is the problem?…even if it was anti-Semitic?

The problem might be that it is not only people in the theatre that see these performances…Newsnight itself admits that You Tube broadcasts of the shows get 2 million hits a week….just how many of those viewers then become ‘poisoned’ (using Sarah Montague’s description of the supposed effect of the EDL’s own statements) and then go on to act out their prejudices for real?

And what of Soral?  He is a well known Neo-Nazi….Newsnight even flashed this picture of him making the Quenelle salute at the Holocaust memorial up on the screen:

And yet Paxman made no link to that during the interview.

The BBC, Paxman aside,  do seem reluctant to come out and say outright that the Quenelle is an anti-Semitic gesture….or that it is associated with some Muslims…the BBC preferring to link it to the Far Right and in this report allows Dieudonne to get away with using  ‘Zionist’ rather than Jew or anti-semitic. 

‘It is the trademark of the hugely controversial French comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, who once said he would like to put a quenelle – a rugby-ball-shaped serving of fish or meat paste – up the backside of Zionists.

Dieudonne made the gesture when he headed his own anti-Zionist campaign in the European elections in 2009. French media trace it further back, to one of his performances in 2005. It came to greater prominence in September when two soldiers were photographed appearing to make the gesture outside a Paris synagogue.

There are thousands of examples posted online, some at sensitive sites such as the Auschwitz death camp, and Dieudonne’s fans can be seen repeating it outside his theatre.

Both Anelka and Dieudonne say it is an anti-establishment symbol of defiance. But the French sports minister, Valerie Fourneyron, was one of many to disagree with the footballer’s interpretation, saying it was sickening and incited racial hatred.’

We were told in one interview with an ‘expert’ that it was the ‘Far Right, radical Muslims and youths from the Banlieues’ who are following Dieudonne in big numbers….so that’ll be the Far Right, radical Muslims and lots of other Muslims from the Muslim Banlieues then.

Just what are the BBC hiding with this constant refusal to admit ‘normal’ Muslims are making the gesture…such as Anelka?

Here Anelka Tweets his excuse:

Another ‘supporter’ of Dieudonne doing the Quenelle outside the Jewish school in Toulouse where a Muslim killed some of the pupils.

But Anelka is a good friend of Dieudonne….and here he is once again making the salute…this time in a theatre, so presumably he is there to see the show……he must be under no illusions exactly what Dieudonne means…..

Dieudonne has publically supported the openly anti-Semitic views of former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and even dedicated his live show “Mahmoud” to him.

“What he says about Jews, no one else would even dare to utter,” says Camus. He is the most prominent proponent of anti-Semitism in France. He breaks all the taboos.”

This is a screenshot of Dieudonne from his film L’Antisémite.……

 Guess who the ‘them’ might be…….

“L’Antisémite,” directed by and starring the French comedian Dieudonné, was, according to Le Monde, co-produced by Iran:

After images that hold Auschwitz up for derision, we see the shoot of a film centered on an alcoholic and violent character who is disguised as a Nazi officer for a costume party. The Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson appears as himself for a few minutes, the Shoah is personified as a saint.

Here’s the trailer. In voice-over, a woman says:

Tell me you’re not an anti-Semite. My love, it’s a sickness. You have to be truly cured. For the children. Anti-Semitism is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Then, on camera, Dieudonné says:

You’re right, my dear. I’m an anti-Semite. It’s clear the Jews control everything—the media, finance, politics. We no longer have a choice. We must—

and he turns to camera and, staring into it, says—

exterminate them.

 

Now you might be thinking that he’s just acting, those words or sentiments are merely what’s in the script…..but have a look at this Press TV interview Dieudonne has done…..once he gets onto the ‘Zionist Lobby’…you will soon note the exact same sentiments towards them as on the film as a whole…..

He says…...I will be happy to celebrate the destruction of Israel…the Jews are the greatest Mafia in the history of mankind….we should always fight against those who do bad in the world…and those who created the State of Israel.

So is the Quenelle just ‘anti-System‘?

To Dieudonne the ‘System’ is the Jews, the Zionist Lobby which ‘runs the world’…..so anti-system is merely an evasive subterfuge for saying anti-Semitic.

Here the BBC ask….

What is the quenelle gesture?

Jean-Yves Camus, a French academic who studies the extreme right, told the Independent the quenelle has become a “badge of identity, especially among the young, but it is doubtful that all of them understand its true meaning”. He says Dieudonne has become the hero of a movement convinced the world is run by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Note no mention of Muslims.

And again here the BBC miss out a certain sector of society well known for anti-Semitic views (Their ‘dirty little secret’ as Mehdi Hasan called it):

 Can you accidentally do a Nazi salute?

A 20-year-old Greek footballer has been banned for life from playing for his national team after a controversial goal celebration in which he appeared to give a Nazi salute. The player says he hadn’t understood the meaning of the gesture – but is it possible, in 2013, for a European to be so poorly informed?

Many parties on the fringes of European politics employ elements of neo-Nazi symbolism, he says, although they present it as something else to stay on the right side of the law.

In particular, those groups have managed to infiltrate sport in countries such as Germany, Austria, Italy and the UK.

“Football culture is symbolically rich and neo-Nazi-type gestures and symbols have become immersed in certain of those cultures… It’s obvious what they represent.”

In 2005, the then Lazio striker Paolo Di Canio received a one-game ban for a raised-arm salute.

Contesting the ban, he described himself as a “fascist” but “not a racist”.

“I made the Roman salute because it’s a salute from a comrade to his comrades and was meant for my people,” he said.

Matthew Goodwin, associate professor of politics at the University of Nottingham, and a specialist in political extremism, thinks that it is inconceivable that young Europeans could be entirely ignorant of the associations of neo-Nazi symbolism.

