A Titan Delivers Some Home Truths To The French

UNLIKE THE UK AND GERMANY, French industry has never fully rid itself of  the bad practices of the 1970s. Today, the French unions are as strong and demanding as were British unions over 40 years ago.

            The boss of the American tyre company Titan international was asked by the French government to step in and buy the Goodyear plant in Amiens which employs 1,170 people. Maurice Taylor, Titan’s CEO, visited the plant and was not impressed by what he saw. In a letter he wrote in the French business newspaper Les Echos, he was brutally honest about what he discovered: ‘I’ve visited this factory several times. The French workers are paid high wages but only work three hours,’ he said. 

‘They get one hour for breaks and lunch, talk for three hours and work for three.’

            This brought an angry response from the French industry minister Arnaud Montebourg. Mr Montebourg listed, for Mr Taylors benefit, the various oversees companies that are attracted to France; among whom were the perennial favourites of American industry, businesses such  as Coca Cola, IBM, and General Electric to name but three.

            Mr Montebourg also promised Mr Taylor that in the future, if he did not keep his mouth shut about the ‘lazy’ French workers, he can rest assured; ‘that you can count on me to have the competent government agencies survey your imported tyres with a redoubled zeal.’ 

I BELIEVE MR TAYLOR touched a raw nerve with the socialist industry minister; after all, even the former French finance minister, and now head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde has described the French workforce as ‘lethargic’, adding that; ‘Instead of thinking about their work, [French] people think about their weekends, organising, planning and engineering time off.

‘If you say to a French person, “would you like to be an entrepreneur?” all they do is run scared.’

            But Mr Taylor does not suggest that the French worker is in some way hereditarily pre-disposed to idleness; merely that they have enjoyed the ‘protection’ of France’s biggest trade union, the communist CGT, who still has a heel threateningly placed on the neck of the French economy, thanks to the politicians.

Mr Taylor describes his meeting with the CGT when he visited the Goodyear plant thus:

‘The first thing out of the CGT guy’s mouth was, “You’ve got to guarantee our jobs for life”.

‘They were telling us, “We’re not going to agree to anything until you do what we say”.

‘That’s when I said, “Hey you’ve got it all backwards. I’ve got enough people thinking I’m nuts even attempting to come over and run this facility and spend millions of dollars on it”.’

‘The French worker can be as productive as anyone else when he works, but he’s not working.’

Now there are still people on the Left in this country who will shrug their shoulders and, in disbelief, wonder what Mr Taylor is complaining about; and think the CGT’s position wholly admirable, for  the way they are standing up for the working class interest. But sadly, this Goodyear plant may now close, leaving 1,170 people with families to support, out of work.

            Of course, in socialist France, the villain of any unfolding  catastrophe will be the top-hatted cigar smoking capitalists, like Maurice Taylor. While the CGT union will find sympathy, if only from anti-American sentiment; a condition which may indeed prove to be hereditary among the French people.

IN BRITAIN IN THE 1970s, our workforce would  have fitted well into Mr Taylor’s description of the French today. Remember the numerous industrial actions at British Leyland? Remember our streets being piled high with black plastic bags of uncollected rubbish? Remember the mound of bodies that piled up because of industrial action by grave diggers, as part of a wider industrial action from within the public services? Remember the miner’s strikes and the power cuts?

            This is how a nation can be brought to its knees through over mighty trade union power. I am not suggesting that modern day France is fully comparable, but the ingredients are there and Mr Taylor recognises them in the attitude displayed to him by the  CGT. He would indeed be a fool and ill serve his share holders, if  he bought into such a crock as the Goodyear plant.

            The French CGT, like their brothers within the TUC in Britain, prefer a socialist government to order the affairs of the nation; and in France they have not been disappointed in the election of President Hollande, who, like dear old Dennis Healy, has promised to squeeze the rich until the pips squeak.

