Tuesday 2 July 2019

Third half of the same Flaming June Open Thread

(H/T Rob Burley/Twitter.) Don't try this at home.

New Open thread for your observations about the BBC and any other relevant business that takes your fancy.  There will only be time for a 'forth half' if this one fills up before the end of the month.


  1. Sue, the Open Thread won't fill up very quickly without Monkey Brains' contributions - where is he?

    1. Craig and I were wondering the same thing. (Hope he's OK.)

    2. Seconded! Well, thirded, anyway!

  2. Sue, A couple of things have just occurred to me: firstly, you have been kidnapped by the far left and replaced by Diane Abbott - who else could speak of a third half? - and, secondly, the foam video is an allegory of the meteoric rise - and even more meteoric fall - in the fortunes of Rory Stewart!

    1. No I don’t think I’ve been kidnapped and I’m pretty sure Diane Abbott will never replace us. (We will not be replaced!)

      This fractions business is a bit tricky isn’t it?
      As it’s rather quiet round here there may not be a forth half after all. :-(

  3. Maybe he's on holiday?
    I've often wondered about Alan who used to post on Biased BBC.

    1. To do a reverse Spartacus - I am not Alan!

      I've never posted on Biased BBC. :)

      I have a vague recollection of "Alan" and might well have agreed with a lot of his (or her) stuff!

  4. On BBC Radio 2 this morning Zoe was as usual hyping up Glastonbury and outlining the coverage 'across the BBC'. She interviewed the Infrastructure Manager for the festival about the need to avoid single use plastic water bottles. He reassured us that everything was OK because Water Aid (the Charity) were organising drinking water supplies with refillable bottles etc.

    According to Wiki, Water Aid is: WaterAid is an international non-governmental organisation, focused on water, sanitation and hygiene. It was set up in 1981 as a response to the UN International Drinking Water decade...

    The Charity advertise relentlessly using images of Africa. Their website urges Donate Now:

    ...Just £2 a Month Could Give a Child
    Clean Drinking Water for Life...

    I bet the sympathetic donors didn't think their money would be used to finance any activities at Glastonbury. It sounds to me as if there are freebies for the Water Aid staff as well as the BBC - funded one way or another by Joe Public.

    1. That reminds me one of the big supermarket chains - I forget which one - is replacing plastic shopping bags with paper ones. Customers will still have to pay 10p but the money will be given to Children in Need run by the BBC. Not many shoppers will be aware of where the money actually goes, which I don't know either. It has emerged recently that it has been funding an advocate of sex change for children who has set up a 'charity'. While I've asked before why the BBC does these big fundraising programmes it just seems to go without question. The same thing with plastic bag charges which are enforced by law but the money goes to charity. I doubt many people know which ones or how that's decided.

    2. Latest accounts for 2018 show the BBC children in need charity are sat on £125 million of unused funds. Previous year it was £123 million.

    3. That's a lot of money. All the more reason to question what the BBC is doing in charity big business.

    4. Amending myself above:

      It's Boots the Chemist, not a supermarket, and customers will pay 5p or 10p for paper bags, with the profit going to Children in Need.

      So I've read in The Metro.

  5. Interesting.
    The BBC have been presenting the GATT position as fact in an effort to discredit Boris. They have reported extensively via Marr and the Carney interview.

    This letter from academics says their position is wrong.


    1. There's a good video from Jeff Taylor re GATT XXIV


  6. I hope Craig and Sue have responded to the HoC call for comments on BBC impartiality via Facebook.

    Only one day left to do so! See BBC Watch link on the right-hand side for details.

  7. On my hols in the Med despite Brexit! We are surrounded by foreigners but contrary to what the Guardian would have you believe I feel no urge to harm them. Am reading Yuval Noah Harari's latest...light holiday reading!

    1. Phew MB, with your last postings being about reform of the BBC Charter, I was worried someone might have 'had a word' with you. Enjoy your holiday.

    2. Glad to hear it MB! Was beginning to fear the Beeb's ever-growing bias had given you a Porterhouse Blue!
      Have a good holiday & don't forget to ignore the Chief Medical Officer's guidelines! I shudder to think what your temperatures are going to be like, though - much of France is threatened with temperatures of 40°C from the end of this week!

    3. Have a great holiday MB!

  8. A rare slip up by the BBC as reported by The Sun today.

    In response to a complaint about the leadership debate the BBC replied that Emily may not be to everyone’s taste.

    But it was deleted quickly and replaced with Emily did a good job.

    1. She may not be to a lot of people's since she was photographed on a train with her dog occupying the seat next to her.