“Europe still displays a fascination with Nazi Germany – its paraphernalia and culture is still very heavily present. There is the popular culture, the films – the symbolism is still represented,” he says.

In Greece, in particular, it is “incredibly doubtful” that people don’t have notion of what the symbolism or gestures mean, says Goodwin – partly because of all the fuss over Golden Dawn.

“It’s not a marginal issue,” he says.

“Naivete and ignorance is difficult to digest in modern Greece.”

Once again the BBC refers solely to the ‘Far Right’.

Of course Muslims would never think of doing such a salute….and if they did, the BBC would never report it…….

Hezbollah and the Mullahs of Iran.

Hamas reaching for the TV remote.

“The Hamas credo is not just anti-Israel, but profoundly anti-Semitic with racism at its core. The Hamas Charter reads like a modern-day ‘Mein Kampf.'”

Here is the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it

as it had eliminated its predecessors."

         The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna

[Al-Banna has had a huge influence on Islamic thought.

He is the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan and older brother of Gamal Al-Banna.]

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.

Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission.

 Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill

From Harry’s Place….just so we know what’s what and who supports who….

Labour and Hamas UK

The BBC go on to tell us that…..

Anelka is not the first French footballer playing in England to make the gesture. Samir Nasri and Mamadou Sakho were also photographed in this way, although Sakho later tweeted that he had been tricked and didn’t realise its true meaning.

‘French footballers’?

Anelka is a Muslim, Sakho is a Muslim, Nasri is also Muslim…why no mention….not relevant?

Mamadou Sakho (L), Tony Parker (C), and Samir Nasri (R). Photos: Screengrab/Slate/Youtube/DieuPharaon/AstuceFoot

The Quenelle is clearly intended by Dieudonne to be an anti-Semitic salute…the evidence is just too overwhelming to say otherwise….pity the BBC doesn’t seem too keen to look hard into this and seems more concerned to deflect people off into looking at the ‘Far Right’ whilst failing to mention that three footballers who made the gesture are all Muslim.

The BBC fails in its obligations to inform us and bring us the News…instead bringing us a version of the news that bares only a passing resemblance to the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Hiding the fact that some Muslims maybe anti-Semitic is an insult to everyone…..the BBC were quick to report the exaggerated claims of the Muslim pressure group ‘Tell Mama’ about alleged incidents of anti-Muslim attacks but seems all too keen to sweep under the carpet incidents of anti-Semitism, all too willing to ascribe it to some other intention or to blame some other convenient scapegoats.

Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph tells us the truth about ‘Tell Mama’…and about the BBC…

“Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme.

Treat all as equal citizens. An extra layer of unelected people who purport to represent communities aggregated by faith is a recipe for disaster.  Douglas Murray

Alvin Hall has presented a programme looking at the history of Black music in the USA…the politics and economics of the music industry.

It is definitely worth a listen.  However it does have a narrative that Hall shoehorns in regardless of the facts…..‘cultural theft’, ‘pillaging Black music’, ‘minstrelsy’ are some phrases that give a clue to the line he takes.

The USA was practically an apartheid State right up until the late 60’s, there is no doubt that that held back some musicians and Black music businesses….amongst others.

But that is not the whole picture, but it is a picture that Hall wants to present, that Blacks were controlled and exploited by Whites, and he does so despite at the same time giving us facts that contradict that narrative.

He blames racism for Blues musicians and singers not getting their rightful dues….but goes onto say that it was the Black middle class that thought Blues was below them and not something they wanted to be associated with.

He tells us that White companies just weren’t interested in Black Music…but then contradicts that….and  tells of Black music companies and radio stations that exploited Blacks.

He tells us that Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson sold out…they were compromised,  ‘whitewashed’….they weren’t authentically ‘Black’…..so highly successful…and yet Hall can’t really accept that.

He tells us that Hip hop was born from the ghetto, the ghetto that the Black Middle class left behind them….and all that was left for the remaining inhabitants was drugs, drink and crime, which they put into their music….Hip hop and Rap.

But then he tells us that it is the White folks buying the records that are  forcing and encouraging Blacks to become ‘Minstrels’, stereotypes of Black people…it is the fault of the Rap record buying public (66% white) who are to blame for ‘Gangsta Rap’…..the Whites enjoying the ‘thrill of the alien culture’.

He puts the case that success comes at a terrible price…selling their soul…and once again it is the whites who are manipulating and controlling Blacks.

Hall doesn’t seem to like success unless it is ‘authentically Black‘……and even when it is ‘Authentically Black‘ as in Rap, he claims that is just an unwelcome stereotype.

The final ironic statement about that very definitely Black music, Rap and Hip Hop, was this….

‘Now this is unacceptable…this is not who we are.’

But it is, it is the voice of the ghetto, the street wise Black, the poor and forgotten Black.

So  back to the Blues, back to Rock, back to the start of Hip Hop…where the Black ‘elite’ again and again refused to accept ‘authentic’ Black culture and music.

Isn’t Hip Hop and Rap exactly what Alvin Hall was demanding….not the compromised ‘pop’ of Jackson and Houston but the genuine Black sound like the ‘grunting James Brown’?

It seems neither the ‘White’ corporations (like the Japanese owned Sony) who give the Black artists access to massive markets, nor the Black artists themselves, can meet the very particular and exacting standards set by Alvin Hall for what passes for Black music and success.

Hall’s approach, as I judge it,  is somewhat dangerous….feeding the grievance industry with more myths of white oppression that seems likely to generate that level of anger and distrust in  Black youths that could later translate into something more radical.  It is a narrative that without careful handling is just ammunition to the ‘race hustlers’ in communities who incite racial tension for their own ends.

