BBC IMPARTIALITY (by now a contradiction in terms) is once more being questioned in the run up to the EU referendum. This benefit-reliant institution is as impartial as any football supporter; it has feather-nested itself with £2 million of EU funding over the past three years. This taxpayer funded institution still insists to its viewers as well as the wider world that it is impartial - it wears its 'impartiality' as proudly as young virgins once did their chastity.
But this is no longer credible. The BBC has never been truly impartial; it has always represented the 'official' or what I would describe as the establishment view. From the 1960s up to today the British establishment has evolved into what now has become a liberal hegemony, and as such, its presence has been felt everywhere throughout society and no more so than at the BBC.
The BBC is not impartial, as many of its past employees have attested. But for those of us who do not countenance such hegemony, we resent having to pay £149 a year only to suffer having to view and listen to the 'impartiality' of the BBC. The BBC has become the conduit for subtle and not so subtle multicultural propaganda, as well as a vehicle for keeping this nation in the EU.
The BBC is pro the following; which, if it were a truly impartial institution that imperiously asserts itself to be, would not propagandise for any political ideology as it regularly does. First of all it subtly and not so subtly on occasions, promotes multiculturalism and its conduit political correctness; it supports the EU, and preaches in the form of bias reporting of manmade global warming; it proselytises on behalf of feminism, homosexuality, and now includes its latest addition to uniform political correctness, support for trans- gender appropriation.
It is the Guardian of the airways and if it was funded by private subscription (like FOX news) and people were given the choice to pay for it, then I for one would have nothing to complain about. But why must I and millions like myself have to pay the BBC tax? If it were done away with I could select a news channel from that part of the political compass I belong to; and yes, I would subscribe to Fox News. There are thousands of channels from which to choose, and the BBC to my limited knowledge is the only one to impose a tax (not only to watch and listen to the BBC's output) but arrogantly on owning a television set – now I can with confidence say that there is no other broadcaster in the entire that demands a state tax on the mere ownership of a television set.
I do not want to destroy the BBC; I only wish to see it put on a level playing field with other broadcasters, and sink or swim in the media market place. In other words, it must be made to compete. The BBC has always boasted (but not so much lately) that it is the premier broadcaster in the world. If it still believes this then becoming part of the private sector should present them with a great opportunity in the marketplace. What is true is that the BBC worldwide cache of respect and trust is real; and will stand it in good stead if the licence tax were done away with – in fact if I shared this confidence in the BBC's 'impartial' antecedence as the institution itself does, I would be calling out for independence.
* * * *
'Safe Space'
"We are starting the process of consultation with Oxford City Council this week in advance of submitting a formal application for consent to remove the Rhodes plaque."
Oriel College
UNIVERSITIES ARE SUPPOSED to be the beacons of free speech and open debate. Such institutions are meant to unlock the mind and encourage free thought and expression and use these tools in study and open debate without any form of censure allowed; for no matter whether an opinion is rational or bizarre, both have their honoured place within the precincts of university life. University life is the fulcrum of free expression and the test bed for ideas, and no idea or thought should be erased from any university. When the fulcrum is, through political correctness, moved one way or the other and gives an imbalance to what is and what is not allowed to be spoken of or debated in academia; then those who have managed to upset the balance through political correctness and the spinelessness of academia to prevent such an assault on free speech; should be made to dress as court jesters and herded around the quadrangles before being put in the stocks and pelted by those they have offend with wet sponges.
Oriel College Oxford was established by Cecil Rhodes an alumni and benefactor of Oxford; whose scholarships have put many young and talented people through its doors from all over the world. Gifted people who could not afford a place at Oxford were given a Rhodes scholarship to the best academic education in the world. Rhodes financed the building of this new Oxford College and thousands of Rhodes scholars have passed through it and continue to do so today. Cecil Rhodes sought to educate the brightest and the best; he did so, by favouring the less fortunate who had the intellect but not the financial means to study at Oxford without any kind of disqualification on grounds of race or gender. So the very least Oxford could do was to create a statue of their benefactor over the college he created. So now stands Cecil Rhodes proud, and looking at the latest of his arrivals on his plinth flanked by two candy twist pillars; he stands proud of what he achieved with his legacy – a legacy which political correctness now challenges.
In the latest attempt to censor Oriels' founder; the Oriel PC brigade are seeking to have Rhodes' statue removed from his plinth and what is more they have found sympathy among the Orial fathers. In response to a few free speech deniers, the abject behaviour by the Orial authorities is born of fear. The man whose money created the college and funded the education of those less fortunate from all over the world including Africa; is now castigate by students, some of whom are where they are thanks to the man they so despise - when such hypocrisy is shown by the Left it of course goes ignored. If those sanctimonious students of Oriel who support the removal of Cecil Rhodes, should now look elsewhere for an education: If these individuals mean what they say about Rhodes; then in all honour they should never have taken his money in the first place; and even now they can save themselves from the charge of being hypocrites by leaving the college and allow other students who have no such compulsion to bite the hand that feeds them to be given an excellent education.
Oriel College is behaving cowardly toward the critics of free expression, as well as the college's benefactor. They are kowtowing to a few of their students; fearful of being seen as racists, they oblige every contention their students' raise on the issues of race, gender, feminism, and Gay rights.
Instead of debating the issues these students disagree with; Oriel treat's them like the spoiled brats they are: the college acts in loco-prentice while their students live among them; and the college behaves like their parents in giving in to them at every opportunity; without even challenging their arguments in open debate. Orial College is a disgrace to the very notion of free speech and open enquiry that every academic institution should measure up to; Oriel deems itself worthy, as an institution of the very highest education; but if such practices by its students are yielded to, then Orial college will succumb to lower standards and will be seen as valueless. The only thing the masters of the college have in preventing their backbones from bending to breaking point is the starch in their shirts; little else stops them from crumbling before the hegemony of their students.
* * * *
The front line
FIGHTING IN the front line is the work of men. Not all men; but men who can kill without a second thought or hesitation and have the physical strength to enter close quarter combat with other men when what may be required is not a bullet (that's easy) but a life and death struggle where the physical advantage keeps you alive and a knife rather than a bullet has to do the job. Physical combat is still, as it has been throughout history, the job of men; but not all men.
In the modern army those parts of it who are almost certainly guaranteed to encounter hand to hand fighting are the Marines, Paratroopers, and of course the SAS. Women are now to be allowed to join the Royal Marines. Physically, women are not as strong as the men they will be required to fight with. This is not an anti-feminist rant; but a warning that allowing women onto the front line to fight alongside men will inevitably change the order of battle in our enemies favour.
The government are intent upon allowing women to fight on the front line. Is it a matter of equality, as many feminists that will support this move suggest? It is not. It is a matter of promoting serving women into a category once sufficiently occupied by men; but simply because men are in such a short supply women are being allowed to join the front line.
The government after its defence review in the last parliament pared our army forces to the bone; and then sought to replace them by what was once known as weekend soldiers. The government announce the recruitment of 25,000 part timers to replace those professional soldiers that were abandoned (and not for the first time) by the politicians. But the recruitment of these reservists have fallen well short of the government's expectations; so the women will have to shoulder the shortfall.
It is this and only this that has promoted military women to the front line; in order to keep the much restricted defence budget on track; and in the resulting deaths of many of these women; I hope their parents sue the government by using this argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment