BBC funding cut by £2 billion.

Monty Don's OK I suppose. I preferred Alan Titchmarsh.

Gardener's World has succumbed to wokeism though. And Countryfile.

I occasionally go through the "From the Archive" category on BBC iplayer, there is still some good stuff there, but anything non-politically correct has been expunged, Fahrenheit 451 style. You will only get to see such stuff on DVDs and videotapes, which is why physical media is important.
'Wokeism' is a word conjured up by and an attempt by the far-right, racists, xenophobes, etc to vilify wokeness.

You need to wear a tin hat to shield you from all these imaginary influences affecting your interaction with reality.
 
Sponsored Links
. The BBC was the best broadcaster in history, but currently it is using its past reputation in order to push a twisted, loony-left agenda.
Maybe you've shifted so far right that you're in danger of being described as a radical.
And you're trying your hardest to recruit other radicals to your cause.
 
The BBC already makes a fortune from it's commercial concerns, selling output to other countries, the books and videos etc.

No. It's around 1/3 on top of what the get via the license. I think more of that would be a good idea but shows don't grow on trees. Budget cuts wont help with this aspect.

One Tory seems to think they should be just a news source, Radio services complicate things but there are commercial radio services. Why news - think back to Murdoch trying to get more services in the UK. A bloke that has been known to alter election results via newspapers. :ROFLMAO: He even reckoned Boris would make a good PM.

When considering this bear in mind that the basic leaning of the Tory is everything should be commercial even as much of the NHS that they can get away with. It's called privatisation. What they show no signs of doing so far is sorting out how to pay for it - the word fairly could be added to that.
 
No. It's around 1/3 on top of what the get via the license.
A third of £3.5bn would be considered a fortune, except BBC only get about £150m from BBC Worldwide. Which could still be considered a fortune.
 
Sponsored Links
Maybe you've shifted so far right that you're in danger of being described as a radical.
And you're trying your hardest to recruit other radicals to your cause.

I can't be bothered to quote him. He seems to forget that the agenda he is on about is pushed by the party he voted for and reported by just about all sources.

All it means is he yearns for a past that has never really existed other than in his own mind.

;) Anyway if he knows what the BBC is broadcasting he should be paying his license fee which helps in some respects. Some similar say they never watch is so in real terms don't even know what is broadcast.
 
All it means is he yearns for a past that has never really existed other than in his own mind.
He espouses ideas and attitudes that were very common from Victorian times until about the 1960's.
So yes, he is living in the intolerant, bigoted past, but it was very real back then.
Which is when Enoch Powell was at his worst, and it led to him being dismissed from the ....wait for it.....Tory Party! :eek:
 
Last edited:
How about split the BBC then?
Leave all the TV shows and dramas etc. alone and concentrate on the news side, sort them out as afaik that's the bad bits.
 
He espouses ideas and attitudes that were very common from Victorian times until about the 1960's.

Really. Lets forget name calling. It's a common trait for anyone who is different. Eg I used to know some one with large ears referred to as wingnut.

Powell made his speech in 1968. What that was about was seeing signs of racial tension and that it would./could get worse. It did. You need to bear in mind when people started arriving in numbers. Why the immigration? All sorts of comments from politicians, didn't expect so many etc but in real terms it was down to population and rate of growth due to WW1 and WWII. More bums for jobs, cheaper hopefully too I would suspect. Lower grade jobs.
 
Really. Lets forget name calling.
Who is name calling? o_O
Your comment is peculiarly out of place.

Powell made his speech in 1968. What that was about was seeing signs of racial tension and that it would./could get worse. It did. Y
Powell's speech promoted racial tension, and served to legitimise discrimination and racial hatred.
He was a severe critic of the Race relations Act. He desperately wanted 'the white man' to continue in domination, hence his concern that 'the black man' will have the whip hand. That demonstrates his inherent racist tendency.
Incidentally, his 'constituent' that expressed their concern has never been identified.
He was another politician that flipped and flopped between the Tory and Labour as the politics of the time swung and varied.

You need to bear in mind when people started arriving in numbers.
I'm well aware of history, thanks.

Why the immigration?
It's well documented. I don't think we need to explore the reasons now.

All sorts of comments from politicians, didn't expect so many etc but in real terms it was down to population and rate of growth due to WW1 and WWII.
The relevant comments from politicians was nothing to do with population growth due to WW1, nor WW2. It was due, in support of or in opposition to Powell's speech and sentiments, and the racial prejudice that Powell had promoted.

More bums for jobs, cheaper hopefully too I would suspect. Lower grade jobs.
You think that wages and access to higher grade jobs should be linked to immigration status?
 
racial prejudice that Powell had promoted.
Not worth commenting on the rest and you clearly aren;t aware of a number of things and twist things to suite.

Powell was just pointing out that racism exists and was growing. At a time when some aspects were not being mentioned deliberately as it would encourage it.
 
