A while back, that cheeky chappie we all love, Greg Dyke, remarked that the BBC is "hideously white".
Well, it is also hideously gay. If you look at it in the cold light of political correctness, we should, in our public institutions, maintain strict demographic parity when it comes to employing people. Only, at the BBC, for some reason, it employs more people with left wing views and more homosexuals. It always has done, long before anybody talked about it. The only reason the traitor, Guy Burgess got away with it for so long was because he was part of the silent homosexual mafia who, in those days, protected each other out of necessity.
Patrick Muirhead, former BBC newsreader, continuity man and journalist, who is also gay said that being gay at the BBC is "practically compulsory" He was joking of course.
Anyone who has worked there knows it. Anyone in Entertainment knows it, and of course this is hardly surprising. The BBC is also hideously druggie. However, when a group, any group of common interest or predeliction belong to a public body, such as the BBC, there is a clear conflict of interest. What? Well, when was the last time you saw any really negative depiction of homosexual lifestyles? The BBC are perfectly happy to pillory and pull apart the lives of straight white Tories, but what about Mandelson? He is currently attempting to smear Lord Ashcroft over his tax arrangements. Where is the dredging up of his murky financial dealings? Don't forget, for years, everytime John Redwood had anything to say, it was preceded by a clip of his embarrassing failure to sing the Welsh National Anthem. Indeed, they had to be reprimanded and forced to stop using it. Mandelson, for some reason, managed to suppress any mention of his sexual orientation for years, until he was outed, not by a bad straight guy, but by Matthew Parris. The Muirhead quote, though facetious, is crucial. It shows something interesting. I proves to me that there are gay people out there who understand what is going down. They can see outside of their little world and see that any kind of masonic cabal is inherently corrupt. So will gay folks who have some integrity start biting the hand that feeds them?
The number of stories that are emerging about gays at the BBC and elsewhere who die through a fatal attraction to excessive and perverse lifestyles is now reaching epidemic proportions. Not so long ago, Kevin Greening, a former BBC DJ, died similar circumstances:
At the time, Mr Greening was still wearing a rubber suit and still had cling film and "gaffer tape" wrapped around his torso. (Sky)
Today, we hear of the tragic death of another self-indulgent gay BBC employeee who had everything, but wanted more. No doubt, as I write, people are rushing to tell us how wonderful he was, just as they did when Stephen Gately died while his so called "civil partner" was having sex with a rent boy. Perhaps he was. But it is also possible he was just like one of many at the BBC who have entered its hallowed portals through a nod and a wink and a special hand-shake, and who, instead of being told to behave properly, were egged on in the "celebration" of a lifestyle that is decadent, harmful and occasionally, fatal. When will somebody stand up and say that this kind of culture is so obviously destructive, especially when it is mixed with illegal substance abuse? When will decent ordinary gay people stand up and declare that they want nothing to do with this celebration of nihilism that seems to take so many lives prematurely?
I very much look forward to a BBC documentary which explores the phenomena, or a fictional drama where a young man dies after being drugged and buggered by three gay men and is then dumped in a swimming pool and left to die, having been savagely injured internally. Or is that being a bit negative?
24 comments:
Excellent post. Although you may have am imcorrect word " wink?" surely the i should be an a?
But I appreciate I am far ruder than your goodself!
That apart it does apppear to be mandatory. What does annoy me, when you talk about a correct demographic parity is a fact that here in Wales BBC Wales, which did you know produces every BBC programme, so we are told! But everyone is Welsh! Fair enough. You will know that in Scotland and I have limited knowledge but everytime I have been there the announces/presenters are all Scots. Same in Norther Ireland. BUT in dear old England it is every nationality, including Welsh, Irish and Scot under the sun. Very few white English. I would not care if they were homosexuals or lesbians or sexless as long as they were white and english!
I lived for some considerable time in the South West were the racial makeup has very very few black/asian people yet, you guessed it! Now in the North West any visitor from Mars would assume we are all Black. It is wrong. There has to be fairness.
The english are, of course, being removed as part of the EU plan. But it is bloody irritating.
I really hate to be the pedant here but what you should say is that the BBC is by a overly powerful, protective clique of homosexual men, who are effectively preventing criticism of a a certain type of gay man's lifestyle that is by any standards, perverse and destructive, and in so doing, are compromising their impartiality.
Half of gay people are women and it's not really fair to tar them with the same brush is it?
Indy, I quite agree. This is a male problem, but I always assumed women preferred "Lesbian" to Gay, as in LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender. However, for the purposes of clarity, I have changed it.
There seems to have always been a congregation of left-leaning gays in the theatre, and I'd simply assumed that the BBC was the modern-day equivalent.
'This is a male problem.'
