Category Archives: BBC

The Archers: an everyday story of simple ever more absurd storylines folk

Robert Henderson

What a remarkable place is  Ambridge. In an England experiencing  normal  rather dry winter weather Ambridge is in currently in  the grip of what one can only imagine is a  monsoon  that  has escaped from the tropics and miraculously  arrived in a very small part of the  English midlands to produce the Great Ambridge Flood  as the latest in the  radio soap’s  increasingly improbable storylines .

In its long history The Archers has provided ready satirical fare amongst which has been frequent imaginings of an end to the world’s longest running radio serial  through some catastrophe  such as the village being wiped out by bubonic plague or the entire cast of characters being abducted  by Aliens.  The Great Ambridge Flood has much the same improbable flavour as that generated by such scenarios, with  central characters are placed in danger with reckless abandon.  As I write a great swathe of characters are now homeless.

The Great Ambridge Flood comes on top of a growing mountain  of wildly unconvincing plots,   the biscuit being taken when the  stronghold of the Archer family Brookfield farm was to be sold for no convincing reason and David and Ruth Archer plus their  children moved 200 miles away to the North East of England.  This was supposedly because of the  road which was scheduled to divide the farm in two and because Ruth’s mother  was becoming unable to fend for herself in Geordieland.    This was a  risibly insufficient  reason   for such a fundamental move, not least because the road going through the farm is still subject to appeal.

The sudden volte face  by David Archer who decides to go back on the sale of the farm to the property developer Justin Elliott for £7 million  after  he has a Damascene moment when he imagines  the ghost of his dead father is  talking to him was even more  improbable.   Suddenly the fact that the farm might have a road running through it does not seem so bad and the chance of stopping the development changes from hopeless to possible.  Nor is the fact that in real life the cancellation of the sale would have resulted in horrendous financial penalties  seemingly of any great consequence.

A much more plausible and satisfying plot about Brookfield would have been David and Ruth fighting the proposed  road to the end with its building  being thwarted when Justin Elliot and his cronies are  exposed as having  bribed council officials and councillors to agree to the route for the road to further their development plans.

In amongst this dramatic carnage earlier  story lines than the abortive sale of Ambridge have continued to make of Ambridge an ever  swirling kaleidoscope of  broken relationships, personal disaster  and antisocial incidents. Shula Archer has perjured herself by lying to the police about an assault committed by the exceptionally controlling sociopath from central casting Rob Titchener, Helen Archer is pathetically interpreting Titchener’s comically controlling ways as  just concern for her and her son, the Elizabeth Pargetter – Roy Tucker – Hayley Tucker triangle has reached the point of Hayley asking for a divorce from Roy and the politically correct flag has been waved  vigorously with the introduction of a gay sex  triangle as Adam  Macey is working up to dump Ian for Charlie Thomas.   Strangely, for such a monument to political correctness, there is yet to be some girl-on-girl action. Could it be that…no surely not…

Topping all the improbable stories is that of Lillian Bellamy and Matt Crawford. Crawford, whose last major appearance in the serial involved him getting involved with the Russian mafia in Russia, has suddenly done a runner with as much of Lillian’s fortune as he has been able to lay his hands on. This has occurred without any hint of trouble between the couple  before Crawford fled and absolutely no explanation since.

What next for the Archers? How about a Midwitch Cuckoos visitation with all  the females of  breeding age giving birth to  alien children? Well, that would be no more improbable than the tosh which has been served up for the past few years.

The Archers: an everyday story of simple culling  the Archers from the programme folk

Robert Henderson

The  Archers is currently the subject of various story-lines  which bid fair to leave the programme a largely Archer-free zone.

The pivotal Archer  family – David and  Ruth Archer – are in the process of selling Brookfield with the intent of buying a farm hundreds of miles away in the North East of England because planning permission has been given to build a road on Brookfield land.

Jill Archer is planning to move north with David and Ruth.

Pip Archer has been away from the programme for a suspiciously long time  working for other farmers or finishing her  agricultural studies.

Tony Archer lies critical injured in hospital after  being tossed and gored by his prize bull and even if he survives is likely to be paraplegic.

Tom Archer did  a runner on his wedding  day and is now in Canada and seemingly out of contact with his family.

Helen Archer is living with Rob Titchener, a very obvious psychopath,  and is  ripe for being slaughtered in a psychotic rage, by either Titchener or his unbalanced  estranged wife Jess.