His 75% tax squeeze on the rich has caused many an entrepreneur to flee abroad; and for what? Like all such penal taxation against the rich, it recovers very little for the state to narrow its deficit, but in times of hardship it helps the election chances of a socialist party, if they can throw meat to an envious electorate who will always blame the rich – even for the state of the weather

THE FRENCH ARE still in a 1970s time warp. Their politicians have never fully lanced the union boil as Margaret Thatcher did in the UK. Indeed, rather than learning from her, they, in true perfidious Albion fashion, sought her demonization and produced Jack Delors to irritate her with his infectious Left wing cant, which eventually gave us the eurozone.

            If the French continue on their weary way impervious to what is happening throughout the rest of the world, then they will suffer the consequences. Throughout Asia, as well as the Americas, trade unionism is, if not non-existent, then at least they understand the market conditions and act in accordance with them to secure the best deal they can for their members, on the understanding that they cannot make demands upon employers that make the businesses whose employees they represent uncompetitive.

            This is the market reality, and if France seeks to trump it by forming the whole continent into an EU laager mentality from which they hope to overcome Europe’s decline; it will not happen. Europe, if it is to survive, needs to face up to competition and allow businesses to flourish without penal forms of taxation as well as  red tape. To continue on within a liberal-socialistic framework will only fast-forward the European continent’s decline.

            Mr Taylor has, through his contentious use of language, shone a light upon France’s intoxication  with workers rights; an inebriation which will lead to her national decline in the modern world.

            It is a sad fate; but one which also threatens other European nations. I speak in particular of my own. But this is for another piece. The French meanwhile should not pin much hope on a United states of Europe to help continue their triumph in the world, and help finance their nation’s laziness.

           

A world of secularism and relativism

RELIGION has served humanity as successfully as science, with an equal allocation of regret felt by both camps for the pernicious failures of both. Failures involving Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor of 15^th century Spain; and of course sciences midwifery of the atomic bomb that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese people; far more than the Grand Inquisitor was ever capable of torturing during the Inquisition. 

Both science and religion have many unpleasant episodes in their respective histories. However, both fields of human knowledge have always sought to bring benefits to the whole of mankind, by their thoughts and actions.

The growth of secularism effectively pushes religion to one side, and honours the materialism of science in its place. Secularists will deny that they wish to ban religion, only to put it in its place. But as far as Christianity is concerned, its banishment as a 2000 year old comfort to believers, whether rich or poor, or dying of the plague, or sent mad by syphilis, as well as other numerous illnesses science had yet to come to terms with…is indeed sad.

In the Middle Ages, a belief in another life better than the one of misery that the age they lived in entombed them in, became a source of hope for millions of people throughout the Christian world. Those modern day secularists have never known an empty belly or suffered a bacterial infection without being rescued by antibiotics. They never had to fight for enough nutrition to keep them and their families alive: but to such people who did, religion and the church were their only saviour.

Today religion still serves a need for the billions of believers on this earth. The secularists in this country are fighting for the elimination of religion as an irrational superstition. If not secularism, then the secularists themselves are like Dostoyevsky’s hated nihilists that brought about only anarchy and confusion to 19^th century Russia.

           

Secularists are the modern equivalent of the Russian nihilists. But they want the country rid, not of a tsar, but of religion no less. Their own Nikolay Chernyshevsky  is Richard Dawkins, who countenances no quarter when it comes to those who follow the “God Delusion”.

            But what do such people replace religion with? Religion offers a code of morality bounded by faith. It encompasses boundaries which if breached requires different forms of punishment; punishment which thankfully, in this modern age, no longer requires monastic loneliness or flagellation to erase the sin. Nevertheless, a code of morality that sets concrete boundaries  is far better than what has become known as moral relativism.

MORAL RELATIVISM is a meaningless concoction. There are no absolutes. The relativist ideology means a conformity to whatever, in a multicultural society, other cultures believe in and we should accept them, or, if not , remain silent if they, the moral relatives themselves, do not share such customs and practices.

