In God’s Name!

thHDQGIV03Recently there has been a rash of suicide bombers and skilled and unskilled terrorist attacks. Over centuries we have witnessed carnage in the name of religion. Today religion stills plays a central role in conflict throughout the world. Or are the true perpetrators the dark deities of money and power.

The world press are talking about France and the atrocities that took place there in the past week, 7th / 10th January. The killing of the satirists of Charlie Hebdo was senseless; the later killing at the Jewish bakery was blind hatred and as senseless as the killing of the police woman. There can be no justification for such murder. It was an apparition of psychological control by outside forces. The problem with belief is that it lives in one season and that season can be determined by the believer.

If it is winter the abstract believer sees only dark and hears only the squawk and the squish of the landscape. Spring with its thrusting energies struggling for life, seems far off. Summer is but a distant lullaby and, autumn with its alluring contrasts, for some, holds only the drawn-out winter to come. Belief can contort all around you until all that you see are hopeless puppets living in a fairy-tale.

I have no doubt that religious belief can bring much joy and satisfaction to some, but the other side of the coin is the construct of man and the lust for money and power that follow as a shadow. It is therefore incumbent upon all who accept their faith as a blessing to openly condemn those who would portray their faith, in such a fashion, as to be mistook as the devil’s own handy work.

While France has captured the headlines there are many other parts of the world where carnage vents its ugly face. Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen have all suffered gravely from similar attacks. The list is long and unfortunately it is a list that quantifies hate.

Over recent months Nigeria has woken to excessive horror. In November 2014 forty-thZC9YPUWLeight (48) were murdered at a school assembly by a child suicide bomber. On New Year’s Eve, in the city of Gombe another child bomber failed to reach her target but killed one soldier and injured another. The next day and yet another child bomber failed to reach the target, a church, but died in trying. On January 9th, a child bomber killed a possible 19 and injured more than twenty in the city of Maiduguri. The following day, in Potiskum in Yobe state two more blasts as two children killed three (3) and caused injury to over forty.

The savagery of these events does not lie only with the innocent ruthlessly cut down but also with the use of children as bombers. These were kids who had no chance of comprehending the complex nature of politics; whose minds had previously been filled with dreams and aspirations, but in the immediacy wanted their mum. Used as cannon balls, as worthless individuals, to perpetrate atrocities on behalf of adults.

Such adults will never know understanding because their belief lives forever in winter. There is no intellectual capacity in the minds of these men, for they cannot comprehend the needs of others and therefore will never fathom the depths of themselves. They are trapped on an endless merry-go-round that never passes go.

In Peshawar Pakistan 150 people, mostly children slaughtered at a school by the Taliban. Why? Do not tell me that you have a ‘cause’. No ‘cause’ would use the bodies of children as a battering ram. Certainly, no ‘cause’ that has humanity. Barbarity is the last recourse of those who intuitively know that they face defeat. The past will not be re-invented and the harder they kick the closer their demise looms.

Likewise in Iraq, a 14 year old child taken from his home in Syria to blow himself up and in the process kill as many others as possible. He probably didn’t know where he was and almost certainly did not understand why he was carrying out this act of terror.

Suicide bombers are fragile beings, usually young and who have been brainwashed or forced by some fear into a philosophy that has closed the door on humanity. Any revolution, any struggle for power should at its bases have the majority as the winners of any outcome. The only alternative is to attempt to impose a dictatorship, a fascist regime.

To murder and to force the scattering of survivors by the razing of 16 villages as at th3R87WKY7Baga, north-east Nigeria, suggests a principle of victory at any cost, whether it benefits the people or not. Victory for the sake of victory has only power and money as a consideration. The ‘cause’ has been lost in the melee of the armed struggle.

Several groups who started with a clear vision have ended up as corrupt as those they oppose. In Peru, Afghanistan, in Nigeria and elsewhere those in opposition have succumbed to criminality through the sale of drugs etc. all in the ‘virtuous’ need to continue the struggle. The use of children and the criminality suggests a weakness. A weakness that oozes from their pores as a sweat would after a 10K run. They have entered and become a part of the world they oppose. They have wandered blindly in and, are unaware that their vision is crumbling.

Moreover, these terror attacks have given new life to weak politicians. Politicians that faced being ousted from office, now stand strong, statesman like, and speak for the nation. They can now revel in the adulation that was never intended for them. Governments are now racing to introduce new laws to curb the terrorist but in doing so will curb the freedom of all. The politicians now demand control over the internet to check our every thought. Big brother will seize the opportunity.

Also, the terrorists have caused a fissure in our society. For those who oppose democracy it is a welcome boost, for those who believe in democracy it is a loss. The anti-Muslim marches in the German town of Dresden that had 200 walkers in October had 25,000 on Monday 12/1/15.

The press don’t help either, so intent are they with their own political agenda. On Monday’s march in Dresden the Daily Mail reported 40,000, the Independent gave the figure of 25,000 and qualified their coverage by informing readers that there were counter demonstrations of 8,000 in Dresden as well as 4,000 in Berlin. However, France 24 news channel suggest that the counter demonstrators equalled 100,000 but gave no evidence for such a claim. Please, don’t try and brainwash me. Perhaps you believe us to be feeble. At a time of heightened tension we do not need such bias reporting as that of France 24. Give us the facts and let us make up our own mind. Freedom of thought!

I have no angst that the French comedian Dieudonne has aired his views and don’t agree with his arrest. We also have TV stations giving air time to al Qaeda claiming to have ordered the killings and in praise of those who carried out the murders. The same piece incites others to do as the French killers have done. (Was this appeasement?) I don’t like anyone promoting murder and would not give them air time. I could never condone the murder of an innocent.


Furthermore, many media outlets have refused to show the cartoon that sparked thethXK46FOCW killings. Nor will they show the most recent one produced by Charlie Hebdo. In the eyes of the fanatic division is a weakness. We must surely ask if tolerance has a gate that it will not pass through, especially if that demand for tolerance comes from an intolerant source. And, can we permit religious fanatics to dictate to an increasingly secular society?

I am not afraid of the views others hold as long as they are willing to discuss them rationally and openly and without violence. We learn and grow from such dialogue. I am not afraid because if we both grow then everyone benefits.

Will God end the pain? No. God is in the living not the theory.

thB7HQI3MQJe suis Charlie



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.