Elizabeth  Pargetter,  is in the messy aftermath of an affair with Neil Carter , who will almost certainly sue her for wrongful dismissal after she sacked him as her manager  of her events company when the affair went wrong.  This will in all probability result in massive damages for Carter which will undermine the viability  of the country estate (Lower Loxley) on which the events business depends.

Debbie Aldridge has been a long-time exile in Eastern Europe.

Kate Madikane   lives in South Africa with her black husband.

Peggy Woolley  has just turned ninety and is obviously ripe for shuffling off this mortal coil.

This looks suspiciously  like a systematic culling   of  the Archer family to allow the programme to be moulded to a shape more agreeable to the crazed politically correct minds of those who control the show. They doubtless think it is, as they would put it, “ a scandal in this day and age”  to only have a minority  of black, Asian and gay characters in the cast  and desperately want to bring in far more,  but find it very difficult to do so when there are so many white heterosexual characters  in the soap opera.

Once the Archers have been reduced to no more than a token presence, what will the programme be like? Imagine Brookfield sold to Mr Singh and the village shop run by Mrs Patel  to join the Hindu wife of the  vicar  who is also the local solicitor and   Amy  the “dual heritage” daughter of  the vicar by his deceased  Jamaican first wife,  with Amy’s Jamaican grandmother taking the place in the storyline of Jill Archer.  The ultimate dream of the programme controllers will probably  be to see Ambridge with a minority of white characters to, as they would put it, “ make Ambridge look like modern England” .

The gay quotient will also be inflated. Already there is Charlie Thomas hovering over Adam Macey with the threat of a bust up with Macey’s  “husband”, the chef at Grey Gables with the hilarious Ian Paisley voice.  The programme makers  will surely  correct  one of their glaring pc omissions to date and  introduce a lesbian relationship, although they have been strangely coy to date about girl-on-girl action.

The cull of established characters  may well go beyond the Archer family because the older characters generally are not to the taste of the politically correct. Apart from being all too white and heterosexual, they have be allowed to express, within limits, non-pc views with the intention that such views can be portrayed as anachronistic and soon to die out . Useful as that was at one time, the politically correct mind now sees no need for such “black hat” characters because it sees the process of reforming British attitudes as having moved to a point where no one can safely express non-pc views and they feel that characters doing so at best will seem at odds with the reality of England today.

What  listeners can be certain of is that the Ambridge of the future will be very difficult to recognise as the classic English farming village it was intended to be.

 

English Democrats: The SNP for England? English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook is asked by the BBC if his party is the closest thing to an English SNP.

 

English Democrats: The SNP for England?

 

English Democrats’ chairman Robin Tilbrook is asked by Jo Coburn the BBC’s Daily Politics interviewer if his party is the closest thing to an English SNP?

Jo Coburn chucked me several googlies. How do you think I did?

Click here for the link >>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29176854#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

How the BBC fixes phone-ins – The Radio 5  Breakfast Programme phone-in on 6 May 2014

Robert Henderson

The think tank Policy Exchange  has published a report  on racial  and ethnic minorities entitled A portrait of modern Britain.  The headline grabbing statistic in the report is the claim that” the five largest distinct Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities could potentially double from 8 million people or 14% of the population [now] to between 20-30% by the middle of the century. Over the past decade, the UK’s White population has remained roughly the same while the minority population has almost doubled. Black Africans and Bangladeshis are the fastest growing minority communities with ethnic minorities representing 25% of people aged under the age of five.”

On 6 May BBC R5 decided to devote their morning Breakfast Programme  phone-in  hosted by Nick Campbell to the report.  Did the programme  address  the question of what the native British population thought of such a  radical change in the demographic composition of their country? Don’t be silly this is the BBC.  Instead the programme was devoted to asking  how welcoming Britain is to immigrants.  Campbell set the tone by  asking questions such as “Do you think this is one of the most welcoming countries across the world for immigrants” and making comments such as “The vast majority of people who come here, I’m sure, respect what are the cultural aspects of this country”. He also activated the pc  device of making discussion about immigration permissible by claiming that ethnic minorities and immigrants generally were often worried by ongoing  immigration.

But even with those  brakes  on any honest discussion of mass immigration and its effects on Britain, the BBC were nervous. Some frightful  non-pc people might get on and horror of horrors say that mass immigration was not the best thing to happen to Britain since sliced bread. So to make sure that such a ghastly  thing would not happen,  the BBC  unashamedly packed the programme with those who were either immigrants themselves or  the descendants of immigrants.

The studio guests were Rishi Sunak (Head of the Black & Minority Ethnic Research Unit at Policy Exchange),  Don Flynn from the  Migrants Rights Network and Gurinder  Josan  of the Sikh Council of the UK.

