Jump to content

BBC Deviancy


Recommended Posts

How the BBC Teaches Children They Must Stay Poor to Save the Planet

As time goes on, more and more of the green agenda resembles an attempt by the global upper-middle classes to pull the drawbridge up behind them and leave the peasants on the other side of the moat forever. A recently televised children’s pantomime, and some coincidental news stories about the EU Regulation on deforestation-free products, illustrate all of this quite neatly, bringing to the fore the extent to which the environmental movement seeks to keep the poor in what Karl Marx called “rural idiocy”. Those of us who care about conservation and the environment have bitter cause to regret this, and the backlash to which it is now giving rise.

Pantomime first. Being a father to young children, I sometimes am forced to have half my attention diverted towards mind-numbingly awful TV programmes, mostly on the BBC children’s channel CBeebies. I plan to one day write a post about how almost the entirety of CBeebies’ programming seems designed to ensure children grow up with nothing to aspire to except simpering mediocrity, but for the time being, I will focus on this year’s iteration of the channel’s annual Christmas panto, Robin Hood. Those who have access to the BBC iPlayer can watch it here.

Let’s begin our discussion of CBeebies Robin Hood with a preliminary question. What is the first phrase that typically leaps into your mind, straight away, when the words ‘Robin Hood’ are mentioned? Let me take a guess. Is it something to do with robbing from the rich to give to the poor?

Robin Hood tales have apparently been all about that basic concept since the Middle Ages. Sometimes ‘the rich’ means a rapacious, tax-hungry king. Sometimes it just means ‘the rich’ per se. One can spin the character in other words as Friedrich Hayek or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. And one can dress him up as an avatar for harmless venting or for biting social critique. But what Robin Hood is known for the world over is always, at root, the same thing: a fundamentally subversive and rebellious refusal to accept the status quo where wealth and property are concerned. What he fights against is, simply put, social class and its economic consequences, and in this he represents the wish fulfilment (and, let’s face it, often entirely understandable outrage) of the poor and put-upon.

But CBeebies Robin Hood is a retelling of the Robin Hood legend for the mid-21st century, and in the mid-21st century, we are supposed to have forgotten about old-fashioned notions like class. The idea that English history (and indeed most of world history) was characterised by divisions over wealth and property, as opposed to sex, race, etc., is nowadays simply banished from the agenda, as is the idea that anybody should want to transcend his or her background (particularly if he or she is working- or lower-middle class) and become rich. The most we are nowadays encouraged to aim for is a slightly higher welfare floor; the rest of the time our job is essentially to feel bad about what little prosperity we might have. It is therefore basically impossible to imagine the BBC sanctioning the production of a children’s panto that had any – even tongue-in-cheek – reference to the class-war element of the Robin Hood story.

How the concept of class has been utterly driven out of public life is, however, also a subject for another Substack post. Suffice to say that CBeebies Robin Hood displays classic modern-day bourgeois squeamishness about the subject of the legitimacy of social class, wealth, taxation and so on, and instead makes the central message of the story more-or-less the complete opposite of the traditional dynamic. Here, Robin Hood does not rob from the rich to give to the poor, but instead protects the forest from the rapacious Sherriff of Nottingham, who has a “naughty plan” to build a mansion on it. Robin protects the beloved trees that are his home, and in so doing maintains a subsistence mode of living for him and his fellow forest-dwellers (who seem to live almost entirely on apples). Not for him theft and subversion. Not for him the problematisation of inherited wealth and status. Rather, well-meaning generosity with respect to nature’s provends – a kind of blissful purblindness to politics and worldly matters. The entire motto therefore transmogrifies. Robin has nothing to do with robbing from anyone; rather, the repeated line is: “The riches of the tree, he gives away for free.”