      Still I can't imagine the BBC stating that her predecessor now berthed at PM isn't to everyone's taste. I'd love to know which numpty thought that was a proper statement to make.

  9. One of the more annoying aspects of BBC News is that their reporters and correspondents no longer just report, they give us analysis. This has crept in over these last 20 years or so and is now the preferred method of delivery for Adler, Sopel, Easton, Bowen and a myriad of others.

    The latest example of opinion masquerading as factual reporting is from Laura Kuenssberg,

    Nowadays I could pick just about any BBC report on a daily basis where anecdotes and hearsay are mixed with personal opinions and prejudices then presented as facts in a jocular and so-called amusing style.

    This one from Laura is typical and it’s this continual nonsense that give the BBC a bad name and solicits accusations of fake news.


  10. Last night saw the conclusion of the BBC2 Stephen Poliakoff drama Summer of Rockets. I watched it through to the end as Poliakoff usually brings an unrivalled standard of production and cinematography to BBC drama. It was a disappointment.

    In short, the baddies were a group of 'mad majors' from the army and corrupt politicians, who spent their time in the leather chairs of London Clubs, bemoaning the loss of British influence through Empire, and seeking to take over key strategic facilities 'to put the world to rights'. The BBC's checklist of foes was complete: White, aged, conservative, privileged etc.

    The goodies on the other hand were naturally a mixture of liberal-valued right-on characters from diverse backgrounds - combined with those who had seen the light and had rebelled against the right-wing influences that they had grown up with. The threat of a right-wing takeover was thwarted by? - yes, you've guessed it, a BBC comedy sketch about mad military types - broadcast to coincide with the launch of their takeover plot, written by a gay young struggling writer. Such is the power of comedy (according to the BBC).

    We have often said on this site that the BBC's PC Ideological rulebook pervades every piece of its output. I hope I haven't spoilt the ending for anyone, but it was easy to guess which way the plot was headed. Timothy Spall was good as one of the villains.

    1. There was a sub-plot in which a member of the privileged family had gone missing. He was found working in a vegan restaurant in Norfolk. I wonder how many of those there were in post WWII England. We can see pointers to the way the BBC narrative will unfold. Vegans are liberal left, PC and good. Meat eaters are right-wing and bad.

  11. I wasn't too exposed to the BBC while on my hols but I did come across this "Reality Check" article on the website which plumbed new depths of mediocrity - if such a thing is logically possible:


    The Reality Check is supposedly on "Brexit: Does the UK owe the EU £39bn?" The article completely fails to answer the question. All it does essentially is set out what May's Abject Surrender deal said we owe. Something we already knew about. The only slight surprise is the BBC admits the £39 billion could in reality be £44 billion (a dead cert then, knowing how the EU works).

    The piece does not consider that there might be a whole range of assets which we should have claimed as our due. We have contributed huge amounts of money to infrastructure projects in the EU which EU member states will continue to derive benefit from. The value of these assets could be determined and we could claim for them. Why May's Abject government failed to do so is one of the questions that it would be good to see a future Royal Commission address.

    It also does not acknowledge that Article 50 makes absolutely no reference to any financial liabilities applying to a departing Member State. In fact Article 50 makes clear we can leave without a Withdrawal Agreement. A fair reading of that is that we can leave without paying a penny given there is absolutely no reference to liabilities, further payments or anything else related to money.

    I am dubious about claims that the separate treaties we signed about paying into various projects are valid if we leave the EU. I bet if we put a good lawyer on to the text we could find 100 loopholes.

  12. I usually find the BBC coverage of the BBC Music Glastonbury festival smug and self satisfied, though the acts are usually OK. But to add to the self-congratulation the BBC are making this years BBC Music Glastonbury festival in to some sort of planet saving eco-fest (they've banned plastic you know) yet no-one is calling out the fact that this middle class festival of consumption is the transfer of a small city's filth and consumerism into the countryside for three days of enjoyment by the wealthy of the South East. I'm no killjoy, I've been to and enjoyed Glastonbury myself, but green it most certainly is not.

    1. I think it was Breitbart who pointed out that all the vegans at Glasto will be contributing to the maintenance of a working dairy farm (presumably there will be a lot of stress caused to the dairy herds from being moved from their usual grazing).

    2. That reminded me of a previous visit to Glastonbury, when there were concerns that fag ends discarded by visitors to the festival were poisoning the cows by contamination of the grass, the local authority made it a condition of their operating licence to sort it out, maybe they have..

    3. I am sure they wait until they have had a good fall of rain before they let the cows into the fields - there will be all sorts of potential toxins left behind!