There were ten  callers put on air. Of these eight  were black or Asian, viz:

Mal –An  Asian of sub-continental origin who was sent to Britain at a young age.

Carl – He described himself as an Australian of mixed heritage. He is probably Asian from certain hints he gave.

Alex – He described himself as black. His voice suggested that he was raised in Britain.

Anoop –  A Kenyan Asian immigrant.

Ken –  A  old white workingclass man  from Luton.

Ravi – A Sikh.

Abdul – He described himself as Glaswegian with Pakistani and Irish ancestry.

Sabeena – Asian immigrant long resident in Britain..

Liz – A white lower-middle class English woman.  Lived in Leicester for  forty years before moving to Devon.

Bernie – A black man born and raised in Britain.

The general thrust of the comments by everyone except for Ken and Liz was that we all lived in a wonderful multicultural world, although there was a bit of victimhood whining by Alex and Bernie brought in the subject of slavery.  Abdul complained about recent immigrants getting council houses.  It is probable that he was deliberately put in to validate Campbell’s claim that many immigrants were against further immigration.

Ken was the perfect pc selected spokesman for the non-pc side,  old, white working-class,  inarticulate and palpably hamstrung by fear of saying something which could get him labelled a racist.  He emphasised the mixed nature of Luton and claimed that,  in his own experience,    abuse of  blacks and Asians was unknown and said he could not understand why black and Asian complaints were forever being heard  in the mainstream media.  This could have caused Campbell a problem because his complaint was about the practice of victimhood amongst ethnic minorities.  Sadly, Ken  then inadvertently blotted his pc copybook by  suddenly and irrelevantly recounting how he had asked his neighbour whether they wanted to be called  coloured or black. This  produced a snort of derision from Alex to whom Campbell eagerly went back to ask what he thought of Ken’s ideas and the question of victimhood and the media’s promotion of it went undiscussed. .

The nearest anyone came to expressing  outright dissent from the politically correct rubric was Liz. Her general point was that integration was a “two way street” and she was dubious about whether it was a “two way street”  because  immigrants were not always making an  effort to abide by the British way of life.  She made dangerously non-pc statements such as mosques in Leicester being  unwanted by the white population when they were first built and that immigrants to this country “should respect our religion”, but her complaints was surrounded by mantras such as “diversity is good” to ward off the pc Inquisition.  Campbell of course jumped in to correct matters, for example, by saying “What do you mean by our religion?”  But Liz kept veering off dangerously off pc message  and her contribution ended with this exchange with Campbell:

Liz:…if we both respect each other. If I went to another country I would respect their beliefs and wishes  and I would….” Campbell interrupts.  

Campbell: ““And the vast majority of people who come here, I’m sure, respect what are the cultural aspects of this country”. 

Liz : “Well if they do there will be no problem at all. Why is there a problem?  Why is there a problem in all these different cities? “

Campbell: “Is there a problem? Well, we have had  person after person saying it’s all going terribly well.”

Liz: “Well, I’m sure it is…” At this point Campbell cut her off.

That short exchange encapsulates the problem so many white Britons have when speaking in public about immigration and its  consequences. Clearly Liz wanted to express her fears  about the effects of mass immigration,  but she was so handicapped by fear of being thought a racist that she was l willing to agree with Campbell’s assertion there is no problem at the end because of her fear of being dubbed a racist.

I rang the phone-in after it had been going for about twenty minutes. Eventually the  producer phoned  me  back and said he would put me on. I waited on the phone  for over twenty minutes but never got on. There was the strongest of reasons  for putting me on: the programme was utterly unbalanced there being  not a single person who argued the case against mass immigration.

Had I got on I would have made these points:

  1. That no society anywhere welcomes mass immigration because mass immigration is invasion of territory, a surreptitious form of conquest.

2. That the permitting of mass immigration is the most fundamental form of treason those with power can commit.

3. All elites understand that mass immigration is  never wanted by any population and this leads them to suppress dissent,  as happens in this country now with people such as Emma West being charged with criminal offences simply because she spoke against immigration in a public place.

4. That mass immigration has already created the basis for considerable racial strife, something which will increase as the minority populations grow.

5. That mass immigration has already  resulted in many disastrous effects on British society such as minority ghettoes, a catastrophic housing shortage and a low wage economy.

I had made it clear that these were the issues I wished to raise when I spoke to the producer.  I suspect that the final decision is about who goes on is made by the programme  presenter . If so, Campbell must have seen my position on the question and deliberately excluded me.