What will they hear when they listen to Hall?  Will it be the nuances, the double backs, the contradictions, or the easy, inflammatory rhetoric about Blacks being oppressed and exploited?

A good story misjudged in the telling because the presenter has his own line to push.

That is a rough summary of the programmes….but listen to them and decide for yourself if Hall pushes his own narrative regardless of many contradictions to it.

What follows is a longer, more detailed look at what was said on the programmes.

But first this:

Race Hustling

Some people try to explain why Asians, and Asian-Americans, succeed so well in education and in the economy by some special characteristics that they have. That may be true, but their success may also be due to what they do not have — namely “leaders” who tell them that the deck is so stacked against them that they cannot rise, or at least not without depending on “leaders.”

Young men — and many others — have learned all too well the lessons taught by race hustlers, in their social version of the laws of aerodynamics, which said that they could not rise.

And again, a plea to ignore a certain type of self selected ‘Community leader’:

Arab-Americans must embrace success over victimhood

Commissars of Arab-American political correctness want the community powerless

The soul of the Arab-American community is currently being pulled in two separate directions simultaneously.

One is optimistic and uplifting. It wants to assert its full rights as citizens, engage the system, and enthusiastically embrace what the United States has to offer.

The other is bitter and enraged. It celebrates and revels in Arab-American marginalization and self-marginalization. It lashes out at any Arab-American who successfully engages mainstream American society and consciously seeks to suppress the community’s maturation and empowerment.

The commissars can then assume the authority of victimhood, and pretend to speak on behalf of a supposedly besieged and beleaguered people who have no other voice but their shrill cries of rage.

And then there is this from the BBC:

Who Sold The Soul? (part 1 of 3)

Jazz, Blues, Rhythm and Blues, Rock ‘n’ Roll, Soul, Funk and Hip-Hop; there’s no question African American musical creativity has fuelled the modern music industry. But faced with racism and cultural theft for decades, African-American musicians, DJs, businessmen and women have struggled to have any real control or ownership in the business.

‘Cultural Theft’…and later ‘Pillaging Black music’...are somewhat negative terms from the BBC and illustrate the attitude that Blacks should have a unique and defined culture based on skin colour…. the cross cultural fertilization so beloved of the BBC is now branded ‘cultural theft’….. now it seems that only Blacks can play Black music…whatever ‘Black Music’ is….and of course there is no ‘theft’ of White culture going the other way.

Cultural and racial apartheid from the BBC?

As you can see from Alvin’s photo he dresses in traditional Zulu garb…Alvin is no sell out.

This is a programme which takes us on a journey through Black Music history in the USA…..guided by one Alvin Hall…..I like Alvin but he’s not averse to his own bit of ‘race hustling‘….and has been there and done it before on the BBC’s dollar….if I remember correctly it was his programme’s about Alistair Cooke where he plugged Obama’s case just before the US elections:

‘Obama is bright, intelligent, articulate and persuasive.

Barack encountered people who no matter what he did, no matter how well he spoke, no matter how much he showed he was willing to compromise and work together with them ‘They’ were not going to work with him, and ‘They’ were determined ‘They’ were going to defeat him.

For me this election on this day is very much about America giving him a chance to realise that promise.’

You can’t tell from the photo above but Hall has a bit of a chip on his shoulder.

There is absolutely no doubt that racism was rampant in a lot of the US and that that held back Black musicians and singers……but there is also the fact that White groups were just as likely to be ignored and cold shouldered…..it wasn’t the colour of their skin but the colour of money that interested the Music moguls…if they could make money out of you they’d rip you off just as much if you were White as Black….how many stories have you heard of bands being ignored (The Beatles were famously turned down) or when signed up, ripped off with contracts that just about paid them a living wage when they were selling millions of records.

Russell Brennan tells us:

After 25 years in the music business, I’ve probably seen it all when it comes to musicians being ripped off – by managers, labels, promoters, venues, websites and assorted other characters. I’ve also been ripped off myself a few times as well before I wised up to things.

Alvin Hall on the other hand seems to believe that such behaviour was all down to racism.

But Halls’ approach is odd….he gives us facts that contradict or undermine his claims but goes on to ignore them as he continues to spin his narrative…that Black musicians were completely shut out of the industry by White owned or run companies….and that was a policy based upon race….and Blacks were shut out of actually owning and running music businesses not just from reaping the rewards as musicians and singers…..really?…

• Motown Record Corporation…recording company founded by Berry Gordy, Jr., in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., in January 1959 that became one of the most successful black-owned businesses and one of the most influential independent record companies in American history.

That’s a narrative that didn’t tell the whole story…and is certainly far from the truth now….Black people are highly successful in all sphere’s of life…from entertainment, to business to politics….Halls’ approach seems to want to sideline all that success, though he knows it’s there,  in order to peddle his own narrative of Blacks being eternal victims battling against the prejudice and control of Whites.

Not a message destined to serve the ‘Black Community’ well….if only because it is not completely true…..

Janet Jackson is among the top in Black star power when it comes to record deals, album sales and concert ticket numbers. When the pop superstar signed her contract with Virgin Records in March 1991, it was the largest recording contract in history, at $32 million.

Yep, Janet Jackson…a victim of cultural theft and exploitation.

Richard D. Parsons is Chairman of the Board of Citigroup Inc., effective February 23, 2009. Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup) is the 8th largest company in the U.S.

Prior to joining Citi, Mr. Parsons served in the positions of President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman at Time Warner, whose businesses include filmed entertainment, interactive services, television networks, cable systems and publishing. From May 2002 to December 2007, Mr. Parsons served as Time Warner’s Chief Executive Officer. He became Chairman of the Board in May 2003.