  13. BBC Fake News working overtime tonight to hide the
    failures of the London Bridge terrorists' families to report what their family members were getting up to. The focus as always with the BBC is whether the
    "authorities" could have prevented the attacks (perhaps but the family could definitely have prevented them).

    This is tucked in half way through the article and isn't flagged by any headlines:

    "Summing up evidence earlier, the coroner had said the family of attacker Khuram Butt were not "convincing witnesses" in court.

    He said each of Butt's family members "accepted that they should now have done more at the time" and that they all "knew something of his extreme views". "


    1. Ha! The R4 Midnight News was exactly the same. Headline and report focussed on the outrage of the victims families that the coroner had not condemned MI5 for doing more to prevent the attacks.

      In one quick sentence in the middle of the report it was mentioned that the coroner had though criticised someone. Yes, the perpetrator's families for not informing on what they knew was an extremist. Islam was of course not mentioned in the whole report.

      This was in contrast to Barbara Plett later reporting on the sentencing of a far right extremist in the USA. He used his car as a weapon she noted (correctly). Yup, no bland "car attack" permitted for the far right.

  14. Wow! BBC Fake News really steaming tonight!

    What's one of the top stories on the BBC Paid-For Website? Well Stormzy of course.


    Note how this piece promotes the race-baiter David Lammy...the man who sees everything with his black shades on (which is why he can't see the Police patrolling behind him when he says "There are no police officers patrolling here"!).

    This is pure sub-Marxist pro-Labour, crime-excusing propaganda.

    I feel a need to coin a new word. The BBC keep on about "inequality" whereas I would like to refer to "overequality" where certain groups and persons get promoted by the BBC way beyond either (a) their qualifications or (b) their achievements or (c) their creative worth. Will anyone be singing along to or listening to "Too Big for Your Boots" in 50 years' time. Of course not. They'll still be listening to Johnny B Goode, My Way, I Heard It Through the Grapevine, Dock of the Bay, Hey Jude and many more - but this BBC-promoted K-Rap? No. And don't get me wrong. I like some rap - it can be v. creative. But not this Stormzy heap of silage. It will be gone in a couple of years like all of Dizzy Rascall's stuff.

    The BBC are a disgusting race-hate-enabler organisation now. Take this from the article:

    "Stormzy is the first black British solo artist to headline the Pyramid Stage"

    So in other words - translating the BBC's race baiting into reality - there have been loads of black artists on the Pyramid Stage who might not have been British, or might not have been headlining or might not have been solo artists...

    What's the BBC's problem? How many Chinese-British solo artists or British Jewish solo artists or Indian-British solo artists or Polish-British solo artists have appeared on the Pyramid Stage? Why aren't they worried about those figures.

    Silence the licence to stop the rot!

  15. BBC Fake News - this is literally NOT news...it is simply an opinion piece masquerading as news. Helier Cheung of BBC World gives her opinions on whether Putin is right to say "liberalism has become obsolete". I have my own views on whether Putty Man is right or wrong, and in what degree and with regard to what aspect of liberalism we are talking about. But the BBC don't invite me to give my opinions under their "News" banner. For some reason they think it's OK for Cheung to give her views but in a way that makes her views sound like objective news as opposed to being simply her opinions...


  16. This is really proof that the BBC is moving away from being a soggy left outfit and morphing into a hard left propaganda agency...


    Apparently, according to the BBC, it's a "slur" or "insult" to call Corbyn a Marxist! lol I'm not sure he'd agree! Has he ever denied being a Marxist?

    Also, the commentary says Marx's ideas were "reasonable".

    The video ends with the upbeat comment of a devotee suggesting that when it comes to Marxism "those ideas have held up".

    Marxists have been responsible for the intentional deaths of at least 50 million and probably as many as 100 million people over the last 100 years.

    Can you imagine the BBC adopting the same tone with the Far Right who are in the same totalitarian Death League?

  17. I too have noticed this worrying slide to the far left in the BBC. Marxism hasn’t “held up” as an Idea - Marx was wrong about almost everything. However, his ideas have persisted for a whole variety of largely negative reasons.

    Putin’s self-serving comments have to be taken with a large quantity of salt, but he is right in one sense. Liberal democracy, which was the the most successful form of government the world has ever seen, and something Marx never foresaw is under threat. The threat doesn’t come from “populism”, as Putin suggests, which is merely a reaction, but from the intolerance of the left. The BBC has become the obedient mouthpiece of this force.