My complaint is not that I did not get on the programme. Rather it is that no one expressing my views or anything like them  did so.

BBC falls ‘hook, line and sinker’ for Islamist fishy tale!

BBC falls ‘hook, line and sinker’ for Islamist fishy tale!

Having heard the BBC Radio 4 news coverage on Friday, 27th December which repeatedly claims that there has been an alleged rise in “hate crime” against Muslims.  I have just made this complaint to the BBC:-

Dear BBC

I wonder why the Radio 4 News (on Friday, 27th December) was uncritically reporting the alleged rise in “Hate Crime” against Muslims claimed yet again by (the) discredited source (“Tell Mama” and its Director, Mr Fiyaz Mujhal?). Do your researchers do ANY research or do they just slavishly follow the Leftist/Islamist Mehdi Hasan on Huffington Post?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook,
Chairman,
The English Democrats

If you feel like complaining too:-
Post your complaint to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington, DL3 0UR; or Telephone the BBC to complain on 03700 100 222; or
Email the BBC via their complaint form using this link>>>BBC – Complaints – Complain Online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
Please do mention the English Democrats!

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK)

SPECIAL RIGHTS for Muslims?

I have sometimes been asked if Muslims have actually asked for special legal treatment.  The Article below is an example of an influential Muslim doing so but it is quite subtle.
 
The article is from the “Huffington Post” an online news agency well known in America for its Left/Liberal bias but in the ‘UK’ its political editor is the BBC’s favourite Leftist/Islamist, Mehdi Hasan, who seems here to be giving his views on us infidels.  Click here >>> Mehdi Hasan – Non Muslims live like animals – YouTube and here he is talking about the Shiite Islamic equivalent of Judas in which he seems to demonise gays >>> ?MehdiHasanYazidHomoKaffir – YouTube.  If the “hate crime” law was equally applied I would have expected Mr Hasan to have been at least considered for prosecution over these comments, wouldn’t you?

It should therefore not be surprising that this Leftist online news outlet edited by an Islamist is vocal in its support of the ‘UK’s’ “Islamic Community”(sic!).

As journalists often do, Mehdi weaves into his story a source that he approves of  “Tell Mama” but which has been exposed as being just as unreliable a source as he is himself! For revelations about “Tell Mama” and its leader who is quoted so approvingly by Mehdi Hassan, click here >>>The truth about the ‘wave of attacks on Muslims’ after Woolwich murder – Telegraph

The thrust of Mehdi’s article is that “Hate Crime” against Muslims should be punished with especially severe criminal sanctions.

Actually such “hate crime” already is treated more severely than anyone applying ordinary common sense, or indeed ordinary legal principles, would think appropriate if, but only if, it is committed by English people against any other ethnic minority group or individual.  Also consider the BBC’s reaction to criticism over a more significant, deliberate and calculated blasphemy against Jesus Christ >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm.

It should also be borne in mind that “hate crime” can often mean merely a rude remark rather than any sort of violent attack.

In my view the old playground adage of “sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me!” should be the start point for any contemplated prosecution (or conviction) for, often trivial, rudeness.

However, if that rudeness spills over into physical aggression or threats of violence, then of course I would support punishment but focussed only on what has actually happened not as a result of a sort of witch trial, otherwise it is the State itself which becomes the instrument of victimisation!  (No doubt to the pleasure of people like Mehdi Hasan)!

What do you think? (Note the startling, but no doubt deliberate, confusion of a building with people and the extent of the group allegedly “targeted” in “When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”)

Here is the “Huffington Post” Article:-

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby

Hate crimes against Muslims have soared in 2013, new figures have shown. Hundreds of anti-Muslim offences have been carried out across the country in 2013, with Britain’s biggest force, the Metropolitan police, recording 500 Islamophobic crimes alone.

Many forces reported a surge in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby by two Islamic extremists in Woolwich, south-east London. And it is feared the figures could be much higher after nearly half of the 43 forces in England and Wales did not reveal how many hate crimes had targeted Muslims – with some forces admitting they do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.

Freedom of Information requests were sent by the Press Association to every police force in England and Wales. Of the 43 forces, 24 provided figures on the number of anti-Muslim crimes and incidents recorded. Tell Mama, a group which monitors anti-Muslim incidents, said it had dealt with some 840 cases since April – with the number expected to rise to more than 1,000 by the end of March.

This compared with 582 anti-Muslim cases it dealt with from March 2012 to March 2013. Fiyaz Mujhal, director of Faith Matters, which runs the Tell Mama project, said reaction to the murder of Fusilier Rigby had caused the number of Islamophobic crimes to “significantly jump”. He added: “The far right groups, particularly the EDL (English Defence League) perniciously use the internet and social media to promote vast amounts of online hate.”