This is Richard D. Parsons….

‘Time Warner’…one of those evil 6 big companies controlling and stealing black music.

Or how about a Hollywood exec?…..

Hollywood studio executive DeVon Franklin, who nurtured a lifelong fascination with the entertainment industry into a successful career in the film business. Franklin, the vice president of production for Columbia Pictures, a division of Sony Pictures, made his mark as one of the youngest executives in the industry, as well as being among the most accomplished movie executives of color.

Or Will Smith, that unknown, struggling Black actor:

Will Smith investigated the marketplace before he started his movie career, analyzing the top-grossing movies and developing a strategy. It is a lesson for every business.

Will Smith is the most successful actor of his generation, grossing in excess of $4 billion for his movies — but it is his business acumen that got him there. It wasn’t luck or charm, although he certainly possesses considerable charm. There’s a bigger story here.

Note….he didn’t ask for special favours or treatment…he made his own ‘luck’.

And what about this guy?:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.   (Thanks to David P. for that)

Hall is going down a well trodden path bemoaning the ‘political economics of Black Music’…..from 1999:

Political Economy Of Black Music

The six major record firms have a colonial-like relationship with the black Rhythm Nation of America that produces hip hop and other forms of black music.

Despite the names of a few big money makers rap, like most black music, is under the corporate control of whites and purchased mostly by white youths.

Hall asks….

Why is it that Black people make all this music but have no control? [But is that true?]

He tells us….Blacks are comfortable with white control…they have sold out presumably.

Hall is taking up the racist message from that article from 1999:

‘The black elite’s world view has been built on a white, bourgeois Victorian model of comportment that  internalized white beliefs about blacks and race. Gaines noted that although the black elite was outraged at whites’ lucrative expropriations of black culture…,” they “extolled Victorian and European cultural ideals and looked with disapproval, if not covert and guilty pleasure, upon such emergent black cultural forms as ragtime, blues [and] jazz…”‘

Which is odd because he also claims criticism of Blues was based on race…but it seems to have been more about culture, class and taste….the Black Middle Class and professionals looked down on the lower class Blacks and their ‘Blues’ music.

He claims that it is racism of the music companies that stopped those companies from investing in Black music…but quotes a company response at the time……

‘We do not think there is a market for Black artists.’

Is that a racial thing or just a belief that there was no market for that type of music?

A similar tale could be told by many a newcomer to a market…..

The inventor of the now Black and Decker Workmate.…..he failed to persuade any companies to invest in it.

Black & Decker did not think that the average DIY enthusiast would need such a big device, while tool company Stanley told him the bench’s success would be measured ‘in dozens rather than hundreds’.

Or Dyson:

Partly supported by his wife’s salary as an art teacher, and after five years and many prototypes, Dyson launched the “G-Force” cleaner in 1983. However, no manufacturer or distributor would handle his product in the UK, as it would disturb the valuable market for replacement dust bags, so Dyson launched it in Japan through catalogue sales.

Eventually of course if they’d believed there was a market the companies would have jumped aboard, as indeed they did……

…as Hall tells us later….saying that Whites eventually saw it as a potential business…..they saw gold in dem der hills (quoting)…..Why did they succeed?…..The white people were looking at it solely as a business whilst Blacks were looking at it as a social improvement project….which is why the Black music ‘businesses’ failed.

Nowt to do with race then.

Then we hear that White run companies took advantage by recording that black music….by producing what black consumers wanted….shocking…Tescos sells food…exploiting what consumers want and need.

Hall still presses on with the idea that companies weren’t interested in Black music…and even if they were, like Paramount, they had a separate ‘Black Music’ division….does he mean like BBC 1Xtra?  Sure the companies had ‘divisions’ for all sorts of things.

He then tells us that Dan Robey (who was Black) of Peacok Records punched Little Richard when he demanded more control……was he committing ‘cultural theft’ and ‘exploitation’ of Black Music?

But hey…it’s the Whites who were profiting from a music form created by Blacks, pillaging Black Music.

In this final part, Alvin looks at the 1980s and beyond….‘Empire State of Mind’

Beginning with the black pop of Michael Jackson, Prince and Whitney Houston the series concludes with the rise of hip-hop, today American’s most dominant form of popular music.

Well….Hip-hop…America’s most dominant form of popular music…really?   The illustration at the top of this post says different…Rock is by far the biggest music form.

Interesting also that they call it ‘Black pop’….because the programme itself complains bitterly that  it was anything but ‘Black’.

Some short examples of the thinking expressed in the programme……

Prince, Lionel Richie, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston….all top of the charts in the 1980’s around the world….Accepted universally and very very successful…..but cultural sell outs.

The corporations at first refused to sign up Black musicians but then as they saw it made money they took over the small labels run by Blacks….that made it too hard to break into industry for new comers….[race or Capitalism?]

There were racial and cultural barriers….guess Hall thinks it was race.

We are told there is deep social and political ambivalence at way success was achieved…ie the Black artists ‘sold out’ compromising their ‘Blackness’ for success…..selling out their culture.

Whitney Houston’s pop…she was ‘white washed’.

Houston was not representative of authentic blackness…a victim of integration…anything to be more acceptable and successful.

A key issue is that to be more successful the characteristics of Black music had to be ironed out.[The complaint later is that the music is too ‘black’,  too stereotypical’]

Compare the immaculate and perfectly turned out Michael Jackson or Lionel Richie to the grunting James Brown who is ‘authentically Black’

To succeed there had to be compromises.

Hall highlights MTV famously refusing to show much black music for  many years. [but see what was slipped in later about Black companies]….and MTV says the explanation is that they were originally a rock channel..and few Black Rockers around then….and ironically, considering Hall’s disdain for Michael Jackson, it was his video on MTV that paved the way for other Black artists.

