The great British take-over – the BBC exposed
The hour-long Panorama special containing the doctored clip ostensibly showing President Trump encouraging his supporters to go to the Capitol and ‘fight like hell’, was broadcast on 28 October 2024. It has now been revealed that the clip was actually two sections of one speech, given on 6 January 2021 and fifty minutes apart, that had been spliced together and that, in fact, Trump had told supporters that he would walk with them “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. I.e. at no point had Trump encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol, as alleged.
The US general election that saw Trump returned as President was a mere eight days after the Panorama broadcast, on the 5 November 2024. Given that, as we are led to believe, employees of the BBC are not stupid, there would appear to have been only one reason for editing the speeches in this way and at this time: to discredit Trump, without allowing time for a response, and thus, in their own small way, attempt to influence the outcome of the forthcoming election.
“I want to make one thing very clear. BBC News is not institutionally biased.” So claims Deborah Turness, former Head of BBC News, forced to resign after the Corporation’s doctoring of the clip was exposed. But one wonders how she can have the nerve to have said that in public, because there is damning evidence, seemingly growing by the hour, that strongly suggests otherwise, and that those responsible for the current debacle were part of a biased and partisan news team, working to an ideological agenda that opposes anything and everything that might be seen as hostile to their aims. And let’s face it, to them, Trump was, and is, quite likely public enemy number one!
“I want to make one thing very clear. BBC News is not institutionally biased.” What then? Is Ms Turness saying that the clip was the handiwork of an inept editorial trainee, who should for the future be reassigned to coffee-making duties? She could maybe get away with this if it were the only time something of this nature had happened, but there is a mountain of evidence now indicating the deliberate distortion and/or suppression of facts – not just in coverage of Trump, but in climate change issues; in its reporting the conflict between Israel and Gaza; in the deliberate suppression of gender-critical views in the trans debate; and in what so frequently seems to be its down-playing of the growing threat from Islam here in the UK, and its branding of any criticism, no matter how well-founded and justified, as dangerous far-right extremism. The list goes on and on. It is so bad, in fact, that respected critics, such as Michael Prescott, former standards advisor to the Corporation, and eminent constitutional expert Sir Vernon Bogdanor, have accused it of deep-rooted institutional bias (see Telegraph article referenced above).
On all the evidence, it would seem then that the BBC might rightly be described as little more than a left-wing propaganda machine, dedicated to the destruction of the UK’s heritage and culture. To put it brutally, it appears to be a poisonous organisation that pursues its own agenda, and does not serve the best interests of the British people.
It claims to be diverse, tolerant, and inclusive, but its clear aim is ideological reframing and change. A quick glance at the BBC’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan confirms this, revealing what Auntie labels a 50:20:12 policy. At first sight this is incomprehensible, but it’s a reference to employment targets: 50% women, 20% BAME, and 12% disabled. LGBTQ+ identification is encouraged for all groups, and you might think that in our multi-cultural society, this is all highly commendable. But this, however you look at is, is in reality a programme to elevate minority groups over the majority, which, on the face of it, provides a mere 18% employment for white, able-bodied males. And yes, one acknowledges there will be overlap within groups, so that an employee might, for example, be a BAME disabled female, but white males nevertheless appear to have been relegated to an inferior sub-group.
This same trend is evident in the BBC’s approach to religion. We are a Christian country, and have been that way for at least the last 1,500 years –in fact, from before Mohammed was born. Our laws, society and culture are all alike founded on Christian belief, as set down in the Bible. Yet the BBC, in its wisdom, has appointed a Muslim, Aleem Maqbool, as its Religious Editor. There is a case, of course, for saying that Britain today is ‘multi-faith’, i.e. that, due to immigration, our society contains within it a range of non-Christian faiths, and that all should be respected. But ‘respect’ is not the same as management or authority. In terms of the UK’s heritage and belief, all faiths are not of equal value and a Muslim should not take the lead in matters of religion and religious programming.
The plain fact is that the BBC has been taken over and is no longer fit for purpose. It pursues an ideological agenda and is biased, both in its coverage of the news and its programming policy. If it is to continue, it needs radical overhaul, so that it becomes once again the British Broadcasting Corporation. Otherwise, the British public can no longer be expected or required to fund such an organisation, and the licence fee should be scrapped.
************************