The message, then, is not subtle, especially if you are familiar with the current obsessions of Britain’s media classes. Basically, we need in some nebulous sense to be more ‘at one’ with nature and live a simpler, more ‘sustainable’ form of life (probably through implementing ‘degrowth’). And we need to oppose attempts to subject nature to human will; presumptively, construction, industrialisation and so on are basically bad, and we need to find better, lower-impact ways to survive.

The corollary of this message, never openly stated but obvious when you think about it for five seconds, is of course that the poor have to stay poor. Since economic development requires industrialisation and the leaving of a ‘footprint’, it is itself a ‘naughty plan’ and cannot be permitted. Indeed, existing economic development itself needs to be scaled back or ‘reimagined’. Those of us who live in rich countries need – metaphorically, or perhaps not so metaphorically – to retreat to the woods, and live a much narrower, darker and dingier life. Those who live in poor countries simply have to remain that way (although often of course they are fobbed off with the cakeism of the ‘just transition’, which holds that we have it in our power to find a way to let them develop that involves literally no trade-offs).

That this is the future that is envisaged for us is made plain by CBeebies Robin Hood’s band of Merry Men, who do not have any ideas above their station or desire to lay claim to wealth, but instead embrace their permanent impoverishment. “All we know is the food we grow,” they declare – almost perfectly echoing Marx’s remarks about the “idiocy of rural life” which I alluded to in my introduction. Not for the peasants politics or striving, and certainly not the acquisition of property of their own. For them only grinning, capering simplicity and merry contentment with their lot. Again, the reasons why this narrative has taken hold will have to wait for another day; for the time being it suffices to point out how strange and sad it is that nowadays we are directed by those who would call themselves Left-wing to imagine that this hellish prospect, which our ancestors strove with all of their power to rise above, is in fact a necessary and good thing. I am no Leftist, but if Left-wing politics ever had a value, it is surely that it gestured towards increased material prosperity for the poor. No longer: now it seeks only to reconcile us to drudgery.

Lest I be accused of reading too much into what is after all a kids’ TV programme – and one with some catchy tunes, plenty of infectious enthusiasm, and endearingly bad acting – its screening happens to have coincided with some widely reported comments made by Rebecca Grynspan, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), on the subject of the rich world’s green agenda.

As Grynspan rightly points out, a great deal of policy concerning what she (with unusual frankness) calls ‘“quote, unquote” the environment’ is actually just good old fashioned industrial policy and protectionism masquerading as ‘sustainability’. And one of the examples Grynspan gives (although she hedges her bets by not challenging its basic premise) is almost too on-the-nose for a CBeebies Robin Hood comparison: the EU’s new and aforementioned Regulation on deforestation. This piece of legislation, in order to “bring down greenhouse emissions and biodiversity loss”, requires any operator or trader putting a list of commodities and products on the market within the EU (this includes cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee, rubber, leather, chocolate, tyres, furniture and so on) to prove that the goods were not produced on “recently deforested land”. This will mean handing over geolocation coordinates for relevant plots of land to the EU in order for it to perform checks of varying levels of intensity depending on whether the land is in a “high risk” country.

This requirement comes into effect at the end of 2024, and the global food industry is scrambling. Of course, costs are going to be passed on to the humble consumers of the EU; whether it ends up being the coffee grower in Colombia or Starbucks who bears the initial expense (and has to pay the fines for non-compliance), the price of a decaf skinny latte with hazelnut syrup is almost certainly going to go (yet further) up.

But the much more important point is that the measure almost seems designed to harm smaller producers. The likes of Cargill and Bayer aren’t going to have difficulty complying with the deforestation regulation, and they may indeed be able to find ways around it (or will discover that with respect to their products the checks are mysteriously light-touch). The people who will have trouble are the small fry in places like Malaysia and Indonesia who find it too difficult or expensive to evidence traceability of non-deforested land use. And, of course, the people who will have even more trouble are those for whom recently cleared land currently provides an income, or who live in grinding poverty and might previously have been able to get a leg up by clearing forest and increasing the size of their land holding. For them, the result of all of this will be lost income and probably lost livelihoods – at the margins, the difference between farming for an income and farming for subsistence, for potentially millions and millions of poor people around the world.

Ursula von der Leyen, always insistent on cakeism (“agriculture and protection of the natural world can go hand in hand“) won’t care about all of this, of course. In her mind, the problem will be made to go away through consultative “multi-stakeholder platforms” and so on: the technocrat’s vision, of course, being that it is always possible to avoid trade-offs with the right amount of expert management. The Western public, being fed a diet of nonsense about how wonderful rural idiocy is, won’t care either (and don’t imagine that the deforestation regulation won’t soon be copied in a jurisdiction near you). We’ll just notice the price of our food getting incrementally more expensive as we half-listen to breakfast news reports about “something something global supply chains”. And we’ll be yet more quietly lulled into our own form of idiocy, in which the poor, when we think of them at all, are a distant phenomenon who it is beyond the wit of man to help: an undifferentiated mass who will be ‘always with us’, and nothing beyond that.

We should hardly be surprised if the world’s poor are dissatisfied with that role. The truth of the matter is that deforestation is no doubt a problem, and that the instinctive desire to conserve the world’s forests is an entirely understandable one, which I share. The issue is that I, like almost everybody on the European continent, live in a country which found its way to development through largely cutting down its own forests. I live in a country in other words which made a trade-off between protecting nature and prosperity. That those of us who live in such countries should now be using protection of the natural environment (whether deliberately or not) as a stick with which to beat up the developing world is intolerable. This is not how one wins friends and influences people in the long term, of course, but it is also simply immoral.

And environmentalists should also think very carefully about this subject. That the Secretary-General of UNCTAD – hardly a marginal figure – should be so openly critical of sustainability measures is surely indicative that a serious backlash is brewing; wherever they are in the world, people know the smell of a rat when they scent it. Given the importance of what is at stake, what is required is open and frank political discussion about what reducing deforestation might look like – so that we can muddle through the messy and difficult process of dealing with the trade-offs that must necessarily exist, as best we can. Not vague promises about behind-closed-doors ‘multi-stakeholder platforms’, but proper negotiation between public officials and binding agreements. But with the EU deforestation Regulation we are getting the absolute opposite of this, and governments in the developing world will it seems increasingly make clear how little they like it.

Closer to home, it is important to observe that the idiocy – by which Marx really meant ignorance of politics and lack of class consciousness – spreads wider and wider. Our apathy extends beyond the subject of the poor, and indeed to our own lives. Instead of wondering why it is that our standard of living seems to be slowly declining, and instead of wondering why it is that the path to prosperity upon which we were walking appears to have been diverted downhill, we are instead being lulled by our cultural ‘thought leaders’ into believing the absurd notion that this is actually, in the long term, going to be good for us. We probably shouldn’t mind; we were all getting much too uppity and comfortable anyway. We have been engaged in ‘naughty plans’ of our own, and we ought to hang out heads in shame. In particular, we ought not to get any ideas about political struggle (of either the libertarian or Marxist variety) in order to lead a more prosperous life; we must rather simply be satisfied with our lot – which is of course the same old story the well-off have been telling the striving poor, in some form or other, almost since the days of Robin Hood himself.

Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. He is the author of the News From Uncibal Substack where this article first appeared.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/08/how-the-bbc-teaches-children-they-must-stay-poor-to-save-to-planet/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Why is the BBC fawning over migrants given free bed and board, wifi and a bus into town?

By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail

Published: 12:28 EST, 11 January 2024 | Updated: 16:35 EST, 11 January 2024

Not once did Johnson bother to question any of these lurid claims. Nor did he remind Kargbo — or the viewers who pay his wages — that Bibby Stockholm 'residents' get three free meals a day, a TV lounge, a fully-equipped gym and a dedicated medical clinic.

So no surprise there, then. That's simply par for the course, when it comes to the BBC's fawning coverage of asylum seekers.

