Sunday, November 24, 2013

Immigration and Europe intertwined

WHEN IT COMES to the three main parties they hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to immigration. As far as the British public are concerned, little the politicians say on the subject, amounts to little more than rhetoric. Immigration is the subject politicians wish would simply go away. In the past whenever this subject was broached, the main parties simply loaded their sling-shot with racism and hurled it at those with the courage to speak out. Thus, the subject was driven underground; and it took real courage for someone to draw the politicians attention to what was occurring to the indigenous culture of these isles.
            
            The BNP was used to censor the  real concerns of the British people by the politicians. These publicity hungry fascists became the politicians favourite tool for stifling debate. Ordinary people were forced to keep their tongues still when immigration was mentioned, for fear of being associated with the likes of Nick Griffin's mob. So immigration continued to flourish; and the opposition fell silent.
            
            Until that is 2001, when the web site Migration Watch was founded by Sir Andrew Green. At first Sir Andrew  was besmirched by the liberal elite, and his thoroughly researched web site was, by inference, seen to be in sympathy with the BNP[1] by the politicians. But now Migration Watch is the primary and trusted source for information on immigration; and if anyone (and they are few and far between) has earned his place in the House of Lords, then Sir Andrew Green certainly has.

THE BRITISH PEOPLE have always been ahead of the politicians when it came to immigration; but they were not only never listened to; but were assailed by the wretched hate crime if they dared to speak out. The British people have always supported capital punishment, but they were never listened to. Only the polls that favour the liberal agenda are taken seriously by whatever government is in power.
            
             But now we have another poll taken by the Left's  bĂȘttenuor , the Daily Mail, that reflects the true opinion of the British people regarding immigration. It makes unhappy reading for the three main parties, and so they will shrug their shoulders complacently once more, and take comfort in the fact that it is the Daily Mail that produces the poll, as if its hated and 'demonic' editor Paul Dacre personally conducted it. Entitled Enough is Enough, the Mail's survey of public opinion's findings is potent.
            
             The poll findings comprises a series of questions. Q1 asks: on January 1st 2014, immigration controls on Romania and Bulgaria expire, allowing free entry to these nations to work freely in the UK.
            
             Should we  continue to restrict such numbers, 82%, were in favour. Abandon restrictions 10%, and the don't knows 8%. Q2  asks that under EU rules Britain could face legal action and fines if restrictions are not lifted. Should the government ignore this threat? Yes 64%; no 19% ; and the don't knows17%.
            
            Q3 asks. Who should have the final say over who should be allowed into Britain? The UK government 80%; the EU 5%; other 5% (whoever the other are).
            
            Q4asks. Since1997,immigration has added 2.5 million to the population. Has the public been adequately consulted about this change? Yes 9%; no 79%, and the don't know 12%.
            
            Q5 asks. Net Migration - the difference between the number of people arriving and leaving- added 176,000 to the population last year. Is this… Too many 80%; too few 4% About right 16%.
            
            Q6 asks. Ex Home Secretary Jack Straw said opening UK boarders to Eastern Europe in 2004 was a 'spectacular mistake'. Do you… Agree 66%. Disagree 18%. Neither 2%,and don't know 4%.
            
             Q7 asks. Since 2004 has the impact of immigration been good for British society as a whole? Yes 19%. No 64%. Don't know 17%.
            
              Q8 asks. Has immigration changed your local community. For better 11%: for worse 4%. No change 29%, and not sure 18%.      
            
              Q9 asks. Is immigration putting too much on public services such as schools, hospitals and housing? Yes 85%; no 10%; and don't know 4%.
            
              Q10 asks. Has recent migration effected the ability of young Britons to find a job? Yes 76%; no 14%, and don't know 10%
            
              Q11asks. Which party do you trust most on immigration? Ukip 22%; Labour 17%; Tory 11% ; Lib Dem 4%; another 3%. None of the above 44%.
            
             This poll is pretty resounding. The vast majority of the British people believe, rightly, that immigration has caused a demographic tsunami; which is resulting in dire consequences for our public sector, and undermining the people's tolerance of immigration.
           