[Oh…and Christina Norman is black. She served as president of MTV from 2005 to 2008.]

The Black elite did not recognise the money making genius of its own culture.

Major record labels all White owned as well as the distribution networks that blocked Black success.

Hip hop is the biggest selling music genre….?

But Hip Hp was ignored by black record companies such as Motown…..Once integration began in the ’70’s the Black middle class left the ghettos and Hip Hop reflected the culture of the people left behind in those ghettos…..the crime, the drinking, the drugs…the Black middle class said ‘we don’t want this’…the same as they did for Blues for the same reasons.

Black radio companies wouldn’t play it either.

Then we are told…..the Music Industry is colourblind when it comes to making money [Bit of a turnaround in narrative]

Black owned music companies offered the worst contracts in the world.

Rockafella Records offered the worst deals they could…and took all the money.

Swatch sponsored the first Hip Hop tour.

66% of Hip Hop was bought by White youths.

They claim there was a conspiracy by Whites to shut down Rap…‘We can’t have this invasion of Black culture’…it scared White America….[but it seemed to have scared Black ‘middle America’ just as much].

However Black artists and companies made money….it began to rival Rock.

Black businessmen made a mint…by treating it as a business.

But a familiar thing happened…the Majors moved in and the big boys took over and successful Black labels were then owned by those Majors….[again race or just Capitalism at work?]

It is not progress for African Americans just because they make money…..again complaining about a lack of control and power….[but what of all those Black companies, highly successful Black companies Hall highlights?]

White companies are making money off Black stereotypes,  making money off Black deaths, making money from people selling drugs…what does that say about society…about the market that buys that music?

Are the musicians encouraged to say those things, locked into playing up to that ‘black’ stereotype?

[or is it reflecting social reality?]

A gratuitous mention of Trayvon Martin.

Rap is now ‘showtime’ we are told….like a Minstrel shows…where Whites come to thrill at the alien culture.

A Black commentator says of Rap and Hip Hop….

‘Now this is unacceptable…this is not who we are.’

So  back to the Blues, back to Rock, back to the start of Hip Hop…where the Black ‘elite’ again and again refused to accept ‘authentic’ Black culture and music.

Isn’t  Hip Hop and Rap exactly what Alvin Hall was demanding…authentic Black originated Music?

And yet ‘It’s not who we are!’

For a different slant on the music industry in the USA, or a small part of it here’s something from the Telegraph about ‘Muscle Shoals’, music ‘hit factory’….
Deep Soul
How Muscle Shoals became music’s most unlikely hit factory
By Mick Brown

If Any Question Why The Truth Died, Tell Them It Was Because The BBC Lied.

Jeremy Paxman made an appearance on The Graham Norton Show (about 26 mins in) to advertise his new book and TV programme about the First World War and in the process made a highly political, and as it turns out farcical, attack on Cameron for, according to Paxman, suggesting we should ‘celebrate’ WWI.

Only Cameron didn’t say that, far from it….you might have thought someone like Paxman, who makes a living as an interviewer, would pay more attention to what people actually say…..especially as he goes onto claim that this was Cameron’s clumsy use of language.

What we got from the BBC was an utterly wrong headed, highly political attack on the Prime Minister from one of the BBC’s leading political interviewers.

The attack was clearly preplanned….the BBC flashed up a conveniently available photograph of Cameron (29 mins), one of the least flattering that they could get away with…so they knew exactly what the subject of the interview was going to be.

They must have looked pretty hard for this particular photo because I didn’t find it on Google…

They could have used the photo on the Government website where the speech is located:

Wonder why they didn’t use that?

What did Cameron actually say?:

In his speech, made at the museum last year, Mr Cameron said the centenary would be a ‘personal priority’ and promised the museum £5million.

Mr Cameron added that he wanted ‘a commemoration that, like the Diamond Jubilee celebrations this year, says something about who we are as a people’.

Cameron didn’t say a ‘celebration like the Diamond Jubilee celebrations’…..he said a ‘commemoration…which tells us something about who we are as a people’.

A completely different take on his words from that chosen by Paxman.

Cameron was….Calling for the nation to remember the ‘extraordinary sacrifice of a generation’, he also said the War helped shape Britain by prompting medical and technological advances.

He said: ‘For all the profound trauma, the resilience and courage that was shown, the values we hold dear and the lessons we learnt changed our nation and helped to make us who we are today.’

 The completion of transforming IWM London will see the Imperial War Museum reopened as the centrepiece of our commemorations for the centenary of the First World War.  With that transformation, new generations will be inspired by the incredible stories of courage, toil and sacrifice that have brought so many of us here over the past century….it is actually a special place for us all to come, to learn about a defining part of our history and to remember the sacrifice of all those who gave their lives for us, from the First World War to the present day.

Our duty towards these commemorations is clear: to honour those who served, to remember those who died, and to ensure that the lessons learnt live with us forever.  And I think that is exactly what we can do with these commemorations.

That all sounds pretty respectful and shows Cameron fully understands the sacrfices and horrors of that war…but Paxman thinks not, claiming Cameron wanted to turn it into a jolly ‘knees up’:

Mr Paxman said: ‘Not to recognise that it was one  of the most consequential events in our history would just be perverse.’

He said: ‘These occasions, when the Prime Minister escapes from his speech-writers, are hazardous.’

‘Our Prime Minister promised the First World War commemoration would be “like the Diamond Jubilee celebrations”. What on earth was he talking about?’

Paxman, whose great uncle died in the War, said: ‘The commemorations should have almost nothing in common with the Diamond Jubilee, which was an excuse for a knees-up in the rain to celebrate the happy fact that our national identity is expressed through a family rather than some politician.