            Moral relativism is an empty-headed and pusillanimous creation of liberalism. Those who believe in such a social conception are also hypocritical. If a young Indian or Pakistani girl is enslaved by an arranged marriage which goes against her wishes; where are the UK leftists – especially the feminists on these occasions – nowhere, for they are, as of a liberal demeanour, in hock to the enslavement of their sisters; all in the interest of moral relativism.

            We have had, in Rochdale and parts of Oxford, gangs of Asians running amok and abusing and raping young white girls, in some case in their pre-teens  – in another piece of cultural relativism no less; these gangs have been effectively protected by the police who are racially aware and are loath to act, even if they know who the offenders are. The police in Rochdale turned a blind eye to the activities of those Asian gangs who traded in white and very young female flesh for their own sexual gratification.

The police, like society as a whole, have been socially engineered into the acceptance of multiculturalism. Moral relativism, like political correctness is just another branch on the multicultural tree. Relativism is the liberals riposte to any kind of indictment of the behaviour of other cultures, including those that preached witchcraft in the UK. I listed some victims of this primitive multicultural inheritance in a piece I wrote on the 23^rd October 2006.

            As an atheist, I, unlike Dawkins have no wish to see the demise of religious faith. Its usefulness to society has been proven over millennia. It is arrogant for people who have no such faith to assume that they are liberating people by seeking to rationalise them away from religious influences.

            I do not think Dawkins is a relativist of  the usual kind found on the left; at least he is not afraid to attack all religion and not just Christianity. To him Islam is equally pernicious for their “corruption” of youth, enslavement of women and homophobia; whereas those who support his attack on religion and gain comfort from his polemical writings, would never dare argue their case against Islam, or any other minority faith. Their own Holy Trinity of Multiculturalism, Relativism and Political Correctness, would not allow them to go as far Richard Dawkins in the pursuance of their own atheism.

A SECULAR SOCIETY with religion pushed to one side and materialism left rampant, will be an unhappy society. Like communism, such a society will be dulled by materialism. Like Marxism, secularism will fall fowl of reality. If you do not believe in religion, but are prepared to acknowledge that there are billions of people do, and not seek to persecute them unless they fall fowl of societies civil or criminal laws, then you share my atheistic view. But if you are intent upon ridding society of all religious influence; then at least incorporate all religions and not just Christianity.

           

            Where science was unable to cure, religion comforted. Where science is still yet to find a cure for cancer, religion still gives comfort to hundreds of thousands of the dying. Science is the great hope of human existence, its methodology is based upon curiosity free from any religions grip on the human mind, it has moulded  the material world, and human life, which, on the whole, is in a far better state of contentment through technology, and medicine than at any other time in human history.

            The sciences (with the exception of the social ones of course) are humanities best hope for survival. Science is intelligence based, and human beings are intelligent. In the times before modern science when religion reigned supreme, the great minds of such an age turned to theology and classical philosophy, all of which, seem to the modern scientist a insignificant development. But it was a development that eventually led to their dominance in modern culture.

If we dismiss what the atheists believe to be fantasises, after the great purpose they served in the cultural development of Western humanity, then such people have a scientific identity that is intolerant to anything other than their own absolute certainties. Certainties that, like the faith based ones, are un-provable. Both science and religion can only, in the end, believe.

Science has as yet no theoretical explanation of what came before the Big Bang - that period when the universe came into being. Religion, on the other hand has put the Big Ban down to the intervention of God; who set the whole process in motion. The scientist cannot explain it because they have to come up with a picture of a time before the universe came into being that relies on scientific methodology .

In other words they have only their rational scientific method to describe  what came before the universe? But they would, using the same logic, ask – what came before God? For if there existed something before the Big Bang, that entailed the presence of what we now believe to be God – then who came before God, using the same rational logic?

This is the stalemate on the chessboard of human existence; and long may it remain so. So, in effect those who say the world was created by God has as much right to do so as those who scientifically believe the opposite: and this will be the formula until science works even harder to prove the contrary. Until then religion has as much right to a place in modern society as does Darwinism.