No it isn't. Women can be hypoxophiliacs too.
You'd find that 'straights' outnumber 'gays' in the autoerotic death count by about 9-1.
Er Jim, would that be because there are more straights than gays?
Mick, It's not that they are gay, it is that they use it as a kind of masonic clique that makes sure its members are protected from scrutiny.
Rik Mayall did say it's now difficult to get a job at the Beeb if you're married with kids. But I think the 3 main parties all have their fair share of homosexuals. In fact every British institution has this powerful clique, even the C of E and RC churches. Which is why I'm curious about why the establishment loves Islam, as that's the one religion that sanctions violence against them, and won't split hairs about loving the sinner and hating the sin, etc.
'would that be because there are more straights than gays?'
Ged, it would indeed. That's the point. You imply, or maybe I misunderstand you, that homosexuals get up to more extreme 'nihilistic' sexual activities than hetero or omni sexuals do.
They don't.
I think David Carradine and Michael Huchence exited via the throttled wank method. And of course the Tory MP Milligan ( while wearing a Chelsea top allegedly). I don't think it's so much a gay exit as a celeb exit. They can't just have a normal wank like the rest of us. Or are maybe too stupid to do the auto erotic stuff.
Didn't the rough blonde woman who does the BBC sport and the rough dark haired newsreader on BBC24 recently come out as rugmunchers ? Must be something in the BBC tea.
while wearing a Chelsea top allegedly).
Naw. Get your unsubstantiated allegations right. That was, or wasn't Mellor.
Jim, I would like to see your figures on that, but that is not the point. The point is that, like so many things at the BBC, this issue is omitted for scrutiny. BBC bias is primarily one of omission. Apart from the time when Mark Oaten was welcomed as a hero on QT after being caught cheating on his wife by engaging in some sort of coprophilic activity with two rent boys. I somehow don't see the same magnanimity extended to white male heterosexual philanders. It is a question of balance, and whether you agree that balance is achieved.
Jim . You're right. I got the two greaseballs mixed up. Milligan had the orange segment in his mouth and plastic bucket on his head.
I see the BBC are now thinking of scrapping some digital channels.( BBC6 and Asian ) That's good of them. We don't even get digital in our area so I was getting fed up paying for all their rubbish.
WW - I don't think there's anything particular to gays about their 'protection' from scrutiny. It seems a bit arbitrary to single them out. The protection is for officially sanctioned 'minorities'. Gays, blacks, asians, believers in religions centred outside Europe/US, the disabled and women.
I also don't see the problem with choosing high-risk lifestyles. Particularly if you don't have children to worry about. Although you're right to say that it's taboo to admit that they're higher-risk.
If the death rates for auto-asphysiation are 9-1, that seems roughly proportionate, doesn't it? And therefore the numbers do matter.
I'm not sure about 'perverse' either. 'Destructive', fair enough, but why 'perverse'? Does that description go any further than a comparison against one's own sense of personal morality? Who's to say what's "right and good" other than for the self? (Subject to not unreasonably harming others, of course)
But then, I'm a Merry Englander who enjoys debauchery (or at least its promise) and danger...
The blog and most of the comments are a piece of unmitigated homophobia. Please go and shack up with Nick Griffin, Jan Moir and others of your ilk and leave the rest of us to live in a much nicer world.
IPP. Having worked in the media for years and having had friends in it, from top to bottom, all I can say is that if you are gay you have a very definite advantage in terms of advancement and protection from criticism. It is just like the masons and operates as such. The only thing you can say in mitigation is that this situation was borne out of the days when it was all kept secret and people had to help each other because nobody else would.
I take your point about "perversion" and its moral connotations, but since what we are talking about is not normal or healthy, I have no difficulty with the word. My main point is that this behaviour is not only condoned, it is held up as some kind of celebration of decadence and publicly encouraged, in an organisation which gets its funding by extorting money from the public. I write as someone who merely does not wish to subscribe to it.
Tim, why don't you fuck off? You obviously don't read this blog, because if you did you would notice two posts this month that can only be interpreted as pro-gay.
WW - I've worked in the public sector where the same effect re advancement is in place. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't true, nor the taboo on criticising it. (You can only do this if you are scrupulously accurate with your choice of language - something not required of people with lefty views which I found offensive.)
What I was questioning was whether there was anything particular about gays. The same effect was at stronger for blacks where I worked and at least as strong for Asians. Women also seemed to have an advantage, albeit not as great as that enjoyed by gays, blacks and Asians.
I also think you're on difficult ground with 'normal' and 'healthy'. Anything other than heterosexuality can accurately be described as abnormal, strictly speaking, as it is different from from the norm. But I digress, you were talking about the promiscuity of 'gay culture' I think, rather than that. I'd agree that gays are more promiscuous than others. But by enough of a margin to make it not 'normal'? And why are they more promiscuous? I think it's because they have sex as often and as easily as men want to have sex. There's no need to seduce a girl into bed.