  18. Biased article on the website about the Soros-funded subversive Central European University...


    The BBC shows no impartiality claiming "the university has had to move classes from Budapest to a new site in Vienna" - patently untrue. It could simply have complied with the new Hungarian laws on higher education. As far as I can make out I think the Hungarian government was concerned that the CEU was masquerading as a Hungarian University when most of its activities were taking place elsewhere - in the USA in fact. This seems a perfectly reasonable concern to me. I'd be concerned if an institution was presenting itself to the world as "The Central London University" when in fact most of its activity was taking place in Moscow.

    This is nothing to do with "academic freedom" it is everything to do with Billionaire Soros's determination to destroy the Orban government which has achieved landslide victories three times on the trot and delivered low immigration and high economic growth.

    We know the BBC cares nothing about real academic freedom (the right to hold academic opinions without fear of unpleasant and negative consequences).

    1. So, by the looks of it, the BBC's Sean Coughlan got that story after listening to ex-BBC Two presenter Michael Ignatieff speaking at a festival at the Uni of Buckingham.

      I see the BBC even manages to ratchet it up further. Michaei Ignatieff's "potentially sinister" becomes just 'Sinister' in the sub-headline.

    2. The headline ratchet! How the BBC love that!! :)


    I know many of you will be suffering Woarwy Withdrawal symptoms so here he is in all his expansive Channel 4 glory.


    Love the beginning where he does a combined gurning-Prince Charles impression!

    It's weird that someone so weird should think he's the normal one and Boris is the weird one.

    1. The beginning is a gold-mine for future 'snipped images' of Rory for me to post. I've just stored three new ones now, you'll be pleased to hear. He really could become a full-time Prince Charles impersonator.

    2. If you thought that was weird try this...


      Rory begins with a tale involving politicians and opium dens...hmmm...interesting! :)

  20. I have often wondered about the accuracy of weather stations...

    Here we have an explanation of why one weather station in France has a record temperature 1.5 degrees higher than other neighbouring stations...it's slap bang next to a motorway and sits on a metal and concrete fence, in an unscreened box it would appear!!


    So that's one station that is going to give misleading info about alleged climate change. I think there must be many more. Weather stations are often located at airports and we all know how they have expanded hugely over recent decades meaning they must have got hotter and hotter the year round with all that concrete, tarmac, cars, human activity and jet exhaust. I bet they too are giving misleading readings in that sense. And also many weather stations that were previously located in the countryside must now form part of urban heat islands - again giving a misleading impression about climate change.

    Yes, we should place more trust in satellite readings one might think but when you look into that there are numerous pitfalls there including manipulated statistical analysis and orbital drift. There is definitely observational bias there since most researchers are committed to the reality of climate change.

  21. Can anything beat this from the national broadcaster?

    1. What was it? It seems to have gone

    2. Sorry. It was a health campaign message, a BBC News tweet inviting 'anyone with a vagina' to go for a smear test. And another reference to people who know anyone with a vagina.
      It caused quite a reaction from various people including some journalists. How should I put it? I know: the BBC FAILED to address their message to the actual people known as women.

    3. Here's another one but this time it is addressed to the people known as men


    4. It seems to have survived here in a quote by Janice Turner - hope this comes up okay:

    5. Yep, the BBC believe that men can have vaginas and women can have penises. The fact that 99.9% of the population don't agree worries them not one jot.

    6. Perhaps there's a need for an addition to the 50 + (must be getting on for 60 now) forms of BBC bias. Insanity or Unreality?

  22. Oh dear, what has happened to the BBC's quality control procedures?

    Keiligh Baker has written one of those typical BBC articles about one of the London Bridge terrorists.
    You know - emphasising his petty criminality, his party going and his drug taking (almost making it sound like Western-style dissolution caused the terrorism), noting that his return to religion initially made him a better man but completely underplaying the ideological environment in which he grew up...


    Only problem is Keigligh refers to "Islamic extremism"! Yikes!!! Now one thing every BBC consumer knows is that Islam cannot be extreme. You can only have Islamist extremism.

    Such a shame that a glittering media career should be blighted at such a young age because some proof reader failed to spot the grievous error.

    Looking at Keilight's Twitter you have to say she is a real tryer. She tweeted about BBC's FBP of the moment (sorry, Dizzy, you were last decade):

    "Just crying my way through @stormzy’s set, don’t mind me #Glastonbury"

    And then - in case that wasn't enough:

    "Ahhhh sweet like chocolate! He’s absolutely smashing it, why do I feel like a proud mum?! #stormzy #glastonbury"

    Still not enough? Here she goes again - she even loves stabbing references:

    "#GLASTONMERKY #stormzy"


    Scrolling down her feed I think she really doesn't understand how things go at the modern BBC. For instance she retweeted about Amnesty International's dysfunctional workplace environment. Just because the BBC reports something doesn't mean you should retweet it Keighligh!

