Search Results for: Chris cook

TOMMY AIN’T A BLOOMING FOOL…

B-BBC contributor Alan writes… 


” We serve nored-coats here.”

The BBC no longer bother to provide links to most of its output on the Todayprogramme…..however they seem to find the energy and time to link to storiesthey themselves ‘connect with’ intellectually and emotionally….here SarahMontague interviews Dr Margaret Evison whose son died in Afghanistan and who isall for withdrawing the troops from there.

The BBC has been relentless in the past few days since the death of 6 Britishsoldiers in pressing the case for the troops to be withdrawn. It has dragged inevery known opponent of the war and limited the voices of those who say weshould finish the job as best we can.

The BBC is essentially using the bodies of the dead soldiers as politicalfootballs, props in their war against the War. Coffins used as soapboxes topush a political agenda. I don’t think that the dangers and struggles of theaverage squaddie in Afghanistan ever crosses the mind of the well paid staff ofthe BBC…except when they make a mistake…then suddenly the BBC is onto them,hounding them and condemning them from their comfortable studio with its coffeeand croissants and the Guardian for the quiet moments.
READ MORE
‘Yes, makin’ mock o’uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap.’

Yesterday we had the Today presenters drew on the spirit of the old BBC ’68ers’manning the barricades and fulminating against the war….one on the TodayProgramme actually came up with the old Vietnam call to surrender…’ becausehow do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?’ updated forAfghanistan.

Today Sarah Montague plumbed new depths inferring that Margaret Evison’s son’slife was wasted on a lie…she asked at the end ‘Do you think his life wasthrown away?’

An insensitive question to ask a mother whatever the mother might think….butespecially because you might have the suspicion that Sarah Montague has not asingle concern about the death of any soldier what so ever.

Such suspicions might be why most soldiers have the profoundest disregard forthe BBC and their coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan, that being expresslyagainst the wars and the way they have been conducted by the troops.

An ‘Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!

The BBC’s coverage has scared politicians away from making the essentialdecisions and prevented them sending in the necessary amount of troops andequipment to complete the job quickly.

Far from preventing casualties that coverage has increased deaths and injuriesand turned the war into an endless stalemate as politicians are pressured intonot making an all out push to finish the job.

Dr Margaret Evison might want to ask why her son did not have the resources orthe troops to support him in sufficient numbers? The answer is media pressurenot to escalate the war.

In other words the likes of Sarah Montague, as with the US media duringVietnam, are intent on producing defeat out of victory.

After we left Afghanistan to its own devices when the Soviets withdrew the samemedia filled the airwaves and the pages of the Guardian and New York Times withtales pointing the finger of blame for the Taliban takeover at the West forhaving ‘abandoned’ Afghanistan.

Today the same media demand we ‘abandon’ Afghanistan….and quickly.

‘How little the world would look moral without forgetfulness. A poet might saythat God made forgetfulness the guard he placed at the threshold of humandignity.’

In the BBC world where terrorists are freedom fighters and British troopsmurderers, where locking someone up in Guantanamo bay is a human rights crimebut cutting off Ken Bigley’s head is an act of self defence against Westernaggression, where burning the Koran justifies multiple murders but the Biblecan be thrown in the bin and Christianity mocked and derided…..forgetfulnessis a convenient tool to maintain the pretence of common decency and humanitytempered by rationality and reason….when the reality is the BBC have slumpedinto a morass of immoral judgements and self debasement based on the newcultural ‘relativity’ combined with the malignant guilt about being white andWestern.

It would be fascinating to see a study on the detrimental effects of the BBC’scoverage on the war and any resultant casualties that could be attributed tothat coverage just as we might like a similar study done to cover the conflictin the Middle East and the resultant anti-Jewish sentiments that arise becauseof the enormous negative reporting about Israel from the BBC….ah, yes, we’vehad that haven’t we…it’s called the ‘Balen Report’….only for some reasonthe BBC don’t want you to see it.