I'd also suspect drug use is higher, I've seen statistics showing cigarette smoking and STIs are. This is undeniably unhealthy, too. But I don't think life is or should be about maximising your health. It's an important part of life, but not the aim. And I'd assert that promiscuity and risky behaviours (especially for men) are 'normal' and psychologically 'healthy'. I have no idea what the optimal levels of risk taking and promiscuity are, but I have little doubt they're greater than current social norms.
IPP Thank you for taking the trouble with a reasoned argument.
I don't generally use statistics in my blog because they are fraught with caveats, but it is a fact that almost 100% of cases of oral syphilis are from gay men. If nothing else, it proves a certain amount of irresponsibility in a certain grouping, and I would say the same if it was single mothers - irresponsibility, mainly to others - their friends and family - and particularly to the taxpayer. And you do not have to dig too deep in these stories to detect that heavy recreational drug use is almost always a factor.
I wish I could make my point clear without being accused (not by you) of being homophobic. I just picked out gays because they are in the news a lot. Next week it will be Muslims.
What we have here is excessive tolerance of certain groups, who take advantage of this tolerance in myriad ways. If they are not playing the race card, or blowing us up, they play the gender card. it has the effect of slewing natural justice, which is there for the benefit of all, not the few.
Hedonism, and worship of it, is not really something that concerns me, unless I am in some way obligated to support it. Since the BBC is funded by extortion, and the NHS is paid for by us all, excessive or perverse behaviour as a result of a life-style choice, must surely come in for my scrutiny. It is not primarily a moral stance, it is a pragmatic one.
Oh and let me guess. The next defence of unmitigated homophobia will be that old one...some of my best friends are gay. We're waiting in breathless anticipation!
Tim, you love to go around the blogs doing this sort of thing. I won't rise to it, and, unless you have something to contribute to the debate, sod off. If you don't sod off, I shall ban you. You have a choice - either argue your point or go.
I think WW is more of a 'homosceptic' than a 'homophobe', Tim.
WW - This blog is your property and obviously you can do and say what you like, but don't ban Tim - no matter how silly his comments. Let him call you all the inane things he likes. My policy at my place is only to delete blatant commercial spam.
"Hedonism, and worship of it, is not really something that concerns me, unless I am in some way obligated to support it. Since the BBC is funded by extortion, and the NHS is paid for by us all, excessive or perverse behaviour as a result of a life-style choice, must surely come in for my scrutiny. It is not primarily a moral stance, it is a pragmatic one."
This is frightening. I've said that both the NHS and the BBC should be abolished. But the answer is not to encroach on liberty in other areas of life because problems arise from illiberal policies. It's bad enough that I'm forced to buy a health insurance policy I don't want. Telling me I can't make my own mind up on drugs because other people are also forced to pay for that same compulsory health insurance scheme just makes it worse!a
Well IPP, I am essentially a libertarian, though I disagree with the usual libertarian argument about drugs, if only because the British public cannot be trusted to indulge responsibly, as indeed it cannot with booze.
High risk people; such as Gay men, Intravenous drug users and certain migrants, (the NHS definition, not mine) make heavy use of the NHS. There has to come a point when such people realise that taking the piss - doing what you like - impacts on other public service users who need essential treatment. It is already the case that, because of political correctness, certain expensive machinery is set aside for such groups, even though a simple test (which doctors cannot do if the patient is unconscious)would make things easier and free up resources.
It comes down to taxation and why I no longer wish my taxes to fund the excesses of lifestyles with with I do not agree.
WW - If I have a drugs overdose, that's FA to do with you. I die. My problem. Not yours.
I see where you're coming from, but it's crucial to realise the problem is you being forced to pay, not the fact that someone leads a risky lifestyle.
Please read this post on a very similar subject - the NHS and alcohol. The principles are exactly the same.
Ged, well I suppose I could say, with regard to autoeoritc deaths, not oral syphylis, that I'd like to see your figures.
Take a scan through the Journal of Forensic Sciences over the past thirty years and you will find various cases of various types autoerotic death in married men - married to women I mean -and single men who are not 'out' as gay. My impression for this admittedly informal 'research' is that many more 'straights' die this way than gays, in proportion to their respective presences in the general population.
Anyone working for long in A&E will be able to report cases of supposedly straight men who have mysteriously 'fallen over in the shower' such as to penetrate themseleves anally with various foreign objects which they find they are unable to remove without medical assistance.
People are weird - all people.
I preferred talking about lethal doses of radiation, I must admit.
Point taken, Jim. Please change the subject.
Post a Comment