    Can't she be sent on some sort of training course?

  23. It's being reported that Merkel-approved British "Brexit" negotiator Olly Robbins - prime mover in the Abject Surrender exercise approved by Malevolent May - has resigned.

    The news is four hours old at least but nowhere to be seen on the BBC News website, because it is another sign that nothing is going their way at the moment.

    Yes, we know the BBC-Blair-Bercow-Grieve-Macron axis is plotting to do terrible violence to our constituion in order to stop a no deal Brexit...but the plain truth is that not even the BBC has confidence they can succeed.

    The new game plan may be to make sure Brexit is a failure one way or another.

  24. I don't normally agree with Corbyn but I do agree with his call for an inquiry into the leaked comments from the Civil Service about his health.

    Ever since Blair we have had a highly politicised Civil Service that has its own overt agenda. We see that in Gus O'Donnell's behaviour since leaving the highest office and explicitly endorsing an extreme Remainer position of blocking Brexit. Can anyone think he wasn't pursuing the Remain agenda as a Civil Servant as well? He's not the only one. A host of ex civil servants have lined in support of Grieve, Soubry and Blair.

    A neutral Civil Service is an essential requirement of a functioning democracy, unless you are going to adopt the American system of wholesale reappointments following elections.

    Corbyn is quite right to want an inquiry into these rats who think they can partake in politics while drawing a civil service salary - in complete contravention of the Civil Service code.

  25. Ash Sarkar klaxon ..doing a long item on Radio4 now about how the PM contest is down to white men who went to public school.

    1. Another Ash Sarkar klaxon... and then she moved into BBC 5 Live studio to talk to Adrian Chiles on 'Pienaar's Politics'.

    2. Ash Sarkar is a Far Left apologist for a movement that killed tens of millions of people. Why does the BBC think it appropriate to promote Far Left commentators from tiny websites but not their Far Right equivalents?

  26. Ash Sarkar is currently opining on Broadcasting House.
    She is pointing out (yawn) that there are too many privately educated, rich (WHITE!) people in power.

    When will this accurate view-point backlash on BBC staff ? When will they give up their seats on the gravy trains they ride for the sake of 'values' ?

    How does never sound ?
    It amuses me no end to watch Sarkar put the cat among the pigeons who thought they liked cats.

    1. This is BBC Racewar 4...and here is the Fake News...

  27. Did anyone hear a message on Radio 4 about the over-75 licence fee and did I hear this right?

    Says some words about the change and pension credit, continuing with [if I heard and remember right]'...will still get a free licence, which the BBC will pay for'.

    Eh, what? If it's free then how can...and oh, who would the BBC pay? Itself?

    And beyond the wording contradiction, what is the actual point of tacking on 'which the BBC will pay for'? A political point by any chance? A martyring virtuous point?

    Maybe I didn't catch it right.

    1. Good spot! I'll transcribe it and post it.

  28. The BBC has a new exciting whee...er...programme and project to top up the Children in Need bank account

    Interesting to see it's classified as Entertainment.

    1. They are virtue signallers but maybe not so stupid, it will almost certainly guarantee the artist a free prime time spot on BBC CIN to sell their wares.

      The charity itself hardly needs the money. It has more than it knows what to do with and bankrolls some pretty dodgy projects amongst the few worthy ones.

  29. The blurb for Countryfile tonight demonstrates it is nothing more than propaganda for politically motivated BBC campaigns. Nothing to do with farming and the countryside but everything to do with social campaigning.

    Machynlleth is the first town in Wales to declare a climate emergency. Anita pays a visit to see how the local community is coming together to do its bit in the fight against a warming planet. She stops off at the repair café where everything from bikes to old umbrellas is given a new lease of life.
    She picks her own veg at various help-yourself plots around the town and heads to the Centre for Alternative Technology where she cooks up a feast with the veg she’s picked in a big solar-powered oven. Also at the Centre she checks out the latest designs in solar heating and finds out that everything from cherry stones to bracken can be used to insulate our homes.

    1. Bracken is, of course, absolutely ideal - not as if it's in the least bit inflammable, is it?

  30. I heard Nick Robinson on what I presume was Radio 4's Feedback programme (it's so unlike the old Feedback programme - it's now just one long advert promoting BBC's programming and general, unassailable virtue).