So how many Troops and how many Jews have died because of BBC News?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9703000/9703995.stm

‘Dr Evison said she saw the cultural and social pressures as well as “therevenge culture” in Afghanistan and “realised what British Army areup against”.
She said that her son “died for his soldiers” but “the largerpolitical picture is more complex”
“A soldier’s death should be for a just cause”, she said, “andpeople are doubting whether there is a just cause”.’

 ‘Tommy’ 2009 version, which acknowledges Rudyard Kipling, ends:

O then we’re just like ‘eroes from the army’s glorious past.
Yes, it’s “God go with you, Tommy,” when the trip might be your last.
They pays us skivvy wages, never mind we’re sitting ducks,
When clerks what’s pushing pens at ‘ome don’t know their flippin’ luck.
“Ah, yes” sez they “but think of all the travel to be ‘ad.”
Pull the other one. Does Cooks do ‘olidays in Baghdad?
It’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, know your place,”
But it’s “Tommy, take the front seat,” when there’s terrorists tochase

. An’ the town is full of maniacs who’d like you dead toot sweet.
Yes, it’s “Thank you, Mr Atkins,” when they find you in the street.
There’s s’pposed to be a covenant to treat us fair an’ square
But I ‘ad to buy me army boots, an’ me combats is threadbare.
An’ ‘alf the bloody ‘elicopters can’t get in the air,
An’ me pistol jammed when snipers fired. That’s why I’m laid up ‘ere.
Yes, it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, “We ‘ave to watch the pence”;
Bold as brass the P.M. sez, “We spare them no expense.

But I’ll tell you when they do us proud an’ pull out all the stops,
It’s when Tommy lands at Lyneham in a bloomin’ wooden box!.

GREEN RACISM

Today, we have a corking example of the brazen articulation of the BBC green creed through one of their self-appointed “experts” and prophets. Step forward the totally self-regarding (see here) wildlife programme presenter Chris Packham who is telling us solemnly from his corporation eyrie that we must stop breeding, tax those who do not, buy local food, and Generally See The Error of Our Ways. Packham, in fact, is an interesting specimen of the BBC greenie zealot breed. This is how he describes himself on his website:

A precocious young scientist, swat and nerd in training he studied Kestrels, Shrews and Badgers in his teens and undergraduate days at the Zoology department of Southampton University. He also embraced Punk Rock and played in a band and the DIY ethos and determination to never take ‘no’ for an answer are forcefully retained. Post graduation and a cancelled PhD, (the Badgers were getting a bit much), he began taking still photographs and trained as a wildlife film cameraman.

Well slap my thighs. And with those impeccable credentials in green activism, he’s now taken on a new role at the head of the BBC green crusade. His main beef is that we are breeding too fast, and that leads this “cancelled PhD” expert to a call for sweeping new taxes to encourage those who, exactly as under Chinese state fascism, restrict themselves to one child. His message in morals and life management is coupled with an equally solemn intonation that we must buy and cook ourselves local food (and presumably therefore forget the Africans who rely on food exports to avoid starvation). It’s clear that in Mr Packham’s books, those who don’t are plebeian oiks who don’t know what is good for them.

Mr Packham’s message – passed from on high via the official BBC mouthpiece, the Radio Times – is liberally larded with the usual offical greenie-line claptrap. he says:

‘There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population.’

I note, however, that Mr Packham’s homily on the evils of mankind and its nasty proclivity to breed, does not mention a BBC unmentionable word – immigration. Actually, Britain’s headlong hurtling towards a population of 70m+ is being caused almost entirely by largely uncontrolled immigration, a tide that the government is powerless to stop because of their worship of the EU.

And beautifully crafted as it may seem (in BBC green propaganda terms), on close inspection, I think Mr Packham’s message may actually be strangely off-message. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think there is a blatant racist slant in what he saying. Those who are breeding most in the UK are the so-called ethnic population. So his sermon is thus aimed directly and disproportionately at the said ethnic minorities.

