Following on from a post yesterday about the themes chosen to be covered by Beyond Politics...
Did you watch the Victoria Derbyshire programme at all this week?
If you didn't, well alas, you missed discussions on a wide range of very similar subjects:
On Monday the main topics were bullying and sexual harassment in Parliament, gender identity and transitioning, and poverty in the UK.
On Tuesday the main topics were acid attacks, the Grenfell Bonfire Night effigy, food banks, and a plan to use tax breaks to try to get more people from a minority ethnic background working behind the scenes in the British film industry.
On Wednesday there was a gangs/violent crime special.
On Thursday the main topics were a mass shooting in California, warnings that children are being 'datafied' from birth, a dad who wants to get his daughter to sleep, and moves to help women get into politics.
And on today's edition the main topics were racism and sexism ('Afghan barrister sacked by a client for not being white'), problems with parole boards, heart attacks in pregnant women, equal pay and sexism, and the 'Strictly' row.
It's all worthy stuff, but perhaps so worthy that even Woman's Hour might appear like overly flippant light relief in contrast.
Next week - are black hamsters being discriminated against by pet shop owners?
ReplyDeleteThe BBC is changing isn't it?
Even a couple of years ago, things tended to be framed as "equality of opportunity". But now everything is "equality of outcome".
"Equalocome" as I choose to call it is really just part of a recipe for totalitarianism, along with PC Multiculturalism and Sharia compliance.
How would you get "equalocome" in the British Olympic team or the UK music charts except by ignoring performance quality and rigging of results? How would you get "equalocome" in the corner shop business sector without radical state intervention?
How will you get "equalocome" in the Royal College of Surgeons without endangering lives?
How will you get "equalocome" in the criminal justice system without endangering lives?
It is a sign that our public life is now becoming quite seriously deranged, infected by the Marxo-feminist excesses of academia, increasingly influenced by alien and harmful cultural norms (including outright corruption) and crippled by the craven capitulation of our political class to these negative forces.
Looks like we are going to have gone from Dark Ages to Renaissance to Enlightment and then straight back to the Dark Ages.
The serious question is surely whether black hamsters are being discriminated against by pet shop customers?
DeleteYou're right though. The BBC is now hurtling down the identity politics and the "equalocome" path.
In the 'culture wars', which they keep on mentioning, the BBC is affixing itself to one particular side.
I'm sure this can only harm them. Most of the British public just doesn't think like that.
Agreed Craig, most of the British public don't think like that.
ReplyDeleteBut - somewhat desperately - I ask: "Where is the MP, even just one, who reflects that majority view?"
There isn't one prepared to take on the whole shamology full on, Trump-style (even Trump-style calibrated to UK sensibility). If we had a Rod Liddle MP we might say we had one at least. But we don't. That's how bad things are.
I think we had a chance in 2015. If the British public could have freed itself from the past to protest-vote for UKIP into the 20s rather than letting them languish at 13% things could have been very different. But of course, that was why the globalist PC crowd went for the UKIP jugular. It was political character assassination writ large with the BBC to the fore. You can't debate honestly with the globalists or the Far Left - for them, everythying is ideology not rational analysis.
I am not saying UKIP were particularly impressive or fit to govern...but 20 or 30 UKIP MPs would have transformed political debate.