Mujhal said tougher sentencing was needed to tackle Islamophobic crime and branded guidelines by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to monitor social media as “not fit for purpose”. He said: “They raised the bar of prosecution significantly. Now unless there is a direct threat to somebody on Twitter or Facebook, the CPS will not prosecute. The CPS is just plainly out of sync with reality.

“We also need more robust sentencing. In one case, a pig’s head was left outside a mosque and the perpetrator came away with a community sentence. When you target a mosque, you are targeting the whole community.”

Tell Mama has called for police forces to introduce a system which improves monitoring of Islamophobic crimes, after some forces admitted officers do not always record the faith of a religious hate crime victim.
“There are three problems we come across,” Mujhal said. “Firstly, there is a lack of understanding of the language of Islamophobia thrown at victims in any incidents. Secondly, there is very little training on how to ask relevant questions to pull out anti-Muslim cases. Thirdly, recording processes are not in line with each other. One force will allow an officer to flag an incident as anti-Muslim, another force will flag it as religious hate crime. There is no uniformity. There must be guidelines for all forces so we can know the level of the problem.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has previously said 71 incidents were reported to its national community tension team (NCTT) over five days after Fusilier Rigby was murdered on May 22. Superintendent Paul Giannasi, Acpo’s spokesman on hate crime, said: “The police service is committed to reducing the harm caused by hate crime and it is vital that we encourage more victims who suffer crimes to report them to the police or through third party reporting facilities such as Tell Mama.

“Acpo has played a key role in improving reporting mechanisms, including through the development of our True Vision website (www.report-it.org.uk). This provides information to victims and allows people to report online. We would obviously want overall crime levels to reduce and to see fewer victims, but we welcome increases in reported hate crime, as long as they are a sign of increased confidence of victims to report. We are working with local police forces, to help improve the way we respond to hate crime and to provide robust and transparent hate crime data.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “These are despicable crimes that devastate lives and communities. The courts already hand out tougher punishments where race or religion are found to be aggravating factors. The number of people receiving a custodial sentence for these appalling crimes is higher than ever before.”

A CPS spokeswoman said: “Online communication can be offensive, shocking or in bad taste. However, as set out in CPS guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, content has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. In order to preserve the right to free speech the threshold for prosecution must be high and only communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false are prohibited by the legislation.”

(Here is the link to the original article >>>Hate Crimes Against Muslims Soar After Woolwich Murder Of Lee Rigby)

The BBC way with Scottish independence

Victoria Derbyshire BBC Radio 5 16 Sept 2013 10.00 am -12.000 noon

Debate on the Scottish independence vote

This was a  classic example of  the BBC’s  interpretation of balance and consisted of a number of regulation issue BBC propaganda tricks.

The programme was held in Scotland (Glasgow) which meant that the pro-independence  crowd were on home ground. A venue outside of Scotland would have been less partisan for two reasons:  first, holding it in Scotland meant the  audience was inevitably overwhelmingly Scottish (with  a massive overrepresentation of Glaswegian residents)  and second, it underpinned the idea that this is s a matter only for Scotland.   Those representing England, Wales and Northern Ireland were not only thin on the ground , but either in full agreement with Scottish independence  (including English people living in Scotland) or less than full hearted in their presentation of pro-unionist views and,  in some cases,  unreservedly  pusillanimous in their putting their case, with one Englishman saying an Englishman had no right to tell the Scots how to vote.

There were a couple of hundred  people involved. Right at the start Derbyshire employed the favourite  Any Questions trick of saying the audience was not scientifically selected to represent the population at large (with the implication that its collective opinion was not worth anything),  then blandly treating  expressions of opinions as though the audience was scientifically selected. In such circumstances the large majority of  any audience  treat the individual and collective opinion as having the same meaning as a scientifically selected poll.  Indeed, it is dubious whether many in any audience would really understand what “scientifically selected”  means in this context.