I thought that doing that was the biggest sin in the BBC right-on/Human Right manual. It’s probably OK in this case, though, because the need for greenie propaganda, however clumsily formed, out-trumps everything else.

Update: I see my post has attracted comment from a pro-Malthus acolyte. I deliberately did not analyse that part of the Packham message here, because I am so tired of it, but I will leave it to the very capable Willis Eschenbach to do so. Malthusian pessimism is bunk that is at at the heart – as well as a prime driver – of the greenie creed. If you doubt me, try this.

BLACK CARBON SCAM

One of the relentless goals of the greenies is to hit the poor. They are driving up the cost of energy and green taxes in the lunatic belief that CO2 causes global warming; the consequence is millions are being forced into fuel poverty. They have banned DDT and because of it, millions have died of malaria. Now they have another target – the cooking stoves of 3bn people worlwide, which according to the jackboot administrators of the UN, produce something called “black” carbon, the latest greenie villain of the peace. Note how BBC alarmist-in-chief Roger Harrabin says the effect has not been quantified but nevertheless, the fumes must be scrubbed and capped and contained because nameless, faceless scientists and bureaucrats say so. The next thing that will happen is that schemes will be drawn up – costing billions – to provide useless new stoves, and yet another aid/manufacturing/subsidy scam will be in full scale production.

I’m all for making homes safer, particularly as thousands in the developing world do die in avoidable fires, but the way forward is to provide cheap, reliable electricity – and the greenies are doing everything in their powers to prevent that because they hate fossil fuels.

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE: GREEN VICAR SHOCK

It’s pretty darn unusual for the BBC website to cover the death of a local Church of England vicar; in fact, pretty much their only interest in Christianity and our established religion these days is in gay bishops. When I was in BBC local radio, it was only when a local bishop popped his clogs that we reached for our microphones.

Unless, that is, he’s a revered green camapigner. Such, apparently, was the Reverend Hereward Cooke, a vicar in the Norwich area, who cycled the 150 miles to Copenhagen to attend the UN summit in December, and there, tragically, died in his sleep. I’ve nothing against Mr Cooke, I am sure he was a god-fearing chap, though it is a pity that he thought ‘climate change’ so important.

But to the BBC, of course, he’s a saint. Any mention of ‘green’ and ‘climate change’ – no matter how inconsequential – is front page news.

Roundup.

  • Two handfuls. First off, hat tip to USS Neverdock. Hat particularly tipped because I nearly got this one myself. On Tuesday morning I saw a story on Ceefax saying that demonstrations against rendition flights at Scottish airports have attracted “just a handful of protesters”. I was, I really was, going to do a quick post praising the BBC. We have often complained here that titchy demos get disproportionate coverage so long as they are for favoured BBC causes, and here was an example of a titchy demo for a favoured BBC cause being reported as titchy. Only when I looked again the story was different. I hadn’t written anything down, and, you know how it is, ordinary life intervened and the post never got done.

    However USS Neverdock followed the same story on the web, and has screenshots.

    Incidentally, 30 demonstrators at one airport and six at another is still titchy.

  • “A life in power” indeed. An anonymous commenter writes:

    Beeb’s puff piece on Kenneth Kaunda:

    Kenneth Kaunda: A life in power

    A more balanced account from Wikipedia here:

    Kenneth Kuanda

    To the point.

  • Max comments regarding this story: Israel soldier’s family wait for news .

    After misspelling the name of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit as ‘Shilat’ no less than seven times in the same article, the BBC’s Martin ‘I take cookery class lessons from terrorists’ Patience inserts a bit of agenda:

    “A mayor from a nearby Palestinian village paid a visit to the family to show his support.”

    Since there are no Palestinian villages nearby, one has to assume that Martin ‘Israeli drones would love to see what I can see’ Patience might refer to the Christian Arab village of Me’ilya (not sure if it’s spelled correctly in English) 2 kilometers down the road from Mitspe Hilla – where he’s ‘reporting’ from. For BBC reporters Arab Israeli citizens are Palestinians. Also, he doesn’t bother to identify this village by name; too difficult to spell I suppose.