THE GREAT EMOTIONAL SPASM THAT GAVE A VICTORY TO GAY MARRIAGE

AS EVERYBODY KNEW they would, the government won the debate on gay marriage, but at what may turn out to be at great cost to the Conservative Party. The party needed the support of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. As Cameron, from outside of the chamber, viewed (probably) on a flat screen over half of the Tory parliamentary Party (149) march through the No lobby.

            I watched a good part of the debate, and there were two features that stood out to me. Those speaking for the motion perpetually used the equality argument, and arrogantly believed themselves on the side of history; while those opposing were seen as sexagenarian reactionaries to whom history would turn to ashes within a decade or two leaving the field open for progress to finally triumph.

            The equality argument as a socialist concoction usually meant the dumbing down of all society so nobody should be left behind. Instead of raising people up, everybody had to be equal; so those considered above average had to be pruned back so those less gifted should not feel themselves left out or inferior (thus the ending of grammar schools). This was the traditional socialist egalitarian structure.

            Equality under the law; and equality of opportunity are the benchmark conservative values; and no doubt it was equality under the law that spurred on David Cameron to hold this debate. As far as that modern post-war liberal innovation known as secularism is concerned there should be no difference between the rights of male/female, male/male, and female/female to marriage.

            But, as was pointed out in yesterday’s debate, marriage was the creation of the Christian church in Western culture. It was a ceremony tied to religious faith; the faith in question being Christian. The ceremony was meant for the consummation between male and female, joining together in holy matrimony; and it has been so for 2,000 years. The Christian ceremony maps its frontiers in accordance with Biblical authority. This authority cannot be undermined by secular authority - in the sense that such an authority has no part to play in any religious decisions on anything, let alone the 2,000 year old wedding ceremony between men and women.

            Everybody has to take full cognisance of the law and obey it. But as far as church practice and ceremony are concerned; there is no other authority other  than that of Biblical teaching. Only the church itself, and not parliamentarians, can decide the nature of the wedding ceremony and who can and cannot be part of it when it comes to Biblical teaching.

            The trouble is, I fear, that those who support gay weddings see this 2,000 year-old legacy as nothing more than bigoted suppression of gay sexuality, and like slavery and votes for women, it must be brought to an end…such is the secular position.

            On this issue parliament has no role to play if it means desiring the marriage of same sex couples to be performed in a Christian Church. If it were to happen and various liberal Bishops and prelates saw fit to go against their own Archbishop, who has openly spoken out against such ceremonies, and allow same sex marriages to take place in their diocese, then schism will be their reward and civil unrest may follow. We may even become once more acquainted with the church of Rome as our state religion, if the Christian liberalarte become determined upon seeing the Christian marriage ceremony so undermined.

NOW WE COME TO who is on what side of history. During the debate, smugness, vanity, and  arrogance all became orchestrated into a confederacy of the enlightened progressive debunking of the “staid and reactionary” opinions of those, who through conscience, sought to oppose this motion. The progressives were determined to bury the bones of reaction. They thought themselves to have judged history well in the past; they had helped end slavery; they had given women the vote. Now they are about to give gays their entitlement to marriage; and once more it is the reactionary conservative who will be on the wrong side of history.

            Within the next two or three decades yet another sexual proclivity will demand to be heard and treated as sympathetically as that of the gays . The paedophile will exercise the attention of those who today seek equality for gays. Those who oppose it will in turn become the sexagenarian reactionaries to whom  history would  turn to ashes within a decade. The next great leap forward in progressive thinking will be the sexual relationship between adults and children; and if those advocating gay marriage are appalled by such a possibility, then let them see what happened in the 1970s.

The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was formed in 1974 but was gone by 1984. However, what happened between these years, particularly in 1978 when PIE became affiliated to the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL). The NCCL, known today as Liberty, campaigned against the press’s treatment of the Paedophile activist groups like PIE.