A second favourite BBC trick is  to turn the debate into pantomime. In this case the pantomime was created by dividing the audience into three groups which sat apart from one another:  those in favour of independence, those against it and the undecided.  The for and  against camps were  mysteriously on 36%  each with the undecided on 27% (where the missing 1% went was not explained). This division  was seriously at odds with  recent polls which show a very  significant lead for the NO camp, for example, the latest YouGov poll  in Sept for the Times which showed the No camp on 52% and the Yes camp on 32% (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10316878/Alex-Salmond-on-course-for-defeat-in-independence-referendum.html).   It is reasonable to ascribe the discrepancy between the reality of the public opinion and the  debate’s audience to  being  deliberately manufactured by the BBC, because it is wildly improbable that  the Yes and NO camps would be equal simply through chance. Why would the BBC do this? Either, for political reasons, to create  a spurious equality to weaken the NO camp’s effect or , simply for dramatic effect, to produce a programme which looked as though it was dealing with an issue which was on a knife-edge.

The three groups sat separately and if members of each group changed their minds about where they should be sitting during the debate  they moved to a different  group. There was not much movement.  However, the division did allow the presenter Derbyshire to pretend that there was a meaningful debate going on as she earnestly questioned each person who did move and routinely asked people if they were tempted to move.

There   were two people representing  the campaign groups  Yes Scotland  (SNP MEP Fiona Hislop and the comedienne  Elaine C Smith best known for her role in Rab C Nesbitt) and two for the Better Together  (Labour MP for Glasgow Central Anas Sarwar  and Alan Savage an English businessman with the Orion recruitment  group). Sarwar had the distinction of being a non-white face amongst a sea of ol’whitey. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p01gt3s5). Indeed, I think he may have been the only black, brown or yellow face on show.

The Yes camp displayed  a strong hysterical strain with frequent  yelling and clapping, and  speakers who assumed that bald assertion represented argument with gems such as “Scotland is stinking rich” and “Scottish independence is worth dying for” , mixed with a cloying victimhood with  the wicked English cast as the culprits for all that is wrong in Scotland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039wz0t/clips). The limits of evidence advanced by the Yes camp began and ended with citations from Wikipedia (I kid you not).

The NO camp were much more restrained and asked a great number of questions which the Yes camp simply could not answer,  questions about the armed forces, public sector pensions, immigration and the Pound (The http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039wz0t/clips).

The various “expert” commentators such as the BBC Scottish staffer Brian Taylor adopted the “there is no clear answer”  ploy when asked to comment on, for example, the share of taxpayers’ money Scotland receives.

At the end of the meeting Derbyshire gave out the Yes/NO/undecided figures  before and after changes:

At the start of the debate   At the end of the debate

Yes                                               80                                       84

No                                                80                                       83

Undecided                                  60                                       53

That will allow the Yes camp to represent it as a victory.

The programme was an amorphous unfocused mess.  That helps the Yes camp,  because what people will remember is not the arguments about particular issues but the bald assertions, victimhood and emotional outbursts.

What was almost entirely missing was discussion of the position of England. There was one speaker who called for an English Parliament, but this provoked little comment.  The position of Wales and Northern  Ireland received more attention.  The English were also treated differently in one other respect: there were  English speakers who live  in Scotland putting the independence case in a way which painted the Scots as victims of England. There were no Scots, Welsh or Northern  Irish speakers putting the English case.

This debate was almost certainly a taste of what the BBC (and probably the rest of the broadcast  media) will provide during the Referendum campaign.

Robert Henderson

Wanted – Nicholas Kenyon – £1,000 Reward for Information Leading to Prosecution and Conviction for Anti-English Hate Speech. Last Night of the Proms were "dangerously English" says ex-BBC boss Sir Nicholas Kenyon

Wanted – Nicholas Kenyon – £1,000 Reward for Information Leading to Prosecution and Conviction for Anti-English Hate Speech.

Last Night of the Proms were “dangerously English” says ex-BBC boss Sir Nicholas Kenyon.

I will pay a reward. To claim the Reward report this matter to the Police and get Kenyon prosecuted and Convicted for Anti-English “Hate Speech”!
Any Police Officer who refuses to act and claims that this isn’t a Racist remark should be reported to the Police Complaints! 

Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 says:
“A person who uses … abusive or insulting words …. is guilty of an offence if—
…. having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 says:
“A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person ….. distress, he— (a) uses …. abusive or insulting words ….. thereby causing that or another person … distress.”

The Crown Prosecution Service has an agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that the police will identify a file that meets the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report definition of a racist incident when they send it to the CPS to prosecute.
That definition is: 
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

So if you consider it so, it is! Insist upon your right to report it and their obligation to act on the report. You merely need to confirm that you feel that Anti-English hatred is likely to be stirred up (Sect. 18) and that you are caused distress (Sect. 4A) and that you see it as Racist.

