Drawbridge Brothers 4


Diversity is a weak glue. Its purpose is to placate today’s society. It is based on a vision that suggests that society will not change. The basic premise is that of equal opportunity and a general respect for the rights of the individual, inclusiveness. Unfortunately, this brings diversity into conflict on various aspects of its tenets.

You must admit it is a lovely picture, well drawn and you can see why many are attracted to it. But it was drawn in charcoal, posted on the outside and it rained. The jolly old rain!

We can all agree with Ha-Joon Chang1 that “Equality of opportunity is the starting point for a fair society.” But and it is a big but, “However, it is equally unjust and inefficient to introduce affirmative action and begin to admit students of lower quality simply because they are black or from a deprived background.” From any angle we come back to the obvious conclusion that we are dealing with discrimination.

Is it ok to discriminate against a rich kid because their family has money and therefore his/her life chances are so much better? To which group should we lend our support – an underprivileged female or an underprivileged black person? Michael Sandel2 deals with this question expertly.

Sandel prompts us with a proposition that affirmative action is acceptable because it fulfils a ‘socially worthy aim’. That still leaves us with the problem of discrimination. The real question is why society needs affirmative action or diversity, what is the root cause? We are always skipping over the big question as though it is too big to solve. Stay clear a political volcano is about to erupt!

Professor Johnathan Wolff3 opines that affirmative action can be ‘patronizing and degrading, and, in the long term, may do more harm than good’. America has had a form of affirmative action since the mid-1940s. While a number of black and Hispanic people have gained from the initiative the vast majority are still on the bottom rung of life chances.

As Wolff points out, ‘…equal political rights are worth fighting for, but they are of little value if you are still treated unequally in day to day life.’ So, even democracy may not solve the problem. Representative democracy is subject to corruption and nepotism to mention but a few distractions.

Tony Blair came to power in the UK 1997 with a sound bite of ‘education, education, education’. Later his left-wing credentials were left shattered on the ground as he became more Thatcherite than Maggie.  We have to take a serious look at the power of the market over our lives to find a solution?

In South Africa, apartheid was shown the way to …. Off. However, the ordinary people are no better off financially or socially; they are free, but free to live in poverty. The ANC has not delivered!

We are constantly told that a strong and growing economy is the best way to ease the burden of poverty. It seems to be one of Theresa May’s favourite sayings and guess what, she’s wrong. The 2008 financial crash is testament enough. The market ruled and the people lost – big time.

Therefore does ‘trickle-down economics work? According to J Stiglitz4 the nations that adopted the Washington Consensus – the American way – strong growth everyone wins “…the poor have benefitted less from growth.” This is supported by Ha-Joon Chang1 “Trickle down does happen, but its impact is meagre if we leave it to the market.” Poverty is as widespread today as ever.

Therefore, the concept of diversity sounds good looks good but is wishy-washy. It is all things to all people. I’m sorry but that cannot be the way forward. We cannot allow certain sections of society to spew their intolerance for others as a belief. We cannot allow a minority group to dictate policy for the nation.

If we are to build an understanding that will last then we must accept that that will take time. We must talk not push, we must listen not railroad, and we must argue not fight. Remember inclusiveness! Let’s put it to music

The road is long

With many a winding turn

That leads us to who knows where

Who knows where

But I’m strong

Strong enough to carry him

He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother



Bobby Scot, Bob Russell

Read more: Hollies – He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother Lyrics | MetroLyrics


1.       Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About CAPITALISM (p210) (pp137-138)

2.       Michael Sandel, Justice (chap:7 pp167-183)

3.       Johnathan Wolff, Political Philosophy (p186 + p91)

4.       J Stiglitz, Globalization, (p79)


Equality 3


To live anywhere in the world today and be against equality because of race or color is like living in Alaska and being against snow.                                               William Faulkner.


A precarious road

Faulkner’s is a bold statement which may please the liberal elite and the PC brigade, as they would view it as a powerful endorsement of their belief system. Maybe so, that could very well be how Faulkner, envisaged it himself. Of course, there is no time frame to Faulkner’s assertion which I think is rather important. For me, I see equality as a yellow brick road, it’s a long road, with many a winding turn, leading to who knows where.

If we elicit the statement at ground level, it’s quite clear; – you’re a bit of a noddy, not to support equality.

  • How do we proceed?
  • How do we define equality?
  • How do we implement equal rights?

Do we move forward by legislation, to enforce equal rights? In court cases to ensure that we uphold the principle? By the very blunt instrument of social pressure supplemented by liberal media propaganda, whereby you are a fascist, racist, and a Taliban loving redneck if you dare to disagree?

If by legislation, do we start by implementing laws that right the wrongs of previous generations? How will that sit with the present generation? Can we insist that they put their lives on hold while we experiment with correcting their forebears’ misdeeds? That ‘some’ must go without in order to allow minority progress elsewhere? When the truth is that that ‘some’ will be the poor and upwardly mobile, and not the rich. That the poor who gained nothing from the original sin must pay for the folly of the rich again.

Q. Who is promoting legislative change?

Why, none other than the liberal elite and the PC brigade – it won’t be causing them any financial hardship, will it?