             If a popular fascist party were to emerge on the back of flooding the country with immigrants, then it will be the liberal elite that rule the three main parties, who would be to blame. For they have tested the British publics patience beyond endurance; and they will no longer be fobbed of by political gestures which amount to very little.
            
             The three main parties should be thankful that Ukip has come along and become the safety valve for the people's frustration and resentment; for without Ukip, groups such as the EDL and the BNP would be the sole repositories for the people's anger on immigration.
            
             Ukip are not racists. I would not have anything to do with them if they were. What Ukip articulate are the concerns, not only of the white indigenous population, but first generation Afro-Caribbean's, on the two most important issues to them - Europe and immigration, which are linked by the betrayal of three generations of politicians who signed every piece of paper put before them by Europe without any consultation with their people.

IF YOU SEE OUR (MULTI) CULTURE in terms of the greatest motorway pileup your imagination can conceive - so vast, in fact, that it would be too costly and impractical to clear away. If you can conceive of that, then you can begin to understand the analogy with the uncontrolled capacious immigration, that Tony Blair put in train 2004; a process that has been followed up ever since.
            
             This country is on the brink. Its people have been ill served by their political leaders (both nationally and locally) on the issues that for decades[2] have troubled them. Neither Europe or immigration has had much appeal to the British people. As far as Europe was concerned the people were prepared to sign up to a trading relationship known as the Common Market in the 1970s - but not to the forfeiture of the nation state and national sovereignty.
            
             In fact the leap from a Common Market to a Federal Europe has come about by this country's politicians, from all the main parties, by press-ganging their citizens into it without any kind of say.
            
             Europe and immigration are intertwined because of Europe's open boarders signed up to prematurely by Tony Blair. The two issues cannot be separated as we shall see next January when Bulgaria and Romania are allowed free access to Europe.

BUT IMMIGRATION also covers nations not only from within, but from without Europe. We have 250,000 Somalian's living among us, some of whom have offered their services to the civil war in Syria, and if they survive will return home as battle hardened jihadists. We also have 2.5 million Pakistani Muslims living among us, many of whom have trekked to Afghanistan to receive training in the war against the West; and if just five percent of the 2.5 million Pakistani population living among us were radicalised; this would mean that we would have 125,000 Islamists living in the UK: and if five percent of this number became hardened jihadists willing to kill our citizens; it would mean that 6,250 outraged Muslims would be living among us protected inadvertently by the Muslim community.
            
             So whether immigration emerges from Europe or from without (and let us not forget the estimated 500,000 illegals), the British people can see all to clearly the dangers ahead. Dangers which the politicians have chosen to ignore for fear of the black spot of racism.
            
             Our politicians have brought us to this sorry mess; a mess which, like the pileup mentioned above; has no workable solution available to resolve it… we may be entering a new Dark Age in English history; one troubled by new antagonism.
                       
           
             
           
           
           


           
           



[1] Such is the despair of the liberal elite that they were driven to tarnish Sir Andrew's name by associating it with the wretched BNP
[2] Ever since Powell in the 1960's

Friday, November 22, 2013

The bank that liked to say yes to Labour

"I think that the thing the British people want most of all is banks which reflect their values - responsibility, integrity, reward linked to effort... You [the Co-op] have always understood that ethics of responsibility, co-operation and stewardship must be at the heart of what we do." - Ed Milliband[1]
ETHICAL BANKING  is seen, somewhat cynically, as a contradiction in terms by the Left. Unless such a bank is run, not by bankers, but by ordinary everyday people, who may know little about banking, but knew how such an institution should operate according to ethical principles; and at the Co-operative Bank, ethical standards were to apply. Charities such as Oxfam traded with them; as no doubt did  certain other types like the Guardianista, environmentalists, teachers, and much of the public sector, as well as the Labour and Lib Dem party supporters and activists - while the Labour Party itself took more out than it ever put in, via multi million pound soft loans.
            