For instance, on its website BBC News tells us merely that Kargbo 'came to the UK from Sierra Leone' — without mentioning that he did a runner after competing in the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham in 2022.

In BBC Land, all migrants are 'vulnerable' and 'fleeing persecution' and anyone who argues otherwise is a heartless, knuckle-scraping racist.

Why else would it give headline news coverage to the funeral in Tirana of an Albanian asylum seeker? Tragically, people in Britain take their own lives every day without being afforded a send-off with full honours on the BBC's flagship lunchtime bulletin.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-12952625/Richard-Littlejohn-BBC-migrants-Bibby-Stockholm-asylum-barge.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was shocked to see some pro Russian news on the TV today around lunch time. They were talking about a teenage Russian tennis player winning a couple of games. They showed some clips of the girl playing and the scoreboard graphics had her opponants flag but the russian flag was greyed out.

I am still not sure what to make of this news. Maybe this is a turning point in the conflict and they're using sports to change peoples perceptions of the russians?

What are those BBC fuckers up to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, factJack said:

I was shocked to see some pro Russian news on the TV today around lunch time. They were talking about a teenage Russian tennis player winning a couple of games. They showed some clips of the girl playing and the scoreboard graphics had her opponants flag but the russian flag was greyed out.

I am still not sure what to make of this news. Maybe this is a turning point in the conflict and they're using sports to change peoples perceptions of the russians?

What are those BBC fuckers up to?

 

On the same day the establishment announces war with Russia within the next 20 years. They're messing with our heads imo. 

 

Edited by Campion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC ‘misrepresented’ Covid risk to boost lockdown support, inquiry told

Epidemiologist Prof Mark Woolhouse criticised corporation for reporting rare deaths among healthy adults as the norm during pandemic

Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor 25 January 2024 • 11:47am
The BBC was allowed to “misrepresent” the risk posed by Covid to most people to boost public support for lockdown, the UK Covid Inquiry has heard...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They only want to hire 'woke' MARXISTS:

BBC Staff Told Not to Hire Candidates Who Are “Dismissive” of Diversity

BBC staff are being told not to hire candidates who are “dismissive” of diversity and inclusion under guidelines critics say are a mechanism to maintain groupthink and promote controversial ideas. The Telegraph has more.

A recruitment policy document says applicants should be asked to “explain what diversity and inclusion means to you and, should you be successful, what opportunities do you see for you to promote, celebrate or encourage diversity and inclusion in your role?”

The guidelines, used in a major non-editorial department of the BBC, tell recruiters: “Don’t hire [candidates who are] unsuited to the organisation” if they are “dismissive or derisory of diversity and inclusion and surrounding topics”.

Managers are also directed not to offer jobs to candidates who show a “lack of interest in learning more where no evidence of education and understanding of diversity and inclusion was given”.

Critics have claimed that diversity and inclusion can be a way for organisations to promote controversial ideas.

Earlier this month, the Telegraph revealed that ministers were planning a crackdown on civil servants “using their jobs as a vehicle for political activism” in relation to diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Commenting on the recruitment guidelines, a BBC source said: “The BBC is not a welcoming place for those with conservative opinions. Management talks about diversity without embracing diversity of thought. 

“The place that I have given years of my working life, and that I sincerely cherish, currently feels captured by Left-wing activists and is unable to deliver on our core principle of impartiality.

“Hiring on the basis of adherence to diversity and inclusion ideology excludes most conservative-minded people, and indeed much of the population.”

Robin Aitken, a former BBC journalist and author, said: “These guidelines illustrate just how embedded DEI [Diversity, Equality and Inclusion] ideology is in the BBC. The rules act as a mechanism to maintain groupthink and screen out anyone who is sceptical of this novel doctrine of diversity and inclusion.

“The BBC is now hiring not on the basis of skill or merit, but instead on people’s political attitudes to diversity.”