    Robinson was waxing lyrical about the inquity of extreme political language - calling politicians traitors and so on. He pleaded in support of this his own family history - his mother having fled totalitarian Germany and then having had to flee the Chinese Communist dictatorship from her place of refuge in Shanghai.

    He sounded very passionate about this. I've never heard him get exercised about people on the right getting called "fascists" for no reason at all. But let's leave that to one side...

    I just wonder how he feels about the BBC promoting Far Left totalitarianism through soft focus videos on Marxism and inviting on Ash Sarkar from the miniscule Novara Media to every news programme going...

  31. The EU leaders are meeting to decide replacements for Druncker, Tusk and two other senior jobs by nominating preferred candidates.

    The are no elections, just a carve up by the Merkel and Macron cabal with some convoluted Spitzenkandidat formula as a pretence for democracy.

    This banana republic method for appointments in place of proper democratic elections was not even mentioned by Katya Adler in her report tonight.

    The BBC have much to say about the Conservative leadership elections by rich old white men but nothing about the tinpot dictators at the EU.

    1. Adler continues to report as though the EU have been clever in negotiations...how can that be? They are faced with the very real prospect of a No Deal exit by the UK. Is that a success?

      If the EU had not played stupid games over the non-existent issue of a hard border in Northern Ireland they could have got a deal given May's desperation to surernder to them. Instead they stupidly overplayed their hand.

      Boris seems to understand he cannot seek a further extension (something Adler claims he will do) because they will simply mean political disaster, possibly extinction, for the Conservative Party.

      Adler "EU Press Release" reporting is a scandal.

  32. I watched (on Sky) today's crucial Cricket World Cup game between England and India. It was an exciting high-scoring game with a tense finish. England won by 31 runs.

    In the Newsbeat section of the BBC News website was this:


    ...'England v India at the Cricket World Cup: A clash of cultures'...

    It's worth reading the article because it shows that cricket is being politicised by the BBC in much the same way as art (Will Gomphertz's views on art 'that art and politics are not strange bedfellows' were discussed recently). It was last year that the BBC would have had us believe that a generation of Asian cricketers had been brought up through 'Street Cricket'. This was somewhat disproved when it emerged that Moeen Ali had come up through the schools and county cricketing establishment proving that if you're good enough you can reach the top whatever your background.

    Here are a few extracts:

    ... A story of 'rags to riches'
    Cricket in England is seen as a sport for the 'elite' - with 43% of men playing international cricket for England going to private school, according to a report by the Sutton Trust and Social Mobility Commission.

    "With the English players, I've not heard of many working-class stories, it's more of a selective group that I can't identify with," says 23-year-old Sagar Ghelani, an English-born India fan.

    "But for Indian cricketers, I've heard the stories of rags to riches, where they've come up in poverty and had to toil."

    Sagar finds the stories of Indian cricket stars like Sachin Tendulkar and MS Dhoni "inspiring"....

    ...The hate crime effect:
    For many older immigrants, facing racism and discrimination when they first arrived in England was a big reason for not supporting the team.

    But is that the case for the next generation?

    Not for 23-year-old Sia Najumi, who is an Afghanistan fan.

    "I wouldn't say my support stems from the consequences of hate crime. It's my parents' country and I'm proud they've qualified, which is why I support them."

    Sia does say however that the reported rise in hate crime in the last five years has "driven" her closer to her Afghan culture and community - including the team.

    "It does feel like there's this invisible wall and an ongoing division between my culture and the English community."

    The latest statistics from the government show the number of hate crimes recorded by the police has increased by 123% since 2012/13, with 94,098 offences in 2017/18.

    Pavan says that while hate crime hasn't affected his support, "the current political atmosphere is probably not going to encourage" the future generation of British Asians to support England...

    The BBC have an uneasy relationship with cricket because of its male, white English privileged identity. As with art, if it can be used as a weapon, then this type of venomous snide attack on traditional English values will continue.

    1. Sickening, indeed.

      The BBC also have an uneasy relationship with cricket because of Tebbit's "cricket test" (from about 25 years ago now). The test - "which team do you support?" - was never something I particularly agreed with (all I want is for all citizens to support our core values, speak our established language(s) and not seek to supplant our democracy with some alien import - I'm not expecting them to abandon strong traditions).

      I think this article is essentially seeking to answer why immigrants (now citizens of the UK), even several generations down (we are probably into the fourth generation in some northern cities) still don't support England, preferring rather to support their "home" countries.