            The Co-operative bank sniffley turned up its nose to hundreds of millions of pounds of business each year, in order to keep its ethical label well polished - for there would be no city slickers from London's banking centre sitting on the Co-op's board - oh no. Only the everyday modern tinker tailor type from professions like those found in teaching, local government, and on the factory floor.
            
            Into this menagerie of the banking ignorant came Paul Flowers with a copy of the Idiots Guide to Banking tucked away in his brief case between the cocaine, crystal meth and ketamine -  and he became chairman of the Co-operative Bank.
            
            Flowers allowed himself to be talked into buying the Britannia Building Society, by the Brown government. This decision has almost broken the back of the bank which is now seeking a £1.5 billion bailout to keep afloat.
            
            Flowers resigned from his position as the bank's chairman last May. While, in 2011, he had already resigned from Bradford City Council after pornographic material was found on his council owned computer's hard drive when he submitted it for repair. The ruling Labour group on Bradford City council suggested  (deceptively) that his resignation was due to time pressure; what with his role as a councillor and chairman of the Co-op bank
            
            The Co-op bank (financially) sponsors 25 Labour MPs, and it gave £50,000 to the opposition chancellor Ed Balls; and the bank has also loaned over £18 million to the Labour Party[2]. What the banks Lib Dem customers think of this, Cable only knows.
            
            In March Flowers met with Red Ed, after which a £1.5 million pound loan was granted to the Labour Party…a coincidence? Well hopefully it will all come out in the wash, as, once the police enquiries into Mr Flower's activities are complete; there will be an independent enquiry ordered by George Osborn, the chancellor, into this sad state of affairs…what, after all, would the Rochdale pioneers make of this sorry business?

IF YOU SWIM with the sharks, you had better be a shark, or risk being eaten. This is the lesson the Co-operative bank failed to learn, and it did so because traditional banking was anathema to them. At least if the bank had appointed a chairman from the City of London, then it may not have been put in the position it now finds itself; as he or she would have refused the overtures to take over the Britannia Building Society that now leaves the bank with a £1.5 billion black hole.
           
             I have a fondness for the Co-operative society, as it has played a part in my growing up. In the 1950s the co-op had a dairy, bakery, grocery and department store within a 200 yard radius of my home in Great Yarmouth. We also had a co-op hall where we, as children, were sent to pick up our weekly ration of orange juice. The hall also became a focal point for the community with nightly bingo sessions.
            
             The co-operative movement did a great service to families like my own all over the country. Its ethos served the very purpose the Rochdale pioneers insisted it should: that it should exist on behalf of the poor, and the labouring men and women there is no doubt. My family of grandparents aunts, uncles, and cousins; as did millions of other families, saved the dividend (divi) stamps that were issued with every purchase made from the Co-op.

BUT FOR SUCH a culture to embark upon banking (especially in the modern age) it had better be prepared to abandon its former social impulses; for they mean very little in the banking world; and if you wish to compete in such an environment you need far better representatives than Paul Flowers to run the bank.
            
             The board of the Co-op bank were lucky that the banks survival has managed to last as long as it has. If a banking organisation, whose impulses are socialist, seeks to survive in an environment where the impulses are competitive, then such an institution must employ the best banking talent from their competitors at a salary and bonus determined not on ethical grounds, but on the market price.
            
             To disobey this precept is to find yourself in the Co-op's position. The world of financial services is a highly competitive business; the greater its success, the greater the tax intake by the British government. As far as London's financial centre is concerned it brings in £20 billion each year to the treasury in taxes which help fund our public services.
            
             The world of banking runs contrary to the impulses of collectivism that socialism believes in - that the likes of Ralph Miliband believed in. Today's Labour Party is as much to blame for the Co-op banks predicament as Paul Flowers. Flowers was, as it turned out, as much a useful idiot for the Labour Party, as he was for the banking industry.
            
              As chairman of the Co-operative Bank, he was charmed into lending the bank depositors money, to the Labour Party at highly favourable terms of interest. This buffoon not only holed the collectivist ship that was the Co-operative Bank; but in doing so was flattered into doing it by a desperate Labour Party eager for funds…to the tune of £18 million over several years.
            
