Wednesday, 6 June 2012

The BBC deliberately making a mountain out of a molehill

I only heard some brief headlines about the security staff left to 'sleep under a bridge' and assumed from that that they had been left overnight to sleep under a bridge. This would have been totally wrong and I would have been willing to protest on their behalf re shoddy treatment by the company that was using their labour. However this morning I discover that despite the BBC trying to turn this into a major scandal, they even inviting John 'chipolata' Prescott onto the Radio 4 Today programme to whine about the affair, the group were left for just two hours under a bridge due to a logistical error. As this was a two hours wait why was the headline all about 'sleeping under a bridge'.

This is a nothing story, given prominence by a BBC desperate to get government cuts back on the agenda and boost some anti-establishment sentiment following an incredibly popular Diamond Jubilee.

Today I discovered that Mark Steele, the nasty socialist and anti-Israel 'comedian who the BBC use on far too much of their output, has had a little anti-Jubilee rant on his blog:
'But the oddest part is no one can explain what we were supposed to be celebrating. She’s been the Queen for sixty years, but all she has to do to be Queen is to be. As long as she exists, she’s the Queen, that’s how it works, it’s not like a boxing champion that has to keep seeing off challengers. If you’ve been an electrician for sixty years that’s worth celebrating, because you have to keep rewiring stuff to be one, but as long as she exists she’s the Queen. In effect people are spluttering ‘Isn’t she marvellous, still existing for us. Most of us wouldn’t have the stamina to keep on existing, but even at her age she puts in a full days existence seven days a week’.

That’s why royalists get in a tangle when they claim she’s doing a marvellous job, as if she’s earned her position on merit, having worked her way up after starting out as a humble princess.'
That's the trouble with so many lefty types, they just don't understand why their views are such a minority view. Here's what I posted on his comments page, still awaiting moderation apparently:
'notasheepmaybeagoat says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 6, 2012 at 7:10 am

Since the alternative to the monarchy would be an elected President, surely a nice lady who waves a lot and asks ‘Have you come far’ is preferable to a past their sell by date politician. President Tony Bliar must fill everyone with dread as must President Mandelslime. The point of a monarch is that they embody the country and don’t have political affiliations. By not having elections the role of monarch is non-confrontational and so easier for all parties to support.

The foaming at the mouth of certain republicans has amused me this last month. It must be upsetting to realise how small a minority you really are. With even the BBC having to sheath its pro-republic sentiments, even that ally was lost, albeit temporarily, to your cause.'
I wonder if Mark Steele allows free speech on his site, as I do on mine, or is he the sort of radical socialist that only allows views that match his own to be made public?


Anonymous said...

I am all for free speech, and I hope Mark Steel does allow it on his site. I agree with him on the monarchy though. And yes, I am a bit upset that I am in such a minority. I can understand some of the arguments put forward for having the Queen, but I find it very strange that many people who ordinarily rant and rage at any slight injustice, inherited privilege, or threat to meritocracy are happy to ignore this aspect of their political viewpoint when it comes to the institution of the monarchy. Still, as you say, I'm definitely in the minority, and so paradoxically the democratic decision has been taken to prolong a non-democratic institution.

Anonymous said...

By the way, i just visited mark steel's website, and he has published your comment.

Anonymous said...

Why wnen the monarchist types refer to a republican president, do they always use the example of "President Blair". Yes that's a horror story but easily avoided - just bar all poiticians from the role and find a great person who would truly represent us all - how about David Attenborough or similar. I don't think it's the Queen people object to it's the inane drivel people come out with when talking abojut her as though she weree some higher being. Sad really as she's probably a decent old girl who likes horse racing.