      So the BBC cannot bring itself to say, honestly, "because most immigrant communities, in the UK continue, especially those from South Asia, identify with their home countries over the UK or its constituent countries".

      Instead the BBC trot out explanations that fit their agenda: "If it wasn't for racism and hate crime, they would identify with England"..."If it wasn't for cricket being identified with privilage, they would identify with England"..."If it wasn't for the current political atmosphere [a euphemism the BBC expects us to understand refers to Brexit], they would identify with England."

      The one thing they can't bring themselves to say, is "They will never identify with England."

      The problem for the BBC is that they believe that you can have a country that celebrates wide cultural diversity, allows continuing immigration of over half a million per year, agrees on PC values across the board, achieves equality of outcome, has a strong unified polity and has a citizenry that is loyal to the UK (although of course the BBC wants eventually to turn it from a kingdom to a republic).

      Yes, the BBC really can believe 7 impossible things before breakfast...

      The problem with South Asian fans' intense enthusiasm for their home countries, for the BBC, is that it calls into question the viability of its overall "Impossible Dream".

      There are much more important tests than the "cricket test" e.g.

      1. The Sharia test...do you want ultimately to replace UK law with Sharia law?

      2. The Jihadi test...do you condemn cruel Jihadi attacks throughout the world.

      3. The Israel test...do you want to wipe Israel, a fellow UN member state, off the map?

      4. The book test...do you want to see certain books burned because they offend you and do you want to see their writers harmed in some way?

  33. I read this in the programme notes for today's Start the Week:

    'The great story-teller Stephen Fry breathes fresh life into the Greek myths as he prepares to embark on his first UK tour for forty years.'

    Are there two Stephen Frys? I know there's one the BBC loves to fawn over and if it was that one, great storyteller is the last thing I'd think of and I'd take care to avoid any programme he's in. As it happens, I missed Start the Week.

  34. Also that Start the Week notes included an item of 'toxic masculinity' - Peer Gynt no less but according to David Hare.

    Tonight's Analysis is 'Understanding the risks of terrorism' - so the T word is not banned after all? But what would the BBC do without the concepts and words of 'race' 'hate'? They've managed to squeeze it in here as well: 'In a world of online radicalisation and increasing hate crime...' Not just hate but 'increasing' and 'crime', ramping it up. Bingo.

  35. Nice to see Craig's words getting a wider airing:


  36. My holiday reading was Yuval Noah Harari's latest: "21 Lessons for the 21st Century". His earlier books - "Sapiens" and "Homo Deus" - were focussed on the past and the future, respectively. This latest is rooted much more in the present and asks how we are going to respond to both our past and the challenges of the future which are now pressing down on us.

    Harari is probably our best comtemporary meditator on the big societal issues. He's certainly the most entertaining.

    He touches on all the sorts of issues that wash up here via the BBC.

    But this book underlines for me there are two Hararis fighting it out in his one mind: there's the Israeli Harari (tough and unsentimental) and there's the New York Times Harari (schmaltzy and sympathetic to PC globalism).

    I'll post below some thoughts on 21 Reasons.

    1. I had to smile at one of Harari's little bits of advice: never trust anyone who offers you a free news service...they are trying to twist your mind. So that's the BBC told then! :)

    2. Amongst many other issues, Harari discusses immigration. He says there are three main terms to the debate about immigration:

      1. The host country allows the immigrants in.

      2. In return immigrants must embrace some of the core norms of the society, even if that means giving up some of their own.

      3. If the immigrants assimilate to a sufficient degree they become full and equal members of the society.

      This did make me smile as well...

      We in the UK have never had any real, sustained debate about no. 1 - who we let in.
      There have been occasional crises but no fundamental consideration of what our migration policy is.

      No. 2 has been broached now and again and of course we have ended up with a farcical "entry exam" which proves nothing. But it is very difficult for our political leaders to raise this subject, as it invites media abuse from organisations like the BBC.

      As for no. 3, assimilation has been a forbidden word in British political discourse for at least 40 years! The BBC have been instrumental in altering the terms of the debate. The reality is we have required zero assimilation, not even an obligation to become reasonably proficient in our main language, English. The results of that misguided anti-asasimilation policy are all around us and make for a fractured and incoherent society.

      Harari here shows a combination of his Israeli background, which has a very tough and focussed migration policy, combined with a large dose of naivety.

      Once mass immigration gets a grip on a country it's very difficult to change course - something Harari doesn't seem to understand. Mass immigration builds its own constituency for more migration (especially chain migration from poorer countries).

      Harari makes some naive comments about there being no problem with the EU - with its population of 500 million absorbing 1 million.