Race is legally defined as as a “Protected Characteristic” under Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010. “Race” is used in a very wide sense of an individual’s race, colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins

 As the Daily Mail Reports:-
“It is the flag-waving finale to one of the cultural highlights of the nation’s calendar.
But according to its former director, patriotic fervour should be kept to a minimum at the Last Night of the Proms.
Sir Nicholas Kenyon, who ran the concert series for 11 years until 2007, claimed the event was ‘dangerously English’ until he brought in a host of international musicians to make it more ‘inclusive’.
The former BBC Radio 3 controller welcomed the fact this year’s concert will feature talent from overseas.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme yesterday: ‘The Last Night of the Proms, from being something dangerously English, has now become something totally inclusive.
‘We’ve taken it on and my successor Roger Wright has kept this going – the Proms in the Park in Hyde Park and around the country –  and this has developed absolutely marvellously. It has been a great Proms season.’
Among those performing in the finale at the Royal Albert Hall on Saturday are conductor Marin Alsop and opera singer Joyce DiDonato – both American.
Sir Nicholas was responsible for booking the concert’s first American conductor, Leonard Slatkin, in 2001.
The choice drew protests, particularly after Mr Slatkin attacked one of the traditional Last Night anthems – Rule, Britannia! – as ‘militaristic’ and ‘outdated’.
But Sir Nicholas, who is now managing director of London’s Barbican centre, defended his decision to open the concert to the world, saying: ‘It’s a celebration of the best of British, but now in an international context with musicians from all over the world – just like at the Barbican, where we try and welcome as international a range of musicians, artists and performers as possible…”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408607/Proms-dangerously-English-says-ex-BBC-boss-Sir-Nicholas-Kenyon.html#ixzz2djqQXC78

Government corruption – politicising the military?

The next Armed Forces Day is to be staged as a propaganda event and held in Scotland in 2014. In explanation the UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the “event would help underline the strength of the Union”!!!

The great English patriot and scholar Dr Samuel Johnson is reported as saying:-  

 

“(False) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
Whereas he said:-

 

“A (true) patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers everything to the common interest.”

 

I think it is all too very clear from the story below which catagory Philip Hammond MP falls into!

What do you think?

Here is the BBC News article:-

Stirling to host Armed Forces Day ahead of referendum

The national event for Armed Forces Day is to be held in Stirling next year ahead of the independence referendum.

UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the event would help underline the strength of the union.

Scotland’s veterans minister, Keith Brown, said he was not concerned with the UK government’s motivation for bringing the event to Scotland.

He said the Scottish government was just glad to be hosting the national day – held annually in June since 2009.

Over the past four years Armed Forces Day has been marked by hundreds of local events around the UK.

It is the second time the national event will be held in Scotland, after Edinburgh played host in 2011.

‘Testament to Stirling’ Mr Hammond said the events represented what was best about the UK.

“They remind us in a very graphic way that we are stronger together.

“Britain, the United Kingdom and Scotland benefit from the scale and the power and the capability of our armed forces.

“And I know that the people in Scotland have a deep affection for the armed forces.”

Mr Brown said there was “no patience” for bringing politics into such events.

“I’m just delighted that the event is returning to Scotland,” he said.

“I think that’s a testament both to Stirling and also to the success of Armed Forces Day in 2011.”

The event highlights the role Britain’s armed forces play in national life.

A member of the Royal family will be present to witness the parades, medal ceremonies and a military fly past.

Stirling Provost Mike Robbins said the city was “tremendously proud” to be chosen to host the celebrations.

“We can now look forward to a truly spectacular set of events next June,” he said.

The people of Scotland will vote next September on whether the country should leave the United Kingdom.

They will be asked the straight yes/no question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Here is a link to the original >>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23831879

The Archers – an everyday story of simple ever more politically correct folk

Robert Henderson

Listeners to the Archers have long remarked at the miraculous retention of an Irish accent by the bastard son of  Brian Aldridge and Siobhan Hathaway Ruairi Donovan after arriving in England at the age of 5 and living there ever since. He  has suddenly re-appeared speaking  a form of RP.  A very rare example of reality intruding into the modern Archers.

Elsewhere  the serial  has continued to be the story of ever more politically correct folk. The inhabitants of this village supposedly  set in the heart England  continue to be treated to more and more of the joy of diversity as the Ambridge demographic increasingly  resembles that of England’s  inner-cities.   The village cricket team is being coached by  Iftikar Shah,  who is of God-like visage and physique (natch)  and immediately captivates all the women and the two gays in the village who spend time swooning at the mere thought of him.  In addition the black ex-boyfriend of “dual heritage” Amy, the vicar’s daughter, is due to return at some point with a story which gains him redemption from his stereotype feckless black male situation at present.

