Saturday 23 November 2019

Off its rocker

Can anyone help explain why I feel compelled to watch these TV debates? It must be something to do with morbid curiosity; I wish I could break the habit. I’m not going to re-watch the latest torture vehicle, but I’ll take the words of Sarah Vine, Allison Pearson, Kate Hoey and Iain Dale even if his name does contain an extra i. (Or do we pronounce it Ee-ay-an) Fiona Bruce was appallingly biased. The audience was Momentum-heavy.

Anyway, the way the media encourages and inflames the baying mob has a chilling effect on free speech. Anyone in public life now needs to approach their every utterance with extreme caution. A society that dictates that lies must be accepted as truth and a man only has to say he’s a woman to make it so, albeit perhaps a ‘woman with a penis’, leaves many of us wondering if we’re alone in noticing that “the king is in the altogether.” 

Of course the millennium generation or whatever they’re called, the ones who run things, won’t even know what I’m referring to - which reminds me of the BBC expert wheeled in to opine on two election videos ( the one featuring “Beattie” and the slick Momentum video that got into trouble for stealing content from Coca Cola.) He said “I had to Google the character (Beattie) as well as the actress”, (Maureen Lipman) whereupon it dawned on me that these woke young pundits have no understanding of even relatively recent popular culture, which almost explains why someone (other than Anne Marie Morris) - I forget who - got into trouble for “using the’n’ word”. It transpired that this terrible word occurred within the out-of-date idiom meaning "some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed—something suspicious or wrong." This bonkers scenario is concomitant with the new rules concerning trans issues, whereby everyone has to go along with the Orwellian type convention that lies are truth, and if we transgress we’re toast, remorselessly gobbled up by the mob.

Boris has a choice. 1) Apologise for his past use of the terms ‘Watermelon Smiles, Picaninny, a new one on me “Tank-top Bum-boy’ and of course ‘letterbox and bank robber’, or 2) he digs in deeper and sheepishly defends these terms by  providing context, none of which will be listened to let alone understood by the history-resistant mob.

Boris’s natural ability to express himself verbally in a colourful and cartoonesque way is part of his charm. Maybe it is his charm. 

How can he explain that those ill-fated watermelon picanninies were part of his cynical and satirical response to being subjected to some crude propagandistic displays laid on by the organisers of a Commonwealth tour as described here about three years ago, by Rod Liddle. 
I got Boris Johnson into trouble once, without meaning to. The two of us had been driven hither and thither across Uganda by Unicef in the back of an expensive Mercedes 4×4 to gaze at the fatuous projects they had delivered for the benighted natives. We had been chosen for the trip because we were perceived, rightly, to be unconvinced by the efficacy of some western foreign aid programmes and even less convinced — in my case, at least — by the UN. 
Our chaperones were two humourless Scandinavian women who ferried us both from one remote village to the next: ‘Look, here we have built a women’s drop-in centre,’ one of them would remark proudly of a breezeblock edifice in some pitiful settle-ment which primarily needed a road, a school, some industry etc. But the Unicef women had an agenda and the Ugandans had bloody well better get on board with it. At each village the natives would be rounded up to meet us and explain how exceptionally grateful they were. 
Shortly before we arrived at every stop, the Scandi harridans would smear thick layers of insulating cream on themselves, and then don rubber gloves and face masks. They urged us to do the same — there is bilharzia here, they said, and perhaps worse — but we declined. It seemed staggeringly rude. And so that is how these matrons greeted the natives each time — stepping out of an air-conditioned limo which cost the GDP of their entire country and shaking hands encased in rubber gloves because the black people are all diseased. And then lecturing them about women’s rights. 
It eclipsed satire. This seemed to me racist, patronising and as fine a case of cultural neo-imperialism as you could ever wish to find. After we left one settlement and climbed back in our limo, Boris remarked, with acid on his tongue: ‘And so on to the next bunch of grinning piccaninnies.’ It was one of the most apposite statements I have ever heard; anti-racist in its intent, mocking the attitudes of the Unicef staffers and the purpose of this charade. 

The left-wing press couldn’t care less. They want to see Boris as a racist and that’s the way they’ll see him. If they say it’s racist, then so it is.