              Ed Milliband has chided the Tories for months about greedy bankers and their million pound bonuses: always making the connection between the Tory Party and rich city bankers. Well, now the tables have been turned on the Labour Party. If Cameron was as well connected with the City, as Milliband was to the Co-op bank; then at least Cameron could boast that  his allegiances were with highly competent people in banking profession - a claim, if made by Milliband, would only invite guffaws, if he made it about the Co-op boardroom.
           
              As I have said, my family history, as well as millions of others, was connected to the Cooperative society. It saddens me to see such an institution being exposed to public ridicule because of  cupidity and stupidity of Paul Flowers. But I am left with the impression that he was seen as an easy touch by the Labour Party, and if so, Miliband is as culpable as Flower's in what may turn out to be the demise of the Co-op Bank.





           
           
           

             



[1] Quote taken from Guido's blog
[2] On terms of interest that  were far more generous than the ordinary account holder receives

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Gollyphobia!

AMAZON SHOULD stick by its guns and keep the 'offending' Golly costume on sale. Amazon has had many complaints, as well as many demands that the company should remove the offending costume from sale. I hope Amazon continues its resistance, but I am not very confident, for sooner or later they will be made to kow-tow to liberal hegemony.
            
           Today's Daily Mail has quoted  Michelle Coke  who wrote, 'This should not be an item for sale and should be removed immediately. This is offensive and show lack of sensitivity on the part of Amazon.' While another wrote, 'This is repulsive and offensive. Amazon take this down! Did you go back in a time machine to the 1940s?'
           
            As far as the Gollywog (who cannot answer back) is concerned; he was a treasured companion to many children of my generation. He is indeed old fashioned and none PC - but racist? Well, to many of those demanding his removal, I would fancy that many of them are white, liberal, and read the Guardian .
            
            I can remember collecting images of the little man from jars of Robertson's jams and Golden Shred marmalade. When we had collected enough we sent for the much prized badge. The badges came in a series with the Gollywog dressed in disguises as various types of musicians. Children wore them on their school uniforms and did so innocently, simply because there was nothing, either then, or today, to feel ashamed about.
            But it is not of course only the image, but the name (especially the second syllable) that evokes the current liberal outrage. Wog was an expression used commonly by those who served abroad during the British Empire. But it did not refer to those with black or brown skin. WOG was an acronym for Wily Oriental Gentlemen; and was targeted at Arabs in the Middle East who were rightly or wrongly distrusted by the British who believed them easily open to corruption and less than honest in their business dealings.
            
            While the Gollywog may be black 'wog' is a different kettle of fish. All a Gollywog was, was a black doll and nothing more as far as the children who played and drew comfort from them were concerned. Indeed, if anything, the Gollywog was an educational tool to the British children at the time when, in the 1950s men and women from the West Indies came among us.

THE  LIBERALARTI has to get a grip. If I were black I would be proud of the Gollywog; and even more so to see its popularity among white British children, and I would readily buy one for my own children; as today I would as readily buy a black doll. Imagine a teddy bear and the comfort it brought to generations of children…it is the same with the Gollywog. It did not turn young white fragile minds into fascists, or racists. The poor old Gollywog is being stigmatized today by the Gollyphobia of the liberalarti.
            
            The only way in which this doll could ferment such opposition in a rational world would be if children started to stick pins in it as part of a satanic ritual. To use such language as one complainant did describing it as '… repulsive and offensive' says more about this individuals rational perspective than it does about Amazon's decision to sell the Golly uniform.
            
             The Gollywog was much loved by generations of British, American and Australian children Before Political Correctness (BPC) intruded itself on our culture. But ever since, Western culture has introduced an intellectual embargo on what can and cannot be said regarding other cultures.
            
             If there is a market for this product, then Amazon has every right to sell[1] it and should do so. It is perfectly legal, and it is no more moral or immoral if a black child owned a white doll. If it fails to sell, then this should be the only criteria that determines whether Amazon should continue to sell its Golly uniform to the public. Amazon should not be intimidated by, in the main, white liberals into withdrawing this product.
            Let those who get a touch of the vapours by the Gollywog s appearance on Amazon turn to another web site; just as many television watchers have to do on a daily basis.