Worth reading in full.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/01/30/bbc-staff-told-not-to-hire-candidates-who-are-dismissive-of-diversity/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC Radio airs programme in an attempt to stifle farmer protests in the UK

In five out of the six interviews, the BBC reporter directed the interviews onto the threat of infiltration by the far right – a standard tactic – throwing in the far-right label, the other one being anti-Semitism.

To be fair, in the first part that I heard (I missed the first ten minutes) they did say both the far-left and far-right were trying to take advantage of the protests, but the BBC seemed, to me, to be trying to convince farmers that the protests are motivated by sinister political actors with the aim of the BBC being to put off farmers from joining protests.

If that last interviewee was genuinely a farmer, then he was specially chosen for his views. To me, he was a BBC Verify plant (no pun intended). He told of how the ‘No Farmers, No Food’ website was promoting crazy conspiracy theories such as climate change denial, an anti-Net Zero message, crazy talk of the elite and governments planning to cut food production and starve people. He said sensible people don’t believe it – in my view – the aim of the BBC being to put off farmers from joining protests. They saved him until last so that the BBC Verify propaganda sticks in the minds of the listeners.

So, the BBC made sure that their slant, i.e., the far-right claim, was hammered home with it being raised in five out of the six interviews. Another point was the BBC is now reporting on French farmers, German, Polish and others, but never have, and still won’t even mention Dutch farmers. My view on why that is, is that they can talk about the other farmers protesting against tax on diesel and other issues that are not too controversial, but they don’t want to mention the tyranny of land confiscation, since that exposes the WEF \ UN agenda of planned famine and backs up those who say it is happening – the people that farmer calls crazy conspiracy theorists.

This is to the best of my recollection and includes my opinion on the programme, so please check for yourself on the accuracy of my reporting. The programme is available to listen to for about 29 days.

https://expose-news.com/2024/02/03/bbc-radio-airs-programme-to-stifle-farmer/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week, I heard a typical PC 'lefty' comedian/satirist, OLGA KOCH, undermining the notion of 'nationality' in her BBC Radio 4 series. Koch's father ALFRED was Russia's Deputy Prime Minister for 5 months in 1997,  under President Boris Yeltsin, and he was Head of Russia's Federal Agency for State Property Management. 
 

"Olga Koch: OK Computer" (Series 1, Episode 1 - "Nationality"), first broadcast in 2021.

 

She made some valid points, but it's all preparation, of course, for a world government. Another clue is in the name "BBC World Service". D'uh.

 

Ironically, the liberal (supposedly) post-Communist Russia in Yeltsin's Russia was, IMO, more Communist than the old Communist Russia, providing you define Communism as a 'classless society' with no hierarchy, no government; a self-organising society. Most people define Communism more in terms of the practise rather than the theory, and in terms of socialism, which is not the same as Communism.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

BBC Radio 4 are scheduled to make their ‘Book of the Week’ in March 2024 a new book about propaganda: “How to win an Information War: The Propagandist Who Outwitted Hitler” (2024). 

 

The BBC’s origins are rooted in wartime propaganda, so no surprise to hear that their journalists have openly given propaganda advice to Ukraine’s government in their current war with Russia. Is Britain at war with Russia? This is the only reason I know of that might justify the ‘impartial’ BBC taking sides here. 

 

The aforementioned book was written by the Ukraine-born Jewish/British author PETER POMERANTSEV, whose father Igor Pomerantsev, a Ukranian exile, had worked for the BBC World Service (Russian Dept). 

 

Peter Pomerantsev recommended in his book’s preface that Ukraine should employ the sort of propaganda tactics against Russia that Britain had used against the Nazis in WWII. Too late, Peter, the BBC are doing that already. 

 

Pomerantsev worked at the LSE as a Senior Fellow at its’ Institute of Global Affairs, where he co-directed the ARENA program - a program on disinformation and 21st century propaganda, and “dedicated to overcoming the challenges of disinformation”. 

 

He was a young pupil at the prestigious Westminster school, London. 

