It's Bloody Outrageous. The BBC, double standards and hypocrisy in large measure

So, Dame Janet Smith has published her report into the behaviour of Jimmy Savile at the BBC and the BBC's involvement.

She has decided that the BBC Corporation is not culpable and that senior management, above a certain level knew nothing about what was going on, not even for the many years that it was going on. It seems that they had no suspicions; if they had then they should have done something of course, and they didn't.

It follows that only junior management knew and they never said anything at any time to their superiors.

Does anyone really believe this? Can anyone believe anything so preposterous?

Let us apply this to any reputable business anywhere in the UK, or anywhere else in the world. An accident occurs, people are hurt because something has gone wrong with the company's operations.

It is reasonable to ask who knew what, and whose responsibility it would be to find out if all was well or not well, and who would be answerable for mistakes and negligence. It is senior management's and directors' responsibility to know things, to get involved with the 'shop floor', to have an ear to rumour, discontent, inefficiency and negligence. They have a duty of care.

If it were serious enough, and this criminality at the BBC is extremely serious, it would be expected that senior management and directors would have to pay for failures to manage. It is what they are paid for and they should accept responsibility for failure even if it is not their direct fault. It is the price they should accept for their status and high pay.

But here with the BBC and Smith we have to believe in a different set of standards.

There have been many instances in business where the chairman, or chief executive for example have resigned or being sacked for failure well beneath their own level. Sacked because they ought to have know what was going on. But not in the case of the BBC, the senior management are absolved of blame, they can't be blamed because they didn't know what was going on.

It is the British Establishment looking after its own, yet again.

And hypocrisy? How often has the BBC called for resignations of senior management of businesses when there's been a problem, particularly in those business which the BBC does not approve of. And what of the climate of fear which we have heard so much of at the BBC? Again if this were to be in another organisation, the BBC would be highly critical and demanding change.

It stinks to High Heaven, the BBC is not fit to exist, it entire senior management would resign if they had any honour, but they don't, and its protectors should be removed from their positions.

Whose nation is it?

More much so-called ‘inward investment’ seems to be coming our way with the acquisition of 54% of the London Stock Exchange by Deutsche Borse.

How long will it remain 54%, but in any event it is a controlling interest. Something tells me this will not be good for the UK; will we see a gradual transfer away of business to Germany? More decline because we can’t or don’t wish to stop it?

 

Our elitist and remote leaders seem intent on selling out not only our assets but the spirit which goes with it. No doubt the spivs and politicians will get a big rake-off either in cash or kind to assist their retirement in comfort to their country houses where they can insulate themselves from what is coming the way of the rest of us. They will send their children to elite schools to return to elite jobs and benefit from the gravy train they travel on. 

Is there much left of our land, businesses and property to be sold before it is no longer our nation, because foreign interests pull the strings? Not much, methinks. Much like the EU which controls us politically and legally.

The EU Referendum - Cameron Lies

I saw the expressions on some of the faces of backbench Tory MPs while the deceitful and angry Cameron was responding to questions after his statement on his so-called negotiations yesterday. Many could not conceal there disdain, in some cases more than this.

 

Surely he is has tested the loyalty of many past breaking point. Just how long can the Tories tolerate the man and his clique? He must not be allowed to survive. He betrays the purpose of the referendum, that it is should be a straight choice for the people; Cameron thinks only his view should prevail. It shows his grant of one was another deceit; he had hoped it was another promise he wouldn’t have to keep.

 

The ritual comments that some make that he tried his best and worked hard are getting a bit sickening. Being polite is one thing but this can and is seen by some as weakness.

 

We need more people like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson to inspire us and win over waverers, and to show just how thin the arguments are for staying in the EU, and how leaving would restore some pride and confidence to our country. Softly, softly is not a practise Cameron is keen on, his nasty side could not be concealed yesterday. Why should his opponents hold back against his bile. Whilst I’m no fan of George Galloway's politics he certainly did well in confronting and exposing the BBC's tactics in attempting to stifle the Leave arguments on The Daily Politics show yesterday as practised by Jo Coburn - more should adopt his approach. And if the Tories who wish to Leave the EU don’t assert themselves people will give him political support too.

 

I have said many times that Cameron betrays everyone in the end - how much longer will his party stand for it. They must regain their self-respect.