Is progress then a misnomer?                    Is equality a misnomer?

In writing about the American legal debate on race, i.e. “color blindness”, Steven V. Mazie, suggests that discrimination to ameliorate discrimination is justifiable. He argues that the short-term dislocation of individuals and the resultant rise in racial tension are acceptable for the longer term good. Such a prognosis would assume that the end justifies the means, that as long as things turn out alright in the end, we can override the negative in the present. A crystal ball would be an advantage to everyone but Mazie, as we, does not have one.

Moreover, for those dislodged from their potential chart, could find their future and that of their family does not take the high road but rather, a distinctive veer down the low road. If the concept of ’affirmative action’ legislation is to create forward movement of minorities so that they can influence future generations on a positive path, then the same is true of being forced down the low road; for in doing so, you are creating an equally powerful negative. Who plays God?

To argue that ‘some’ must suffer that others make progress and that that be done by government diktat is not just myopic but reprehensible. Such a route does not amount to social justice. It is akin to having nothing relevant to add to the debate.

(Steven V. Mazie, Law Journal for Social Justice, Vol. 2 2011)

In my little dictionary, equality reads thus: the state of having the same rights, opportunities, or advantages as others.

Furthermore, the whole theory of equality lacks coherence in that it has never actually existed. Equality is an ideology, not intrinsic to nature. It is a political aspiration, one to be added to a wish list. The eleventh commandment, if you like. Then, we’ve had the Ten Commandments for over two thousand years and none of them have come to fruition.

There are many barriers to equality, one such is nationalism. Pride, can sweep up nationalism into a tidal wave of hate.  It’s quite easy to manipulate those afflicted with this common cold of a disposition, and the consequences can be deadly.

Another major force against equality is belief systems. Religion since its invocation has kept us apart and shows no sign of abating. Can we have religion and equality too? Not as long as we have hate, segregation and war. Perhaps the crusades are not yet over.

The ‘Wall of China’ against equality is capitalism. The economic system under which we live has the greatest affect on our psyche. For want of a better cliché, it has made our world into a ‘dog eat dog’ environment. Under capitalism, we may witness extremes of good, but overall it feeds the devil in us.

I don’t know who came up with the tenets of the 7 deadly sins but that person(s) should have received the equivalent of the Nobel Prize. Capitalism satiates those basic emotions. Whoever, the psychologist was, (didn’t have them in those days) we have been parcelled rather snugly and, not until we escape the wrapping can we really start to think.

We only have to look at the emerging economic giants of China and India, to witness the horrors of employment for thousands in the ‘new’ factories. Many work in conditions reminiscent of Blake’s ‘dark satanic mills’ of centuries earlier. Progress on equality is slow, while the equation on profit remains constant.

Not only do we have religion & capitalism reined against equality, but they are at loggerheads with each other. One enjoins us towards love – on the basis of the ten commandments – the other advocates self. A case of WE v ME, there is no equality in that scenario.

Thus, there are as many barriers to equality as trees in a wood, and here-in lies a big, big hurdle, the philosophy of the PC’s; they can’t see the tree for the wood.

And so,the Equality Act 2010 was a giant hoax made up by petulant children (Labour) to hurt the opposing gang (Conservatives). Well, those gangs are not very street wise.



A factory/ office somewhere in town, any town; the boss calls a meeting, everyone attends;

Boss, “As of today the Government (Labour) has passed a law. It’s called the Equality Act. Everyone is now equal!”

“Polly! Polly, put the kettle on, and we’ll have some tea”.

If only there was an easy answer, but the yellow brick road must be built paving stone by paving stone. The story continues with dialectics not diatribes. Education, education, education, – some fatuous politician once proposed such a path but in a different context, and even then, he didn’t mean it; he just took it for a spin around the block and then left it outside the back door. However, in the context of equality, education is the foundation for the paving stones.

In that Faulkner, was very optimistic in the opening statement, perhaps we should give more credence to:

“The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones”. W.F.


Meanwhile we must learn to sing in harmony –                    the road is long………….he ain’t heavy…



“If history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories”.

Judge Thomas,

Cited in, Law Journal for Social Justice.


They are not the wise men!


Shut Down the B.B.C.

Shut Down the BBC

Me? Yes

It is a biased organisation
It actively promotes a political philosophy
It is morally corrupt.
It censors by deed or inaction.

The BBC was once a force for integrity, for objectivity, for the highest of standards in broadcasting. Not any more!!

We anticipate, no expect that the BBC will present us with an objectivity that helps we, the public to analyse any given situation for ourselves. For many people the BBC is the only source of direct information and therefore feeds into their belief system. The objectivity and integrity of reporting is thus critical to allow an unbiased opinion to be formed.

In recent months the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has accepted that it is ‘massively’ biased. It really doesn’t matter if the bias is to the left or right in the political spectrum, by accepting the charge of bias the BBC is acknowledging that propaganda was being disseminated by the Beeb. That surely amounts to endorsing a political philosophy, as well as implementing direct/indirect censorship.

