BBC struggle with “Living Wage”

The introduction of the living wage has exposed the BBC’s political bias in many ways.

It should be a good news story but the BBC are asking questions and allowing the negative truths of the effects of the living wage to be aired. Funny that – after all the BBC’s suppression of facts running up to the last general election, and the campaign for a national living wage given lots of prominence during that period last year, we NOW begin to get the FACTS about the economic implications of the introduction of a living wage!

What changed? Have the BBC come to their senses?

Nope. It’s a Tory living wage and not a Labour living wage, so it’s open season on the policy itself. The BBC are now – belatedly – happy to speak to experts and academics who raise awareness of the dangers of a living wage.

That’s new! What? The BBC??? Allowing people on air who put the ideology of a living wage into doubt? Shooorley not!

The living wage is not a new idea, as we already know. So why haven’t the BBC exposed the economic dangers of a living wage up until now? (I won’t ask for the answer to that, because we all know it already.)

Something that has made me laugh recently is the response from those socialist, economically Illiterate, unionist… you get my drift… NUMBSKULL BULLIES! … is how they’re trying to redefine the actual term – as if they have a choice in how much unskilled labour is worth!

Here’s an example of what happens when the BBC refer to a government initiative by its official name – “living wage”.

How many times did the BBC refer to the “spare room subsidy” as the “bedroom tax”?

BBC Positive Discrimination

In reply to pah who said:

It does beg the question why the BBC hasn’t done this years ago? Does it not believe in equality or can it not find a suitable Oxbridge PSB/PSG?

The BBC has been doing this for years ever since Eastenders first came onto our screens. But I think a more suitable example of shoehorning disability onto our screens is that of Julie Fernandez who was an ‘actress’ on BBC’s Eldorado.

If the BBC can employ disabled people who cannot act or have no qualification in the very thing they are employed to present to TV viewers, then why can’t the BBC employ unemployed people to play the parts of Eastenders characters, rather than pay twats like Danny Dyer… (I don’t watch it so can’t come up with more examples).

Once again, the BBC fail the people of Britain. They are funded by us, therefore they should be sharing with us their facilities and offering opportunities to everyone who applies.

If I pay my council tax, I expect to have access to my local council amenities. Similarly, if I pay my TV licence, I should have access to all BBC amenities too.

But I don’t. I will never get a chance to be a BBC cameraman, for instance, even though I am not qualified.

Not only that, but the BBC do pay large amounts of money to a few ‘talented’ people when, in reality, they do not have a mandate to compete for talent or compete with commercial broadcasters for ratings. Their mandate is viewer satisfaction..

Hard Work is not Enjoyable

Home_taping_is_killing_musicDoes anyone remember the “HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC” logo on their record sleeves?

‘Home taping’ was the analogue equivalent of ‘internet piracy’ in which teenagers – who couldn’t afford to buy vinyl records – taped music off the radio (mostly the Top 40 and John Peel shows) onto compact cassette tapes.

Isn’t it funny how it’s always the poor who suffer where money is involved within the world of ‘the arts’. Saving up your paper-round money to blow on the next New Musik album, only to find a logo making you feel guilty about taping music off the radio!

Home taping wasn’t killing music – you can’t kill music. It was the greed within the music industry, scaremongering! Does that sound familiar?

There’s no wonder those who choose ‘the arts’ (a workshy and thoroughly enjoyable career) are worried about 5 years of pure Conservative government who have promised to reward HARD WORK.

Opinion Polls Fail

Response to:

Irrespective of whether Labour would have done a deal with the SNP, the SNP are a major force in Westminster even though the Conservatives got their well deserved majority. Before election day, it wasn’t so much about the SNP evicting Labour from Scotland – it was about how Labour could form a majority government at any cost!. It’s no wonder the BBC were happy to talk about the possibility because the alternative would have seen Miliband refuse to do a deal with Jimmy Krankie and hand power back to the Tories.

So here’s the rub – The opinion polls were way off the mark, but everyone believed them (including me). Labour put too much faith in those polls and interpreted the results as a sign that what they were saying about zero-hours contracts, food banks, the ‘bedroom tax’, etc. was working in their favour. That’s why they relentlessly repeated – ad nauseam – their misleading negative stance on these issues, because they naively assumed that these sound bites were winning them votes!

And this is where the BBC are guilty of hiding the truth – allowing air time to people who pass judgement on social issues that do not affect them personally (Polly Toynbee springs to mind), whilst failing to research and find people who are affected by those popular talking points of ‘social concern’. It was only a few days before the election that a survey revealed that the majority of workers on zero-hours contracts are happy to be on those contracts!

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In my despair, I criticised Cameron for being defensive in the run up to the election. I thought he should have been more attacking given the opinion polls. But I was wrong.

Only Cameron got it right! No wonder he exceeded all expectation.

Not So Nasty Tories

Why are the Tories being labelled as uncaring when their foreign aid target was met in full, to the surprise of The Guardian!

“Shh, don’t tell anyone…” is probably more of a Guardian reader’s sentiment because those on the political left don’t like good news when it favours those on the political right.

But this is about ‘foreign aid’, so the Tories are still under fire because people here in the UK are suffering, so ‘sod those foreigners!’

THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE (3): The truth about food banks.

Food banks are not a new phenomenon. They have been around in some form, and in some places in the world, for over 40 years. The Trussell Trust had 2 food banks in 2004 and expanded to 22 in 2007-2008 (Wikipedia). What’s interesting to note is that most food banks are run by religious organisations. Based on the annual Christian harvest festival, food banks are a scaled-up version of a ceremony in which we took food parcels to church at the end of summer to give to the elderly and infirm.

The cynic in me wonders if food banks are a tool to further religious indoctrination of the most vulnerable in society. Whilst I applaud helping the needy, any type of trade-off in self-promotion is to be seriously frowned upon. Large multi-national companies have given away billions of pounds to UK charities, but we know it’s all in the name of self-promotion.

People who use food banks have problems that money cannot solve. They might have addictions, they might have mental health issues, they might have lost their driving licence (and, hence, their job), etc. Just because there has been a rise in both food banks and food bank usage does not mean there was not a need for food banks in the past.

But, most of all, to try to score political points on the back of other people’s misery is reprehensible. And it’s no surprise that Labour activists wallow in negative reporting, because it favours their cause. If Labour can convince us we’re low-life scum but they love us, we might just vote for them. They’ll tell us they love us, and kiss us goodnight – but as soon as we’re asleep, they’ll have their hands in our wallets and purses, looking for a bit more cash!

Terrorism: A Need for Belonging

One thing I have noticed in my life (especially my time living in London) is that the older generation of black people (those who came to Britain post-war) are polar opposites of some of their offspring. The problem is to do with identity and how the younger generation fit in. Some of those young people feel as though they don’t fit in because they need a more deep rooted sense of belonging, so they might look overseas to those countries from which their parents originated.

Now it is happening in Asian communities. The exact same thing, although in a much more extreme way.

If we carry on ignoring the troubles and problems that mass immigration causes, we are going to eventually (and in the not-too-distant future) step over the breaking point at which both Labour and the Conservatives will lose all power and will be completely helpless – even if they wanted to form a LabCon coalition!

The signs are already here. There is only one party who actually wants to combat the unsustainable influx of migrants. The other parties know that more people means bigger economy and more money from us in taxes. They don’t give a crap about us mere mortals – NOT ONE OF THEM! (Except one, actually. I don’t think I have to mention his name.) Because they won’t have to ever live in the places I have to live.

I don’t care who wins the election any more because I believe the sh*t needs to hit the fan before anyone takes action. I just wished the sh*t would land on those who deserve it rather than us plebs who are not allowed to warn about the problems of multiculturalism and mass immigration.

BBC Impartiality

I am growing increasingly aware that the BBC are showing signs of political bias even though they don’t know it.

There is a huge difference between portraying impartiality and being impartial.

The problem with the BBC is that impartiality is all about sticking up for the underdog. It isn’t about telling the truth and facing up to the idea that just one person might be right when all others are wrong.

BBC staff have this notion that being impartial is all about balancing the books. If the Conservatives get good press, then the BBC need to counter with pro-Labour ‘stuff’.

That is NOT being impartial.

Christian Values

The term ‘Christian value’ is often misinterpreted as a value that comes from Biblical scripture, but in most cases it is a value that comes from the minds of people who just happen to be Christian. You could call it a <i>common sense</i> value.

The abolishment of the slave trade in the first half of the 19th century was indeed passed through Parliament with lots of help from various Christians, but in those days it would have been unusual to be a non-Christian in a position of power.

Likewise with the abolishment of capital punishment. I’m sure that would be classed as a ‘Christian value’ too.

But neither capital punishment or slavery are outlawed in The Bible. So where did the decisions to abolish both come from?

There has been lots of talk of Islam being the religion of war and evil, but Christianity has an equally dark page in its own résumé. It isn’t until the irrational religious messages – that have their roots in the sweltering, skin-blistering Middle East – become more irrational as they bed themselves down in the sumptuous surroundings of moist, water abundant, northern Europe where people are spoilt with another day of hard toil on fertile land getting soaked to the bone with yet more water in the form of rain.

We live in the land of plenty. The Bible is at odds with our own understanding of the world simply because we do not get plagues of locusts and we do not starve as they did in the Middle East through lack of water and fertile land.

It must have been a much more ‘cut-throat’ society over there in the Holy Land, and that’s not surprising when life is much more precarious due to climate and geography. No wonder the people in that era needed something to give them hope and discipline.

The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” seems so obvious and without question to us because we sit in front of our computer screens with a cup of tea or, perhaps, a Big Mac, without any need to kill our neighbours so we can reap more of the little rewards that a desert climate can afford.

But was that commandment beyond the intellectual scope of a human being even if that person lived in the Middle East in the year 1AD? According to Christian authoritatives – Yes!

As far as Christian teaching goes; we are all born into sin and the only moral guide is God himself. Humans do not have the capacity to understand morality so we have to accept God’s word on right and wrong – good and bad.

Make of that what you will, but if some of us could scrutinise our own religious faith as closely as we scrutinise the simple things in life, we might actually begin to understand those who do not share our beliefs.