On Graham Norton Paxman adds.…‘Only a complete idiot would ‘celebrate’ such a calamity’

John Bishop then pipes up...’They’re not normal people, they don’t represent normal people, you shouldn’t  be a politician unless you’ve had at least one job’

Paxman replies…’I share that prejudice…I had to interview Russell Brand the other day…and he was banging on about how people are really disenchanted with politicians and I think he’s right…absolutely right about posturing politicians who say there is only two ways of looking at the world…their way or their opponents way…and it’s rubbish.’

Yes…but it’s a political system supported by the BBC who instead of genuinely analysing policies, facts on the ground and all possible remedies hands the airwaves to the Labour Party whilst shutting out other voices like those of UKIP

And certainly it is the Oxbridge BBC themselves who are vastly out of touch with the population on economics, immigration, welfare, climate, Islam…well with just about everything.  So it is a bit hard to accept Paxman criticising politicians for being out of touch.

And Cameron had an ‘outside job’…at Carlton Communications for seven years

Is that not a ‘proper’ job?  Carlton Communications is a media company, not unlike the BBC…..do I need to say anymore?

Why did Paxman not admit Cameron had this job, choosing instead to imply that he had never worked outside politics?  Is it purely so that he could make a cheap political point…based clearly on a lie?

And as for Paxman interviewing Brand……..no you didn’t interview Brand, the multi-millonaire, calling for ‘equality and revolution and the redistribution of wealth and power”…you sat smirking, ineffectively trying to stifle your giggles as Brand went off on one.

If you want to read the full speech by Cameron at the Imperial War Museum…which of course tells us why he thinks the Museum is a valuable asset to the country (a notion that Paxman disagrees with thinking the Museum ‘celebrates war’), here it is in its full glory without the revisionist interpretation by the BBC for you to make up your own mind:

Transcript of the speech given by Prime Minister David Cameron on Thursday 11 October about plans to mark the First World War centenary.

Prime Minister

Thank you very much, Andrew, for those words and thank you for all the work that you’ve done.  This is, I think, a very exciting time for one of the finest museums in the world.  It is a museum I particularly love.  I will never forget when my mother brought me here as a boy and being absolutely captivated by everything within the museum.  But almost more interesting was bringing my own children here, quite recently, they’ve come twice, I think, altogether.  And realising that even when I was a boy there were still people alive who had fought in the Great War.  There aren’t now, but my children were just as captivated and interested as I was.  I think that speaks volumes about what we are discussing today.

The completion of transforming IWM London will see the Imperial War Museum reopened as the centrepiece of our commemorations for the centenary of the First World War.  With that transformation, new generations will be inspired by the incredible stories of courage, toil and sacrifice that have brought so many of us here over the past century.

From the breathtaking sights of the hanging gallery to the unforgettable smell of the trenches, from great art – like this painting of The Menin Road by Paul Nash – to the many moving stories recorded from the front line, the Imperial War Museum is not just a great place to bring your children – as I said, as I’ve done – it is actually a special place for us all to come, to learn about a defining part of our history and to remember the sacrifice of all those who gave their lives for us, from the First World War to the present day.

We should also recognise that in the decade since the introduction of free access to our national museums, the annual number of visitors here has increased by almost two-thirds.  I passionately believe we should hold on to this heritage and pass it down the generations.  That is why, even in difficult economic times, we are right to maintain free entry to national museums like this.  It is why we will continue to do so.

Today, I want to talk about our preparations to commemorate the centenary of the First World War.  I want to explain why, as Prime Minister, I am making these centenary commemorations a personal priority, and I want to set out some of the steps we are taking to make sure we really do this properly as a country.

Let me start with why this matters so much.  Of course, as Andrew said, there will be some who wonder: why should we make such a priority of commemorations when money is tight and there is no one left from the generation that fought in the Great War?

For me there are three reasons.  The first is the sheer scale of the sacrifice.  When they set out, none of the armies had any idea of the length and scale of the trauma that was going to unfold.  For many, going off to war was a rite of passage.  Many of them were excited; they would eat better than they had when they were down the mines or in the textile mills.  They would have access to better medical care, and many thought they’d be home by Christmas, anyway.  There is the story of the Russian High Command asking for new typewriters and being told the war wouldn’t last long enough to justify the expenditure.

As Major J V Bates from the Royal Army Medical Corp wrote:

‘Being our first experience of war, we men were not so much frightened, as very excited.  It wasn’t until after two or three weeks of continually fighting rear-guard action, reconnaissance patrols and seeing our mates killed and wounded that the real horror of it came home to us.  And if everyone else was as frightened as I was, then we were all petrified.’

Four months later, one million had died in the heavy artillery battles that actually came before the digging of the trenches.  Four years later, the death toll of military and civilians stood at over 16 million, nearly 1 million of them Britons.  200,000 were killed on one day of the Battle of the Somme.  To us, today, it seems so inexplicable that countries which had many things binding them together could indulge in such a never-ending slaughter, but they did.  The death and the suffering was on a scale that outstrips any other conflict.  We only have to look at the Great War memorials in our villages, our churches, our schools and universities.

Out of more than 14,000 parishes in the whole of England and Wales, there are only around 50 so called ‘thankful parishes’, who saw all their soldiers return.  Every single community in Scotland and Northern Ireland lost someone, and the death toll for our friends in the Commonwealth was similarly catastrophic.  In the 1920s over 2,400 cemeteries were constructed in France and Belgium alone, while today there are cemeteries as far afield as Brazil and Syria, Egypt and Ireland.