            In 1974 Patricia Hewitt later to be the Labour Party’s Health Secretary in government was appointed General Secretary of NCCL. She was joined by the current Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, who served as the NCCL’s legal officer between 1978-82. Both sympathised with the remit of PIE at the time.

            So it is not so farfetched to believe that those who today seek to promote gay marriage will come to oppose future legislation regarding the sexual conduct between adult and child. For this is the next great liberal challenge for the next generation of liberal “progressives”, who will continue to believe themselves to be on the right side of history. Will those who spoke yesterday in parliament for gay marriage, themselves become what they consider to be reactionaries, if, within the next two decades or so, future liberal progressives turns their support toward, what we now call Paedophilia, but will be described as the love of a man for a child?

            For if men can have access to the love of each other on the basis of emotional attachment, then why cannot a man for a child? In the future, liberals will, I am certain, make the case, and, no doubt, a time will come when a relationship can be established between a fully mature man and a child using  the same kind of emotional rhetoric on display yesterday by those speaking in support of gay weddings…there is a lot to be said for conservative staidness after all.

           

Homosexuality and the Anglican church

NEXT WEEK PARLIAMENT votes on gay marriage, and over a 100 Tories are expected to defy their party leadership by voting against the motion. Already there is talk of the Tory party being split down the middle over this issue. The Tory leading the rebellion, David Burrowes, the MP for Enfield Southgate, has received death threats under the heading of homophobe.

            The supporters of the motion accuse their detractors of being on the wrong side of history: they see this issue as equivalent in social significance to that fought by the suffragettes to get the vote for women. The pro- lobby comprise liberals in all parties and from all corners of the House. They see themselves as progressives and have a high handed opinion of themselves. They belief that once this issue has been settled by the will of parliament, it will be quickly forgotten, and the progressive agenda will have ticked up another victory for social “advancement”.

            What this whole issue reeks of is Westminster’s gay mafia within the Coalition and the opposition forcing through this legislation. It is a London centric issue that carries little resonance with the rest of the country; except in their opposition to the very idea of two men/ women marrying each other. To pretend that this issue is a progressive reform that the general population will come to terms with in time, may not seem fanciful to the liberalarte; but to the vast majority of the Afro Caribbean and African migrant population - as well as three million Muslims, it surely is.

            Not only are the vast majority of such minorities against this “reform” (including, by the way, those from Eastern Europe), but also a majority of the indigenous population. So, in reality, those 100 rebellious MPs will be harvesting a far greater support within the country than those who believe themselves to be on the right side of history. Where, for instance, will those Muslim MPs be when the time comes to vote on this issue? Will they vote for, abstain, or be pared by a “pro” fellow member hoping the public will not notice.

IF I WERE VOTING next week, I would join those hundred MPs. I would do so because this Bill  trespasses upon the scriptures that our Anglican liberals are supposed to believe in and stand by. Oh yes! I know. No prelate in the Christian church would be forced into conducting a marriage ceremony between Gay couples, under this Bill.

            But, as most Anglican Bishops are of the same liberal persuasion as the politicians seeking to enact this piece of political correctness, then it is only a matter of time, as the liberalarte have already calculated, before gays will have full access to the nation’s Anglican churches.

            I can well imagine pressure being placed upon a vicar to perform the ceremony; I can also imagine those invited into the priesthood being taught to accept gay marriages as part of their mission. The politics of the Anglican church in the near future will be supportive, and who will oppose? For a time the Anglican church will indulge the opposition’s point of view pastorally, Anthony Trollop – like, in debate and argument. But it is an argument that will be won by the liberal wing because of their viral spread throughout the whole of not only the Anglican church, but the upper echelons of the rest of society.

            After reading the above, you may conclude I am anti-gay and homophobic. I am neither. But I oppose this piece of legislation because it is dishonest when it promises that the church will not be forced to entertain gay marriage ceremonies if a particular church refuses. The dishonesty comes in the form of the political calculation that the Anglican Church (as described above) will be dancing to the liberal tune soon enough; and therefore it will become a short matter of time before the whole Anglican Church succumbs. Which is why those 100 Tories need to be supported.