Socialism - A classroom experiment

A teacher said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that Socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The teacher then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D. No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise, all failed. The teacher told them that Socialism would ultimately fail because the harder it is to succeed the greater the reward, but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try so no one will succeed.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

On Flooding and the Environment Agency

I saw Sky News early this morning and the newspaper review. (30th December 2015) Naturally the recent bad weather and the flooding was discussed.

Some evidence of the real problem our country has was illustrated by the comments of Liz Kershaw, (a presenter of music programmes.) In respect to dredging she said that if rivers were dredged all that would happen would be that the flow of water would be speeded up and it would make matters worse! She clearly has no concept of the difference between speed and capacity. The country is sadly full of such people who have been misled by others with a subversive agenda.

I live a few miles from the Thames; walking along the banks last year just downstream from Lechlade I was struck by the number of trees which overhung it, with branches trailing in the water in many places perhaps 20 feet into the flow. At this point the Thames is still meant to be a navigable waterway.

Many rivers are neglected through lack of clearance in the same way and it is stating the blindingly obvious that when overgrowth breaks away in flood conditions it stops at the next obstruction – apart from being an obstruction in itself – endangering and blocking flow under bridges, which might otherwise be avoided or reduced. Maybe those who should be dealing with this sort of thing put birds and fish before people and property and thus deliberately and consciously do nothing.

It’s almost pointless to hope that a virtually useless bureaucracy like the Environment Agency would have a change of attitude and, instead of spending £41 million on risk analysis and maps, would get people off their flabby backsides and away from their computer screens and send them out with chain saws and the like to cut away and clear all such overgrowth. It would do every office wallah a world of good to learn how to use one and how to drag the cut branches out on to the bank.

Fat chance! They are so detached from the real world that such an idea will be considered ludicrous. But what if their houses were at risk and in danger?

The BBC

It is foolish to imagine that the BBC will abandon voluntarily its present partiality and bias. Those who run and those who operate from it are well aware of the agenda they are promoting, and they believe they are unassailable, a law unto themselves. It has fatally corrupted the definition of balance, and is rotten to the core. It was given too much power and has abused it.

Why have we not seen the Balen Report for example, and later ones into other aspects of its conduct? It may be it is right in its view that it is untouchable, we hear that Mr Whittingdale MP thinks this and that but nothing is done which makes a blind bit of difference. Lord Hall of the BBC gets a soft time when questioned and oozes Establishment oiliness, he has too many friends in government. He talks about its ‘soft power’ and gets resounding support from Cameron. It appears to me that the BBC, instead of responding positively to the valid criticisms, becomes more blatant in its behaviours, probably taking the view that now is the time to move for even more power so as to strengthen its ‘negotiating’ position.

However, it is incapable of reform, changing its governance will make almost no difference, if small pieces are cut off it will, like a worm, merely grow the pieces back again. It must be broken up, it is a malevolent monopoly. Anything with claimed value can be sold and if as good as claimed will be bought. What cannot be sold should be closed as clearly valueless and not worthy of subsidy.

As for ‘news’, if the state considers it needs a public service broadcaster it should be strictly restricted to reporting fact, not opinion. Announcements by government should be clearly seen and described as such, in an updated style of the old public information films so government will need to rethink its own view on how the public is informed. Other media outlets, not subsidised, can do the opinion pieces.

What should we do with the money saved from leaving the EU

If it were to be spent, it should go on some clearly visible and big modernisation and security projects, maybe those which have previously been ruled out as unaffordable, or entirely new concepts for the urgent modernisation and rebuilding of our country. These should then be clearly promoted as benefits of our leaving.

We should also use these projects to rebuild our own domestic businesses, workforces and skills. When the first ones have been completed, the practice should continue on others for subsequent years, a rolling programme in other words. £10 billion pa or thereabouts is an awful lot of money and spent sensibly will be transforming. We should no longer need to go cap in hand to foreign sources for example, and we could regain our self-respect.

My preference would be however, for it to go first directly to the reduction of the deficit and its earlier elimination with the amounts being identified in each budget for all to see, and then for it to be spent on projects, which take a long time in the planning anyway, so this could be well how it would work out.

Under no circumstances should it be frittered away by dissipating it into existing budget lines where it will likely become invisible, as questions will soon be asked about where the financial benefits have gone.