Rudyard Kipling, whose own son was lost, presumed killed, at the Battle of Loos in 1915, described the construction of these cemeteries as the biggest single bit of work since any of the pharaohs, and as he pointed out, the pharaohs only worked in their own country.  Such was the scale of sacrifice across the world.  The then Indian empire lost more than 70,000 people; Canada lost more than 60,000, so did Australia; New Zealand, 18,000.  And as part of the UK at the time, more than 200,000 Irishmen served in the British forces during the war, with more than 27,000 losing their lives.  This was the extraordinary sacrifice of a generation.  It was a sacrifice they made for us, and it is right that we should remember them.

Second, I think it is also right to acknowledge the impact that the war had on the development of Britain and, indeed, the world as it is today.  For all the profound trauma, the resilience and the courage that was shown, the values we hold dear: friendship, loyalty, what the Australians would call ‘mateship’.  And the lessons we learned, they changed our nation and they helped to make us who we are today.

It is a period of our history through which we can start to trace the origins of a number of very significant advances: the extraordinary bravery of Edith Cavell, whose actions gained such widespread admiration and played an important part in advancing the emancipation of women; the loss of the troopship SS Mendi, in February 1917 and the death of the first black British army officer, Walter Tull, in March 1918, are not just commemorated as tragic moments, but also seen as marking the beginnings of ethnic minorities getting the recognition, respect and equality they deserve.

The improvements in medicine were dramatic.  In 1915 wounds which became infected resulted in a 28% mortality rate; by 1917 the use of antiseptics saw the death toll drop to just 8%.  Plastic surgery developed into a well-established speciality over the course of the war.

At the same time there were hugely significant developments in this period, which, frankly, darkened our world for much of the following century.  The advance in technology transformed the nature of war beyond recognition.  The tanks and aircraft of 1918 were the forerunners of those that fought with such devastation in World War II.  They would have been almost unimaginable for the cavalry regiments that set out in the autumn of 1914.

The war’s geopolitical consequences defined much of the twentieth century.  It unleashed the forces of Bolshevism and Nazism and, of course, with the failure to get the peace right, the great tragedy was that the legacy of ‘the War to end all wars’ was an equally cataclysmic Second World War, just two decades later.

So I think for us today to fail to recognise the huge national and international significance of all these developments during the First World War would be, frankly, a monumental mistake.

There is a third reason why this matters so much.  It is more difficult to define, but I think it is perhaps the most important of all.  There is something about the First World War that makes it a fundamental part of our national consciousness.  Put simply, this matters not just in our heads, but in our hearts; it has a very strong emotional connection.  I feel it very deeply.  Of course, there is no one in my family still alive from the time, or anything close to it.  My grandfather, my uncle, my great uncle all fought in the Second World War.  I have always been fascinated by what happened to them and tried to listen to their experiences.

Even though the family stories that I’ve heard direct from the participants, as it were, were all from World War II, there is something so completely captivating about the stories that we read from World War I.  We look at those fast fading sepia photographs of people posing stiffly and proudly in their uniform.  In many cases it was the first and last image ever taken of them, and this matters to us.

The stories and the writings of the Great War affect us too.  That mixture of horror and courage, suffering and hope; it has permeated our culture.  From the poems of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, my favourite book, Robert Graves’s memoirs recounting his time in the Great War, Good-Bye to All That.  To modern day writers like Sebastian Faulks, from Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy, focusing on the aftermath of trauma, to War Horse, showing the sacrifice of animals in war.  Current generations are still absolutely transfixed by what happened in the Great War and what it meant.

The fact is, individually and as a country, we keep coming back to it, and I think that will go on.  This is not just a matter of the heart for us in Britain.  It is a matter for the heart for the whole of Europe and beyond.  From The Last Post Association, whose volunteers have played every night at the Menin Gate since 1928, to Tyne Cot Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery, to the Memorial to the Missing, in Belgium, which is the largest British war cemetery in the world, visited by nearly half a million people every year, still today, to the battlefield memorials right across Western Europe.

For me, when asked: what is the most powerful First World War memory you have?  It is going to visit the battlefields at Gallipoli.  I’ll never forget going, having a fantastic Turkish guide who showed me the beaches we were meant to land at, the beaches we did land at, the fight that went on up those extraordinary hills.  One of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen is the monument erected by the Turks in Gallipoli.  Before I read you the inscription, think in your mind, think of the bloodshed, think of the tens of thousands of Turks who were killed, and then listen to the inscription that they wrote to our boys and to those from the Commonwealth countries that fell.  It is absolutely beautiful, I think.  It goes like this:

‘Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives, you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.  Therefore, rest in peace.  There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us, where they lie, side by side, in this country of ours.  You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears.  Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace.  After having lost their lives on this land, they shall become our sons as well.’

So beautiful, beautiful words on this First World War monument.  For me, those words capture so much of what this is all about.  That from such war and hatred can come unity and peace, a confidence and a determination never to go back.  However frustrating and however difficult the debates in Europe, 100 years on we sort out our differences through dialogue and meetings around conference tables, not through the battles on the fields of Flanders or the frozen lakes of western Russia.

Let me turn to the plans for the centenary.  Last November I appointed former  Naval doctor Andrew Murrison as my special representative.  I am very grateful to him for the excellent work he has been doing in assembling ideas from across Government and beyond, and for putting the UK among the leaders in this shared endeavour and for laying the foundations of our commemorations.  Today, I am honoured to be able to say that he is going to be joined by some of the most senior figures in British public life, including Tom King, George Robertson, Menzies Campbell, Jock Stirrup and Richard Dannatt.  That’s  two former Secretaries of State for Defence, one of whom was also a Secretary General of NATO, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Chief of the General Staff.  They’ll be joined by others, including world leading historians, like Hew Strachan, and world class authors like Sebastian Faulks.  I hope they’ll provide senior leadership on a new advisory board that is going to be chaired by the Secretary of State for Culture, Maria Miller.