The Albanian care worker Elona who is married to the English Darryl Makepeace. Darryl is a chippie who was “led astray” by bad influences who persuaded  him to steal  from his employer resulting in a jail sentence for receiving. He has been employed by the dodgy Matt Crawford (another disreputable English character with a prison record) who wants to pay him “off the books”. Sidesplittingly,  Elona,  insists he is placed under PAYE . A  storyline  using the same basic characters which would have been connected with  reality would be Elona having the criminal record and urging Darren to remain “off the books” so no tax was paid and benefits could be safely falsely claimed at the same time.

There are English additions to the cast, but unlike the pc approved characters, they are a white “problem family” of the type beloved of the British political class and the Daily Mail. An extra brood of Horrobins has arrived, living off benefits, coming from broken relationships and, horror of horrors, smoking.  One of the Horrobins, Tracy, is relentlessly pursuing Iftikah and another is charged with having set fire to the Brookfield barn in an arson attack to try to frighten David Archer out  of giving evidence in a criminal case involving a serious attack on his cousin Adam.   The only new  white character  who is not presented as a blot on the landscape is Rhys the barman who is Welsh .

But the biggest laugh for watchers of political correctness has come from the desire of Jamie Perk’s girlfriend to play cricket more than anything else in the world. This improbable female ambition  has resulted in the Ambridge youth team playing a local girl’s school team and losing (natch).

Gay storylines have begun to overwhelm the  programme.  Ambridge’s civil partnership couple Adam and Ian have reached a crisis in what they unblinkingly refer to as “our marriage”  , with the terminally self-regarding  Adam  threatening to move away from Ambridge after quarrelling with his step-father Brian Aldridge over how the farm is run.  After a quarrel Adam leaves the house and has what turns out to be a one-night gay stand with Pawel, one of his Polish seasonal pickers, a one-might stand  Adam regrets the next day . As things stand Pawel is hanging around like a bad smell with Adam terrified that he may spill the beans about their one-night stand.

But that is not the end of Ambridge’s politically correct  sexual liberation.  Harry, a young middleclass Englishman is a graduate who has somehow ended up as a milkman working for Mike Tucker,   heads off in a camper van for a few days at  the Edinburgh Fringe.  With him go Fallon, the daughter of the landlady of the Bull, his Scottish flatmate Jazzer and Kirsty  the barmaid from  Jaxx’s Bar.   Fallon is desperately hoping that she will be able to start a relationship with Harry during the trip.

Going through the Lake District the van breaks down and Harry takes them to the house of an old university  friend of his  named Karl  whom he has not seen for years. During the course of  the evening and the following night Harry is outed as having had a homosexual relationship with Karl before they broke because Harry is, guess what, bisexual,  while Karl is  simply homosexual and resented  Harry’s female friends.  (I am not making this up, honest!).    The four would-be  Edinburgh Fringers get into the van and begin driving off before Harry suddenly stops the van and announces that he is staying with Karl. He gives Fallon a note for Mike Tucker saying he will not returning.

The result of all these exciting new storylines is a loss of 400,000 listeners in short order as regular Archers turn off in disgust and dismay.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9445689/Archers-loses-400000-listeners-amid-controversy-over-sexed-up-storylines.html).

A Machiavellian explanation for this bizarre behaviour would be that the BBC is trying to surreptitiously destroy the programme.  In a way I wish I could believe that because it would at least be a rational act. Sadly, I think the producer of the Archers is doping this in the belief that if the Archers becomes a model of the politically correct fantasy world dreamt of by liberals it will become, in the favourite liberal word, relevant and much more successful.

What next? Well, here a  few  storylines  to fit the new Archers’ template which  the writers could tuck into:

– Peggy Archer outs herself as a lesbian who is hankering after the Albanian help Elona.

– Jack Woolley is revealed as Nazi war criminal Jakob Wolter,  a death camp guard at Belson  who  escaped to Britain at the end of the war and settled in Birmingham under an alias.

– The wicked  agribusiness fiend Brian Aldridge  is convicted  for the possession of  child pornography, loses everything and the Borchester Land mega-dairy plan dissolves into nothing.. Jennifer has to become a charwoman to stave off starvation.

– The beast of Ambridge turns out to be an alien from outer space intent on abducting  human specimens for  dissection.  Caroline and Oliver, the only  remaining  genuine  toffs  mysteriously  disappear.

– Helen Archer is found to be an android created by the aliens to study the local life. The android  was introduced to Ambridge  decades ago when it  was substituted for the newly born Helen.