I AM AN ATHEIST. But I have a better instinct for Christian teaching, if not its knowledge, than many a liberal prelate. The Bible, whether Old or New Testament, has little time for what we, in today’s modern parlance call being gay. To pretend, as modern liberal Christians do, that, as Christ preached love, he also meant that between men, is carrying  progressiveness to its imaginative limits.

            What such people are doing is wishfully attributing modern moral liberal concepts to an ancient form of morality that would never have entertained them. Christ was never the Messiah that the Jews were taught to expect. He was a radical rabbi who also believed himself to be the son of God. The fact that he convinced enough people to believe the same thing at the time, should not have had the impact it has had today.

            If gays wish to be united with each other I have no problem with it. But to demand a stand at the altar of an Anglican Church to cement such a relationship, is not only blasphemy, according to the Bible, but also cynical. The same kind of cynicism that is displayed by the heterosexual community when they seek the purely theatrical background of a church wedding to cement their own relationship; and the purely theatrical background of the church to bury them. Leaving the decades between isolated from the church.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS anti-Christian, and no manner of modern Anglican liberal verbiage will change matters. Both the Anglican Church and the House of Commons may suggest otherwise but all it will do is drive more of the Anglican laity into the arms of the church of Rome where there is no liberal fog to undermine and ridicule Christian teaching.

            Homosexuals should be atheists like myself. To pretend that there is a place for them in any Christian church is just that – a mere pretence; one which appeals to their sense of theatricality but  little else. To be honest, homosexuals do not qualify for membership of the Christian Church; for such a church stands, rightly, against homosexuality on Biblical grounds. Grounds which extend to the practices of homosexuality. Practices that have never had a place in the debate about the recognition of homosexuality because such practices are seen, even in certain liberal quarters, as repellent.

            It is very strange that many liberals consider themselves to be secularist, including liberal gays; but they demand marriage in a church. Secularism despises religion and the spiritual world; yet such people are demanding that gays should be allowed to marry in a church, as an “equality” issue.

            The debate will be carried, and the politicians will pat each other on the back for making history; and believing themselves to be in equivalence to the likes of William Wilberforce, who was really on the side of history. But it will only be the beginning. Those who believe the opposition on this issue is only shared by an ageing reactionary populous who will soon be disconnected by time; thus allowing the fruits of 40 years of liberal teaching in our schools to create the perfect liberal citizen, will come unstuck…in fact what has happened over those four decades with our liberal education, reminds one of the film, The Stepford Wives, the plot of which I am sure many a feminist is familiar with.

You cannot conquer prejudice over night, especially in a multicultural society.  In fact had we not created such a society, tomorrow’s vote may have had real significance and may have met with success when introduced into law. But, as I have already hinted, this will not be the end; not even the beginning of the end – more like a new chapter.

           

           

             

All in the name of progressive politics

THE PLAYWRIGHT, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti,  has had her work censored by the BBC’s liberalarte. Ms Bhatti wrote a play for the BBC’s Afternoon Drama slot. The play depicts the story of a 16-year-old Asian girl who died as  the victim of  an honour killing. The BBC took exception to the following lines from one of the play’s characters “There is so much pressure in our community, to look right and to behave right.” Harmless enough one would think; but not if you are part of the diversity police, who are oversensitive to the needs of minorities.

            A Radio Four spokesperson is quoted as saying; “This is a hard-hitting drama about the realities of honour killing in Britain.

“A single line in the script could be taken to infer that the pressure and motivation to commit such a crime in a family comes from the wider Muslim community, potentially misrepresenting majority British Muslim attitudes to honour killing.

“Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti was asked to amend this line in the normal editorial process of script development.”