 

Pomerantsev lived largely in Moscow between 2001 and 2010, working in TV. Between 2006 and 2010, following a stint in London, he worked on programs broadcast on Russian entertainment channel TNT. 

 

Pomerantsev wrote two books about Russian disinformation and propaganda: “Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible” (2014) and “This Is Not Propaganda” (2019).  

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Syrian refugee in ‘fawning’ BBC documentary raped child seven times
Gang who ‘tortured’ girl 13 and threatened to kill her sentenced to total of 38 years in prison
Poppy Coburn 9 March 2024 • 6:00pm


A Syrian refugee who was the subject of “fawning” coverage on the BBC’s Newsnight has been convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old girl.
Omar Badreddin and his brother Mohamed, along with two others, were handed a combined 38.5-year sentence for the rape of a 13-year-old girl abused between August 2018 and April 2019.
The victim said that her attackers “tortured” her and made her life a “living nightmare”. Omar Badreddin raped her on at least seven occasions, and threatened to kill her or take her to another country if she failed to comply.
The Badreddin family were the subject of 2016 documentary “To hell and back: the story of a Syrian family given refuge in the UK”. The show documented the family’s 11-month journey from Syria to Newcastle as part of the Syrian refugee resettlement program.
During the production, the BBC became aware of criminal proceedings against Omar, then aged 18, who was accused of the sexual assault of a 14-year-old-girl.
The trial lasted two weeks, before the request of the defence barristers to throw out the case was accepted. The defence argued that significant translation errors made during police interrogation invalidated the evidence. Omar and the other accused were unable to speak English
Former Newsnight journalist Katie Razall subsequently interviewed the Badreddin family in the aftermath of the trial.
Badreddin said: “I felt she [the accuser] didn’t want foreigners in this country and that is why she made up the whole story.” Razall did not appear to challenge this, and added: “That, believes Omar Badreddin, was at the heart of the case against them.”
 
During a voiceover segment, Razall claimed: “The Syrian men in many ways appeared less sexually experienced than the girls they were supposed to have attacked.”
In a follow-up BBC article, Razall said: “The family told me ever since their son’s arrest, they have felt humiliated and dishonoured, even though they were certain their son was innocent. In Syrian culture, this type of accusation is so damaging to their reputation, that even though Omar Badreddin has been cleared, they fear the stigma of it will stick.”
Neil O’Brien MP, a Conservative former minister, said: “The BBC showed remarkably poor editorial judgment in commissioning this fawning documentary, more interested in airing an unchallenged accusation that a 14-year-old girl was a racist who had made up a rape accusation.
“Given that they smeared a young girl as sexually experienced and failed to challenge the racism accusations made by someone who turns out to be a dangerous sexual predator, you would hope there would be a bit more contrition, but I don’t see any signs so far that any lessons are being learned from this shocking, appalling case”.
 
A BBC spokesman said: “In 2015 and 2016, Newsnight followed the story of the Badreddin family, who were Syrian refugees who had settled in the UK. During 2016, their son Omar was tried for sexual assault and found not guilty. Two years afterwards, in 2018 and 2019, Omar Badreddin and his brother Mohamed committed multiple counts of rape. They were found guilty and were jailed on 1 March 2024.
“The BBC reported this. In any situation, the BBC can only report on the facts as they stand at the time, which is what we did in 2016. The Badreddins’ subsequent crimes are appalling, and we express our sincere sympathies to their victim.”
https://archive.is/uyiHe#selection-2919.0-2937.240

Edited by Macnamara
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2023 at 11:47 AM, factJack said:

BBC race baiting again with a carefully selected clip from an interview featuring the recently departed Micheal Parkinson and former boxer Muhammad Ali. Can't miss a chance to push agenda's even announcing a mans death. In other parts of the interview Ali makes comments which would get him cancelled in today's climate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There speaks a wise and honest man, oh, and he could box a bit too!👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...