LET US OF A CERTAIN generation be allowed to finally raise a glass or two to the Gollywog; before it becomes as infamous as the Nazi swastika among the UK's liberalarti. For this is what it will come to if the likes of Michelle Coke, quoted above, get their way. She is not an out of the ordinary voice as far as this country's liberalista are concerned: for Ms Coke represents the liberal position thoroughly.
            
           God bless the Gollywog as a comfort, like the teddy bear, to childhood. Long may it be embraced in reassurance to a young child seeking sleep in the nursery. The Gollywog has added to the innocence of childhood; as does the teddy bear.  
           




[1] They are not breaking any law by doing so.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Blunkett and Straw enter the confessional

ONE OF THE architects of uninhibited immigration into the UK under the last Labour government, has given us his opinion on the continuing onslaught that in January promises to be the most controversial yet -  so David Blunkett, who was Home Secretary between 8th June 2001 - 15th December 2004, has decided to speak out.
           
            Many of his Sheffield constituents, he tells us, have set up street patrols to combat the anti-social behaviour of the city's Roma 'community'. There are some 200,000 Roma from eastern Europe currently resident in the UK, the largest in Europe; and as we know (and is probably why Blunkett is now speaking out) that next January our boarders will be opened up to Romania and Bulgaria under the  EU's Schengen agreement that our last government signed us up to.
           
            Having played a part in the disaster, that is slowly strangling the NHS (although leaders from the three main parties are loath to make the connection) and undermining our education system; as well decreasing available housing[1], Mr Blunkett tells us that we[2] have every right to grumble; but we must not 'stir up hate'.
           
           This man belonged to a government that created this problem, which has given grounds to the British people to do more than grumble; grumble is something you do when the weather is not to your liking - nature is impregnable, so all that is left to do on a bad weather day, is to grumble.
            
            Immigration is not a force of nature however, but a force wilfully and deliberately created by politicians: and now one of them seeks to effectively tell us to 'suck it up' and not 'stir up hate'. Blunkett must know that flooding the country with immigrants[3], as Tony Blair did, should  never have been tolerated if those  creations of socialism such as the NHS were to remain in tack.

THOSE OF US who did speak out against the tsunami of humanity that was about to flood our shores in 2004, were dismissed by the likes of Blunkett and his New Labour 'stakeholders'[4]  as racists, and by this means debate on the subject was swiftly brought to an end.
            
            David Blunkett, who, like every other member of the last Labour government, should either draw in their political claws when it comes to the subject of immigration, or have them clipped by the electorate.
            
            The one time home secretary tells us that grumbling is okay, but anything else will '… set a fire alight, you came from Bradford, you saw it – nobody gained from that.’ He referenced cities like Bradford, Burnley, and Oldham, which in the summer of 2001 whites were pitted against Asians, and 200 arrests were made.
            
            Yet, despite this, Labour signed the Schengen Agreement; and all Blunkett can tell us, is that grumbling is acceptable and not a hate crime, and should be encouraged or understood[5] as we often do with the weather. In Bradford today, it boasts a minority white indigenous population, as does Leicester. It either suggests white flight or the unlimited growth (created by politicians) of the Asian community.
            
            City after city is succumbing[6], yet all Blunkett allows us to do in the way opposition…is to grumble. His liberal conscience is not prepared to sanction anything more, and if anything more is pursued, he uses his escape clause - his liberal conscience.
            
            David Blunkett and his fellow ministers at the time, are what Ed Milliband had in mind when he apologised for Labour's record on immigration after the last election, in order to make the party electable before the next. The only problem was, of course, is that Ed was part of that same government - and as a socialist, is presumably a believer in internationalism and the brotherhood of man. So he would have, in private at least, supported the swamping that occurred under the last Labour government.