As for the letterbox thing. Everyone will by now have seen the talking letterbox on QT. The one who hijacked the topic of antisemitism to rant at will, unimpeded by madam chairperson. This was one of those ‘you couldn’t make it up’ moments, but even worse was the way the panel and the audience took her side. Look at Chuka Umunna! What a creep!

 Why didn’t anyone dare to ask the question “is this ridiculous garb in any way normal?” and “How can this letterbox be an English teacher?”  or “Has this country gone completely off its rocker”
No-one would dare. The truth has departed. 


  1. English teacher? Like the recent Politics Show's mad Holly?

    There seem a lot of them about. On the BBC. Often.

    Lucky kids.

    Interestingly one of the PPCs here is an ex-schoolteacher. Labour, of course. She has been around for donkey's. Not a peep for several years and now she is everywhere, with her four loyal activists and their kids... leafleting. I have not seen one yet. But Facebook... she owns it. Maybe Sacha Baron Cohen should be told. "First they cam for my snarky tweet" and all that...

    To be fair, the Limp is matching her in every way.

    If ever they turn up I might ask about any potential conflict of interest given both their parties have guaranteed the BBC long life and prosperity no matter what happens to Vulcan.

    In fact I might do it... at... the hustings! Yes, our little town is to be blessed with one. I may even have had a hand in it, by using social media reply functions to point out on media and political posts that what politicians come out with and ideological media support... IS WORTH LESS THAN ZERO.

    I hope this does not spoil the leafleting. It seems to have harshed the local MSM's mellow as someone other than them is running the hustings, and they seem in a snit. Currently dissing the evils of social media left, left and left of centre.

    I know this because I met another 'Local Democracy reporter' for my hood, funded by, yes, the BBC.

    And his county paper makes QT seem the soul of integrity.

    Hence my placing too much faith in the hustings event.

    I notice that written questions have to be submitted by this weekend, for next Friday. Hence I popped a few questions to the organisers first:

    May I ask:

    1) Who is pre-vetting the questions?
    2) Who poses them?
    3) Who chairs/mods possible follow-up?
    4) Will all questions be published?
    5) Will more than one question be permitted?
    6) Is the same question allowed to be posed for all candidates?
    7) When will one know if one’s question is to be asked?

    Because the truth may be out there, but when someone controls the modding and/or the edit, it can easily be changed and/or lost.

    I may just pop my questions online too.

  2. No sooner do I hit 'post' than...

    It's like the BBC is almost actively assisting its own demise.

  3. Just for linkage completeness, here is the utterly normal, impartial educator and informer of our kids they had on....

    (Sorry... hyperactivating that is a trauma too much to bear)

  4. In an empire of lies, it's the crazy guy who's telling the truth. Which explains Trump.

    'Boris has a choice'. I disagree. There's nothing he could say that would assuage the BBC mob. His only defence would be some form of attack. The only question is, is he crazy enough to try?

  5. I didn't know that was where the 'grinning piccaninnies' accusation story came from. I should have known, or found out. But I didn't.

    It's a great line - a script writer would be proud of that line if it was attributed to a character and filmed in the correct context.


    Which leads me to ask... what the effington feck is going on in journalism ?

  6. There really needs to be a serious inquiry into how that QT audience was selected.

    Whether we like it or not those QT "debates" are pretty influential.

    The BBC (and the rest of the UK MSM) seem to be using the QT debate to throw Jo Swinson off the bus and go full out for a Labour-SNP coalition. It's a bit like 2017 all over again (initially the BBC were pushing the Lib Dems heavily - once they tanked in the polls, they were jettisoned with no ceremony).

    I am encouraged by the polls that the public seem way more insightful than our media - being able to sniff out BS, consorting with the nation's enemies, unhealthy indulging of anti-semitism, divisive identity politics, incompetence and so on...

  7. There may have been a time when QT had a useful purpose, although I can’ remember when that might have been, but it is now little more than a bear pit. The debate, such as it is, rarely goes beyond the level of soundbites and the audience is stuffed with activists and plants from political parties. There is no possibility of anyone watching actually being informed or gaining any understanding of an issue. The only reason to watch QT today is as some form of grotesque entertainment - if that’s the kind of thing you are partial to. A bit like the wresting that was put out for the masses on Saturday afternoons. The BBC informs us that QT is one of their ”flagship” programmes.


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