This is not the house that Reith built.
‘The impartial voice of news’

“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities, and gay people. It has a liberal bias, not so much a party- political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”.

Andrew Marr, Oct: 2006

In 2004, in his book: My Trade: A short history of British Journalism. He speaks of remaining impartial and “studiously neutral” in news reporting, and goes on to say that reports should “convey fact, and nothing more”.

I would agree with the sentiments above to convey fact and nothing more; that is the essence of good reporting. However, I would take issue with his analysis of BBC bias, to attempt to whitewash the bias as a cultural thing, and in a sense not that important is a big disservice to himself and to everyone else. If people have a bias then that bias informs most of their thinking, and therefore has a powerful impact on their reporting, or programme making. It’s a pity he skipped “convey fact, and nothing more”, on this occasion.

I would also like explained the term ‘urban organisation’. Is Marr, implying that because the BBC is ‘urban’ there is a built in demographic bias? That the BBC is London centric? That outside of that central area there exists a different political outlook, and that that outlook is not being catered for? Is, Marr, inferring that there are several biases at play in the BBC?

As a public body the BBC has to uphold the most stringent code of certitude. If not, the broadcaster becomes a lackey for the state or a propaganda machine for a political elite; or for both.

It is well known that the BBC operates a policy of ‘positive action’ or as the Americans call it, ‘affirmative action’, in that it promotes the standing of black and ethnic actors. There is no relevance as to how you wish to view such a policy; that would be a political stance. A government, if it passes a law can pursue such a course but an independent broadcaster should not. Was the BBC forced to implement positive action or did the corporation make a conscious political decision? Social engineering should not be the prerogative of a public communications network to distil. This is the U.K. not the N.K. – North Korea.

Moreover, there have been a number of stories whereby the BBC has instructed writers to include a black or ethnic character in their script. Does this not go beyond positive action in to the realm of ‘placement’? In such circumstances ‘placement’ becomes direct discrimination and that would be illegal. Furthermore, ‘placement’ is akin to subliminal advertising and that would be illegal. Certainly, ‘placement’ breaches the Equality Act of 2010.

Who gets an actors part is inconsequential, unless, of course that decision is by diktat. That opens up a whole new kettle of fish. Even if a government approves of positive action or affirmative action that still constitutes discrimination by decree. To pass such a law or to abide by that law is disingenuous on several grounds.

• It’s discrimination as a conscious act (direct discrimination)
• The inherent suggestion within the law is that a black or ethnic actor cannot get employment any other way. It requires big brother assistance e.g. a leg up.
• That hitherto the industry was essentially racist or backward in thinking. Thus a senior decision had to be taken to override that view point.

No matter from which angle you view positive action 1, 2, or 3 it is discriminatory on all counts. A number of other points can be garnered from the latter, point 3:

• That management had a political agenda which they were keen to implement
• They considered their viewpoint as superior and thus had to be introduced top-down
• Management held contempt for its workforce. That the workforce needed to be chivvied along.

A third area of concern regarding the BBC is the tax scandal that burst on to the headlines during 2012. Whereby, prominent personalities at the BBC were ‘encouraged’ to set up personal service companies (PSC) and thus pay less tax. There is a disclaimer on both sides of this argument; the BBC say they never forced anyone to take that route, while some of those presenters argue that they were instructed too or they could find themselves out of a job. The stink requires an army of cleaners to mop up the puke.

Below the surface of the tax scandal lays another, perhaps more intriguing one. As leading presenters were ‘encouraged’ to go independent, the BBC would not have to pay the National Insurance contribution of said presenters and others. The BBC thus saved a considerable chunk of money. How much we don’t know but it was loads of money.

What did the BBC do with this (manufactured) windfall?

1. Cut the licence fee?
2. Inform the public?
3. Use the money to promote young, up and coming broadcasters with a grant?
4. Allow the public to make suggestions?
5. Provide grants for specialist shows produced by students at media or art colleges?


What the BBC did was to squirrel the monies away into their already vast coffers to be used on expenses and other such things.

To force people to accept a diet of biased reporting and a set political agenda is nothing short of a scandal for a public corporation. Those who tune in to the BBC for its reliability and its impeccable source of information have been treated little better than imbeciles.

To fail to treat the dissemination of information with objectivity or by omission is by conscience, censorship. Objectivity can to some extent be subjective when the bias is ingrained; all the more reason then, for a procedure of clarity to be uppermost in the thinking and presentation of material.

In that the BBC cannot be trusted to be objective it should shut down. The BBC should no longer be paid from the public purse.

A contrite corporation should at the very least clean house. That would entail the whole of the top management being pushed out. The present management cannot be left in situ because their actions in office have overseen all that has gone wrong at Broadcasting House. Their bias cannot change colour overnight. The management team, over a considerable period, have perpetuated a fundamental breach of contract with the viewing public. The viewers have been little other than number fodder.

Allowing the management team to remain in place would be analogous to giving Sweeney Todd, a new set of razors and telling him to get on with the proper job.

(Over to you – what can you come up with?)

A ditty:-

Probity, O probity,
You have left and gone to sea.
We need you to come back home,
And be captain at the B.B.C.