BUT THE COALITION should not be let off the hook either. For what have they have done  has only continued the progress of mass immigration[7], particularly, but not exclusively, from eastern Europe. Our political class are overseeing the demise of both British and English culture; and like David Blunkett, are asking us to have a good grumble, which they feel we are owed - but anything more would be considered racist.
            Any attempt  by the white indigenous population to protect their cultural roots (that exceeds a mere grumble) from extinction by a generation of politicians educated into multiculturalism at the finest schools and universities in the country, are now, presumably, to be treated as racist.
           
            David Blunkett has effectively nothing to say on the subject of immigration. His advice is a mere attempt to pour balm over the crises he and his party created. There will hopefully be opposition to what is happening; and it will not come from racists like the BNP, but from people living in communities, similar to my own, whose  seaside towns have been subjected to influxes of immigrants, to be housed  in bay-windowed boarding houses that once housed holiday makers from the rest of the UK during the summer months.

IF INTERNECINE conflict erupts between divergent cultures, as Mr Blunkett suggests could happen following the events in 2001. Then it will be on his head, as well as Jack Straw's, who has today admitted that his governments policy on immigration was a 'spectacular mistake'
           
            Mr Straw admits his part in lifting the transitional arrangements under the Schengen Agreement, which allowed for a transitional period of seven years to be granted to member states before implementation; in order to allow those states to prepare for the influx.
            
            But Tony Blair decided that this was not required and so lifted those transitional arrangements. The boast at the time was that only 15,000[8] East Europeans would wish to visit our shores. What actually happened in the following 10 years, was the appearance of one million Poles on our shores to come to live and work - where was this in any Labour manifesto, and why were the British people never given a say in such a dangerous piece of social engineering by Tony Blair and his government.
            
            Not a day seems to go without some elder 'statesmen' from the Labour Party entering the public confessional on this issue - an issue, the consequences of which, will traumatise this nation and will damage, most of all, those institutions that Labour feels most proud about being part of creating; institutions like the welfare state, the NHS, state education, and social housing. This is the irony. The Labour party unleashed immigration and in the process helped bring about the demise of these socialist projects.
           
           

           









[1] To such an extent that those in social housing are being told to rent out a bedroom to a total stranger or lose part of their housing benefit
[2] The white indigenous population
[3] By 2030  country this will have an additional 10 million citizens, which represents another city the size of London
[4] 'Comrade' had of course, by the time of Blair, become outmoded as an Old Labour cliché. In fact it was an Old Labour form of introduction from the 1960's when the virus of Marxism entered the veins of Labour's activists.
[5] I have since learnt that Mr Blunkett's citizen patrols in Sheffield are made of members of the Asian community, and makes me wonder whether Blunkett would have so sanguine had these foot soldiers had been indigenous whites.
[6] Even London itself is succumbing. White flight from the city has made our capital the multicultural capital of the world, soon to be minus the UK's white indigenous population that once represented the majority.
[7] Real solutions negated by anti-immigrant rhetoric and little else
[8] Straw, writing in his local press, has said that such forecasts were 'worthless'

Monday, November 4, 2013

Let this be the end of the license fee

ACCORDING TO AN ICM/Telegraph poll, 70 per cent of licence fee payers believe the licence tax should be either done away with or it should be reduced - 49 per cent said it should be abandoned, while 21 per cent said they wanted it reduced.
            
            The poll also suggested wide support for developing alternative sources of income for the corporation such as advertising, while a mere one in 10 voters supported an increase in line with inflation in 2016, when the BBC Charter is next rewritten by ministers.
            
            The poll's findings could of course represent the public's febrile mood in the age of austerity, after the increases in utility bills. But the BBC should not be allowed to continue taxing the public: and I think austerity has caused a major rethink among the licence payers…I certainly hope so; for such a rethink is much needed.
            
            Of course the recent scandals have not helped the BBC's image; but some of those scandals can be attributed to the culture within all such state funded institution like the BBC. The BBC has a guaranteed income (even if it is presently frozen) of £3.5 billion. It does not have to compete in the market place like every other broadcaster - it just sits and waits for the incessant kerr-chinging that brings them the guaranteed riches to overpay their so-called stars; and reward managers who have failed with generous six and seven figure golden handshakes.
            