Our ambition is a truly national commemoration, worth of this historic centenary.  I want a commemoration that captures our national spirit, in every corner of the country, from our schools to our workplaces, to our town halls and local communities.  A commemoration that, like the Diamond Jubilee celebrated this year, says something about who we are as a people.

Remembrance must be the hallmark of our commemorations, and I am determined that Government will play a leading role, with national events and new support for educational initiatives.  These will include national commemorations for the first day of conflict, on 4th August 2014, and for the first day of the Somme, on 1st July 2016.  Together with partners like the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the custodians of our remembrance, the Royal British Legion, there will be further events to commemorate Jutland, Gallipoli and Passchendaele, all leading towards the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day in 2018.

The centenary will also provide the foundations upon which to build an enduring cultural and educational legacy, to put young people front and centre in our commemoration and to ensure that the sacrifice and service of a hundred years ago is still remembered in a hundred years’ time.

Now, the Imperial War Museum is already leading the First World War Centenary Partnership, a growing network of over 500 organisations, helping millions of people across the world to discover more about life in the First World War and its relevance today.  Today we are complementing that with a new centenary education programme, with more than £5 million of new Government funding.  This will include the opportunity for pupils and teachers from every state secondary school to research the people who served in the Great War, and for groups of them then, crucially, to follow their journey to the First World War battlefields.  I think that will be a great initiative and really welcomed by secondary schools and secondary school pupils.

We are also providing a further £5 million of new money, in addition to the £5 million we have already given to support transforming IWM London – this project right here at this incredible museum.  It will match contributions from private, corporate and social donors.

So our commemorations, if you like, will consist of three vital elements: a massive transformation of this museum to make is even better than it is today, a major programme of national commemorative events properly funded, given the proper status that they deserve, and third, an educational programme to create an enduring legacy for generations to come.  All of this will be overseen by a world class advisory board chaired by the Secretary of State for Culture, supported by my own special representative Andrew Murrison.

And that is not all, because we stand ready to incorporate more ideas because a truly national commemoration cannot just be about national initiatives and government action, it needs to be local too.  So the Heritage Lottery Fund is today announcing an additional £6 million to enable young people working in their communities to conserve, explore and share local heritage of the First World War.

That is in addition to the £9 million they have already given to projects marking the centenary, including community heritage projects.  And they are calling for more applications; they are open to new ideas, to more thinking.  So whether it is a series of friendly football matches to mark the famous 1914 Christmas Day truce, or the campaign led by the Greenhithe branch of the Royal British Legion to sow the Western Front’s iconic poppies here in the UK, I think we should get out there and make this centenary a truly national moment, but also something that actually means something in every locality in our country.

So, in total over £50 million is being committed to these centenary commemorations; I think it is absolutely right they should be given such priority, as I have explained.  As a twenty-year-old soldier wrote just a week before he died: ‘But for this war, I and all the others would have passed into oblivion like the countless myriads before us, but we shall live forever in the results of our efforts.’

Our duty towards these commemorations is clear: to honour those who served, to remember those who died, and to ensure that the lessons learnt live with us forever.  And I think that is exactly what we can do with these commemorations.

Chris Huhne, adulterer, speed freak, arm twister, liar and convicted criminal has been given free run of the BBC to peddle some conspiracy theories he cooked up whilst he had a bit of time on his hands in chokey…namely that Rupert Murdoch had a contract out on him.

The BBC of course are happy to go along with this even though they know it is complete tripe…as long as Murdoch’s name is trashed even if slanderously by association and indirect fire.

He appeared on the Today programme which ‘Is the BBC biased’ has fisked beautifully but Victoria Derbyshire also gave his delusions some prime time on her show. (10:15)

The question is why?  Huhne writes a self pitying piece in the Guardian blaming Murdoch for his downfall and the BBC goes overboard giving credence to his claims.

 Derbyshire brought in Evan Harris, fellow Lib Dem and one of the movers and shakers of ‘Hacked Off’…not exactly an uninterested party…..but he in fact didn’t support Huhne…though not exactly supportive of Murdoch.

No one from Murdoch’s side, or any neutral commentator appeared…all we got was a ‘Bizarre and nothing to do with us’ from News International read out at the end.

What about those claims that it was Murdoch on a man hunt?  Was it the Times or the News of the World that did for honest Huhne?

Derbyshire played a recording of a  phone call between Huhne and his wife….which paper was mentioned as having run the story by Huhne’s wife?

The Daily Mail

So not the Times or the Screws.

 As Guido reveals….Murdoch cunningly got the affair story and the picture into the News of the World’s bitter rival the Sunday People, then got the Sunday Times’ rival Mail on Sunday to first make the running on the speeding points story after forcing Huhne to pervert the course of justice. He is delusional if he thinks this was a Murdoch-press conspiracy.

Yet again good journalism from Derbyshire…obviously hasn’t listened to the tape before hand or she thought ‘We’ll wing it and hope no one notices’.

Why does the BBC give prime time to someone with such a clearly barking idea and who is carrying out his own personal vendetta against Murdoch….in the hope that blaming Murdoch, who he believes is now a devil incarnate in the Public’s mind (Not), will somehow exonerate him.

To be fair to Derbyshire she read out some texts or emails at the end…Huhne is on a loser if he thinks this will gain him any credibility or sympathy…..

‘Tears of sympathy?…no tears of laughter’

‘Not decent, honest or moral’

‘Vile man’

Shame that BBC News didn’t get the message…it kept repeating Huhne’s claims and his attack on Murdoch.

Nothing like slinging mud…or getting someone else to do it for you.