Powell was just pointing out that racism exists and was growing. At a time when some aspects were not being mentioned deliberately as it would encourage it.
If Powell was "just pointing out that racism exists and was growing", why did he so vociferously object to, and campaign against the Race Relations Act?
Surely, logically, anyone who was 'concerned' about racism existing and growing would be supportive of the proposed Race Relations Act. But no, he objected to the proposed Act to legitimise racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination, even violence, may have been popular, but it was about to become illegal under the proposed Act, which Powell vigorously campaigned against.
Powell quoted one of his constituents, (who has never been identified and is suspected as being imaginary) as saying, "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man".
In that sentence alone, Powell not only recognised the subservience of an ethnic minority, but was campaigning to maintain that status quo. Powell feared a scenario where an ethnic minority would be dominant, even though there was no such danger of it happening. He, like others since, (Farage, Tommy Robinson, NF, et al), have been promoting hysteria against ethnic minorities, now known as populism.
He used similar emotive imaginary scenarios as those exploited by Farage and Tommy Robinson, like: "It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre." He was prophesying the end of Great Britain if immigration continued in order to invoke hatred against ethnic minorities.
As I've said so many times before, racists will exploit any hook to promote their hatred and division.

Powell campaigned for voluntary, and even involuntary, repatriation of immigrants.

He used similar arguments about lack of infrastructure for indigenous people, as frequently used today, as populist arguments against immigration. Arguments which we know today to be built on falsehoods:
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.
He was a typical racist, disguising his ideology, his hatred for foreigners, with concern for the indigenous people.
That was why he was thrown out of the Tory Party, and why he became known as one of the most divisive politicians in UK history.
 
Does this sound familiar
The main political issue addressed by the speech was not immigration as such, however. It was the introduction of the Race Relations Act 1968 (by the Labour Government at the time), which Powell found offensive and immoral. The Act would prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race in certain areas of British life, particularly housing, where many local authorities had been refusing to provide houses for immigrant families until they had lived in the country for a certain number of years.

Actually I had a plasterer that did some work for me state that be voted out specifically for that reason. Housing. A lot of his beliefs are similar and he also had a tendency to swing in popular directions as many politicians may do. A bit more extreme in his case.

What you need is what he actually said not what others may think about it but yes it did increase racial tendencies. That is why he was ousted., Something that existed and was best not mentioned as that can make it worse. Actually I would say it made very little difference. Certain media made it a lot worse. A silly example. An immigrant moves into a terraced house. People around even started looking in their lofts to see if more were living there. ;) All they had to do was tunnel their way through.
 
Does this sound familiar
The main political issue addressed by the speech was not immigration as such, however. It was the introduction of the Race Relations Act 1968 (by the Labour Government at the time), which Powell found offensive and immoral. The Act would prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race in certain areas of British life, particularly housing, where many local authorities had been refusing to provide houses for immigrant families until they had lived in the country for a certain number of years.
That's what I was saying, he vigorously objected to the introduction of the Race Relations Act. :rolleyes:

Actually I had a plasterer that did some work for me state that be voted out specifically for that reason. Housing.
Your plasterer voted for Brexit due to 'Housing'? o_O
What does this have to do with Enoch Powell's racism? o_O

What you need is what he actually said not what others may think about it but yes
o_O Care to explain what you mean?


Powell was just pointing out that racism exists and was growing. At a time when some aspects were not being mentioned deliberately as it would encourage it.
...it did increase racial tendencies. That is why he was ousted., Something that existed and was best not mentioned as that can make it worse. Actually I would say it made very little difference. Certain media made it a lot worse.
Is that an about-turn by you, and you now accept that Powell was stirring up racist tendencies, or are you blaming the media for "increasing racial tendencies" (sic)? Whatever "racial tendencies" means.


A silly example. An immigrant moves into a terraced house. People around even started looking in their lofts to see if more were living there. ;) All they had to do was tunnel their way through.
You're right, it was a silly example. But it does illustrate the level of racism that existed then, partly stirred up by the likes of Enoch Powell.
 
Care to explain what you mean?
particularly housing, where many local authorities had been refusing to provide houses for immigrant families until they had lived in the country for a certain number of years.
 
particularly housing, where many local authorities had been refusing to provide houses for immigrant families until they had lived in the country for a certain number of years.
You appear to be conflating and confusing several issues:
1. Asylum seekers are accommodated by local authorities, often in 'property of multiple occupation' while their asylum application is considered. Therefore the length of time in the country is irrelevant, but obviously very short. But 'asylum seekers' rarely includes families. And any 'asylum seeking families' would also be housed in temporary accommodation.

2. Some local authorities provide social housing, but not all. Others rely on social housing provided by agencies. But the length of time in the country is not a criteria. The 'need' is based on other criteria.

3. Neither local authorities, nor agencies, are obliged to provide social housing, but they do so based on certain criteria being met, and on the availability of that accommodation. That criteria is not on a first-come-first-served basis, but on meeting several criteria of need.

4. Immigrant families do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. They have either migrated here for work, or single immigrants marry and have children (so the family develops over a few years), or they are children of immigrants who grow up into adults, have children etc, or settled immigrants bring over their dependents, but that process would be dependent on them being able to provide adequately for their dependents, including accommodation.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top