           If this poll's findings truly represent the views of the people, then this antiquated, and almost socialistic institution (both in its finance and bias) may have to compete in the future for viewers- and why not? Why should the British people have to cough up £145 per year in order merely to own a television set?
            
            For too long has the modern BBC paraded the sentimental 'Auntie' card before the licence payer. It has long regarded itself as a much loved institution; and the British people bought into the BBC's  claim to be the greatest and most respected broadcaster in the world; but this myth has never been challenged by the market place.
            
            The BBC would never countenance putting such a boast to the test. They have and will fight tooth- and- nail to hang on to the public's yearly pot of gold. They fear the market place: they fear that their arrogant boasts will come to nothing in the competitive world, of which the BBC is not a part.

THE ICM POLL has been a tonic. Yet I fear that, despite the will of the people, there are powerful competitive forces in the media world that would oppose the BBC's introduction into the real world of competition - including many of the so-called 'Tories'. The BBC has as many friends among its competitive enemies as it does among the Right-wing Tories.
            
             ITV, and Channel Four [1], who depend (along with countless lesser channels) on advertising, would not welcome such a strong competitor  into the private sector and would therefore support the status quo. Sky television, on the other hand welcomes market competition. When Rupert Murdock created the Sky channel, many liberals dammed him. He would dumb down television. The liberals believed Mr Murdock to be a reactionary Right-wing business man seeking only profit, and playing to the lowest common denominator.
            
             But not for the first time; the liberal hegemony were proved wrong. Sky television surpasses the BBC in (unbiased) news; and is unrivalled by the BBC in sport and drama. In seeking a profit, Murdock will accommodate all tastes and needs. Just look at the available Sky channels which caters for all needs. Sky Arts, drama, and sport are among countless other Sky channels which are currently superior to anything the BBC can muster on £3.5 billion a year. Sky would welcome any commercial challenge from the BBC: but the BBC are set in their ways and prefer their own myths about themselves rather than face the realities of competition.

THE BBC will no doubt dismiss the ICM poll with all the arrogance and manner of an 18th century fop who believes in the in the Divine Right of Kings to rule - for the BBC truly believes it should share the same institutional omnipotence enjoyed by this islands kings in earlier centuries.
           
             I would like to say that the licence fee's days are numbered, but the BBC is part of the liberal establishment, and the liberal establishment will ignore all such poll findings and fight tooth and nail to keep the licence fee; and however strong the democratic will is that opposes them, the greater their conceit will be in opposing the people.
            
            As was Pravda the mouthpiece of the Soviet communist party; the BBC provides the same function for the liberal establishment. This dinosaur of an institution should have been reformed decades ago. Its founder John Reith was refreshingly open about the aims of the BBC; it was to be a servant of the establishment (at least the public, or those who could afford a television set shared Reith's enthusiasm). The establishment then was thoroughly conservative (if only small 'c'); but these were the formative years, and its traditional values would have carried a resonance with the vast majority of the British people.
            
            Reith was Director General of the  BBC for 11 years between 1927 and 1938. Today the liberals would argue that he imposed his conservative values on the BBC. Which was true; but the majority of the British people shared those values at the time[2], which no doubt added to the BBC's popularity - unlike today where its liberal ethos is at odds with the ordinary licence fee payer, if this poll is to be believed; which it should be.
            
            Sooner or later (preferably sooner) the BBC will go the way of Concord if it does not adapt. It will become another failed folly of the state like nationalisation. I am afraid the BBC has a drug addicts need for tax payer's money, but unlike the drug addict, there is no help available to them. In fact the opposite is the case; their addiction is being intravenously supplied by the taxpayer via the politicians.  
           
             Free the BBC from the incessant criticism from politicians whenever they feel themselves ill-treated. The BBC must be put beyond the reach of politicians and enter a new dawn without political interference.
              
             
           
           



[1] Although in the case of Channel Four the opposition is more ideological than commercial; for they also cling to the public tit.
[2] And those values, among which was a sense of patriotism, helped the country unite in the coming war against Nazism.