            One would like to feel enraged by such an act of censorship, but the only emotional response is that of pity; pity for the frightened and timid liberal faculty at the BBC. They fear to be ill-thought of by any minority community in their multicultural Utopia, which, by the way, 90% of the indigenous population outside of London, have little time for.

BROUGHT UP ON tales of the vileness that was the British Empire; these liberalarte are like cringing apologists; who will go to any length to keep the minority communities happy. Ms Bhatti’s play causes the Heap-like expurgators at the BBC to feel themselves treading on eggshells (to their way of thinking) by including the brief reference to the “ … pressure in our community”.

            Some may think Ms Bhatti’s response to what they consider this minor “flaw”, as the BBC no doubt sees it, is an overreaction. But it is not and Ms Bhatti is right to bring the BBC to account. Where are the gilded leftist playwrights like  Trevor Griffiths and David Hare, or (for a while the Left’s favourite) Ben Elton? Why are they not rallying to Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s defence as true believers in the freedom of the written word? A contribution from either Trevor Griffiths or David Hare would cause a rethink among their leftist brethren at the BBC.

            The liberals want to be loved by Britains colonial citizens and will forsake all of their principles to be appreciated. They will go to whatever lengths to appease all minorities; but especially those who were what they consider to have been the “victims” of British colonialism. It is a sad reflection upon this country’s present state that it feels the need to apologise to what was once the  Empire for what we were supposed to have done to them; like building railways and cultivating a workable civil service in India; as well as creating the colonial architecture that even today in India, attracts the snobbish Indian ruling class…and this same imperial methodology applies to all parts of the British Empire.

 GURPREET KAUR BHATTI  is a playwright who challenges aspects of the culture from which she came. She is a liberal herself who sees what is happening within her own culture within the UK, as something not to be tolerated. If, after all, she can express herself, then why not make sure that all Asian women can do the same without having to kow-tow to the medieval aspects of their own culture, which the BBC seems all to prepared to do.

            This is the reprehensible nature of the BBC’s stance. The BBC is in a state of frozen fear when it comes to upsetting any of this countries minorities. They behave like Soviet censors protecting the true faith, which was communism, and to the BBC, multiculturalism.

            No doubt Ms Bhatti was given the green light by the BBC to write her drama. She no doubt exemplified, but latter disappointed the BBC’s approach to minority drama. She never followed the BBC rule book on multiculturalism and diversity.

            The BBC is financed by the “licence fee”. A “licence fee” that is to all intent and purposes a tax. It is obligatory and is paid on threat of imprisonment. Those who administrate this organisation as well as those who produce and direct its entertainment are liberalarte to the very marrow. Does this not sound more like a totalitarian institution than what is supposed to be, a liberal one?

PERHAPS MS BHATTI,  being a liberal herself, felt that her work would be welcomed. But the British liberal is sensitive to its country’s imperial past. A past which they feel brought only exploitation, cruelty and suffering to the colonial peoples. So Ms Bhatti’s play became a minor sacrifice in the great liberal scheme of things.

            I find it almost abhorrent that the BBC should be acting like the Soviet KGB; not to protect communism but multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has impregnated, virus like, the BBC, and it governs all programming, but especially drama: and Ms Bhatti is paying the price. The BBC thought they were on to a good thing when they commissioned Ms Bhatti. She fitted their own multicultural cv. But, apparently, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti had overstepped the mark once before and which, it seems, had led to the BBC’s latest censorship.

The overstepping occurred earlier when Ms Bhatti wrote a play performed at a Birmingham theatre which faced protests from the Sikh community. This proved enough to cause the BBC to shudder yet again and retreat once more into their multicultural shell.

The BBC will always take the safest root when it comes to upsetting minorities; despite the majority of its income coming from the indigenous population; the vast majority of  whom take a rather dim view of multiculturalism…but hey! The BBC liberal community has £3 billion to spend each year; so what does it matter if two thirds of this is paid to them by people who resent their liberal agenda. Us “bigots” may be the great unwashed, but they still take our money.