      The reality is the 1 million will soon become 10 million within 20 years through chain migration (bringing over fake "dependents" and potential spouses) plus a much higher birth rate (given the migrants are mostly in the 20-30 year range). And of course the 1 million is a figue for one year. The UK alone has migration of over 500,000 per annum and about half are from outside Europe.

    3. Politicians and the media have always tried to confuse us with absolute numbers, rates of change and even rates of rates of change and immigration is no exception.

      I notice that people used to say that Muslims were 2% of the UK population and now 55 is being quoted. What I do know is that when I was at secondary school we briefly mentioned Islam in RE, Buddhism doing even better. Now the school is 99%+ Muslim.
      I don't see much assimilation when it comes to Cricket, 29 years on and the 'cricket test' is still a big fail.

    4. 55=5% (slow shifting!)

    5. Yes, Anon, I noticed that sudden uptick to 5% in recent months.

      The BBC have also tried to confuse us about population growth, population growth having fallen from 500,000 to 400,000. 400K is still an astonishingly high figure for an advanced, modern society. The BBC managed to make it sound like population growth had stopped, through cynical use of words like "stall".

  37. The "impartial, free and fair" chief US correspondent of the BBC (and former Labour Party apparatchik) Jon Sopel seems to ignore Fran Unsworth's instructions about the importance of not undermining the expected impartiality of a BBC reporter through biased retweeting...


    Yep, he really hates the Trumps doesn't he?

  38. I read the puff piece about Katya Adler in the Sunday Times...it is absolutely clear, if there was really any doubt about it, that she is simply an EU spokesperson. She can't bring herself to say anything negative about the EU and its politicians whereas she is only too happy to slag off the UK and UK politicians. She maintains the pretence that the EU doesn't interfere in UK politics whereas it's clear that through its meetings and contacts with Blair and assorted Remainiacs it has been trying to influence political events in the UK all along.

    Adler is "the Voice of Brussels" for sure.

  39. I see that Jon Sopel - who made such a fuss about a BBC cameraman getting some pushback from a guy in MAGA hat when he barged into him - is censoring the story of a very vicious attack on a conservative reporter by Far Left Antifa thugs in Portland (where the rule of law is an overtly political exercise). The victim was found to have a brain-bleed when hospitalised. There's nothing about this on the BBC's US page.


  40. Expect the howls of protest from the BBC to get louder as Brexit is at last delivered. We have Emma Barnett tweeting that 'No Deal is 'willy waving' by the Tories', and Gary Lineker describing the protest by MEPs as 'embarrassingly childish'.

    The BBC and their outspoken stars are whistling in the wind. The 160,000 Conservative Party members have already been alienated by the BBC. By charging the over 75s for their licence, the BBC will have ratcheted up the resolve of what are probably a silent sector of the population who voted with the majority to Leave. It's satisfying to see the BBC powerless. Of course for them, Jeremy Hunt would be the preferred outcome as PM - anyone but Boris. I suspect they might be disappointed.

    1. Talking of Lineker, I heard he's still top of the BBC's salary list. Well, you don't get to keep that spot by not being prominently anti-Brexit!

      Indeed this morning's Today had several features from Amol carefully boxing today's BBC Salary lists into a "gender gap closing" overton window.

    2. I am outraged at that tweet by Emma Barnett you mentioned Arthur. She's paid by us to be impartial in line with the BBC's Charter undertakings - which are non-negotiable. Fran Unsworth sent out a reminder about how vital it is for BBC Presenters to maintain impartiality while on Twitter (how many are achieving impartiality while broadcasting is another matter).

      So what does Egregious Emma do? Comes out with this clear approval of Remainiac Rachel Sylvester's biased anti-Brexit piece. And to add to the injury she throws in some anti-male prejudice as well (is Stella Creasy "womb waving" when she goes on about female MPs' maternity leave? - can you imagine the fuss is a BBC presenter said she was?).

      Whenever we hear Barnett interviewing anyone regarding Brexit we know now, if we didn't already, that she is an extreme Remainiac trying to stop Brexit, just like Rachel Sylvester.

    3. Yep, Pointless Amol using the old Deflection trick...but the BBC never explain how this gender gap has arisen. Either it has arisen because of horrendous sexism among senior BBC managers or it has nothing to do with sexism. If it has nothing to do with sexism the gap must reflect other factors, presumably non-discriminatory factors. The BBC don't explain either why they are making up the gap or how.

      They must think we are all idiots. I guess if 12 million tune into to watch football of Sunday League quality tonight then, yes, a large proportion of us must be.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.