    Then again I guess that for someone who writes that “Gilad’s older brother, a university student in the nearby city of Haifa [approx. 60 kilometers away]..” accuracy is not a priority.

Insidious PC from the BBC

(I’ve changed the date on this post to reflect the transition from first saving to final form)

I think I was a scout for two weeks, though I can’t remember exactly. I had been promised it would be way different from the hateful cubs pack I was a member of, but it was sufficiently like it to bring out a nervous reaction that saw me resolutely glued to the sofa and the tv as though to a floating fragment from a shipwreck, instead of venturing to a draughty village hall miles from my home (those horrible chairs you had to help shift; the miserable knots, the cooking classes- and they were some of the better things).

So I’m not a great fan really. The best part for me was the oath I took, and they’ve changed that since for some strange reason. Obviously oaths aint what they used to be. I think I kept mine by leaving after 2 weeks.

Anyhow, that’s not the point.

Anthony Browne recently published a forthright document concerning Political Correctness in Britain and abroad. It’s well worth reading, and during the course of his argument he has a go at the BBC.

However one non-BBC related quote (among the many) struck me for its relevance to the kind of thing the BBC is quite absurdly satisfied with

‘The New york Times’ culture correspondent, Richard Bernstein… was… concerned about how PC tried to overturn the dominant culture and power structures.’

because I had just been reading this BBC article supplied by Rob in the comments.

Thinking people ought to agree that this is fascinating. It is fascinating when an all but explicitly Christian and anglospherical youth movement, aimed at fostering the virtues to underpin the British dream, not only backs away from that project but does a volte face: expressly embracing and fostering what was (in Baden Powell’s day) seen as a regressive and primitive culture of idolatry. It’s fascinating and it’s news. There is of course an argument that it is still a regressive and primitive culture (of idolatry) (- this bracketted part is a little-sought specification for the argument in 06)

However the BBC doesn’t treat it like that- that is to say, doesn’t think anything remotely like those concerns, even watered down, need be addressed; doesn’t set the context in which the oath has been broken into a smorgasbord of options; doesn’t note the clear revolutionary angle. Only sees it as a positive news story about Islam and the West cohabiting. But it is revolutionary, however some well-meaning people might see it as a natural outflow of our generous cultural eclecticism and assimilation.

That’s PC for you.

(of course, whether or not Baden Powell’s creation was one of history’s really good thingsis open to question. The fact is that people relied on it to produce a certain calibre in young people.)

Boris Johnson broadsides the BBC in today’s Daily Telegraph

– as spotted by one of our ever observant commenters. Here’s a taster:

Do you remember Today’s James Naughtie, who gave the game away in the run-up to the general election by referring to Labour as “us”? Do you remember on election night how Andrew Marr said that things were going “worse” than expected, when what he meant to say was “worse for Labour”. You have only to imagine Marr saying that things were going “better”, meaning “better for the Conservatives” to see how unthinkable that is, and how the mental default position of the BBC journalists is essentially Left of centre.

All their instinct and culture is to support state funding over the private sector – which is not surprising, since they are state-funded themselves. They are all located on a political spectrum running from Ken Clarke, via Menzies Campbell, towards Robin Cook and Clare Short. They are instinctively anti-American, though they of course make much of how they “love” American culture. It is an axiom that Bush is a dangerous lunatic, the war in Iraq about oil, and so on. They are anti-Israel, but also find Christianity – or any strong expression of Christian faith – deeply embarrassing. In any argument, they will instinctively gravitate to what they think is the most civilised and liberal option, irrespective of the merits of the case; so they tend to be completely caught out by events such as the re-election of George Bush (all the fault of loony Christians, says the Beeb) or the total failure of the British economy to suffer in any way for the rejection of the euro.

Do read it all!