Blogs Coffee House

A crisis, yes. But let’s not all shoot the BBC.

11 November 2012

I have just returned from two hours of broadcasting on the BBC World Service. It is an odd time to be inside the BBC, not least because reporters from the organisation itself, as well as its rivals, are standing outside the studio doing pieces to camera about what is going on inside. Anyhow – having dealt with some web and print-press troubles in my last post, I wanted to jot down a few thoughts on the BBC’s troubles.

1) The first is that the Newsnight McAlpine story is devastating. How any news organisation, let alone the publicly-funded (and compared to its commercial rivals extremely well-funded) BBC could have run such an amateurishly flawed piece of investigative journalism is appalling. Among other things the internal investigation must turn up how Newsnight managed to turn a crisis over not running one story which appears to have foundations, into running another story on a similar issue which fell apart within hours. Did anyone in the BBC think the McAlpine story was a fast-track exoneration for the mistakes over Savile? If so, who?

2) In all of this a real story is being missed. Just as the Today Programme / David Kelly affair ended up being about an internal media issue, so this Savile / Newsnight business looks set to continue being about media malfeasance rather than the more important issue of overlooked child abuse.


3) The media storm. As Rod mentioned a few weeks back, all media stories about the media reach a point where they disappear up their own fundament. The nadir in this case probably came the other week when BBC reporters door-stepped other BBC reporters on their way into work at, er, the BBC. I think BBC reporters reporting on the BBC from outside their own offices in the BBC runs that a close second.

4) The BBC’s strength. For all the opprobrium that will rightly be thrown at Newsnight’s investigative team, people should at least acknowledge that the BBC is unique in the media landscape in being good at self-criticism. It was John Humphreys’ painful questioning of the BBC Director General on the BBC’s Today Programme that ensured the BBC Director General, George Entwhistle, had to resign. It is worth recalling that absolutely no print media would interrogate their owners or bosses in such a way and nor would any of the BBC’s commercial rivals (though, to do them credit, Sky were quite good at covering the last round on Rupert Murdoch)

5) What to do about Chris Patten? I find this tricky. Having appointed the shortest-termed Director General ever, and put his full confidence in him, the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, probably cannot remain in place. But I am torn on this. Not because I think he is good at this job, but because I cannot stand Chris Patten. It is not just that his politics are so appalling, but that he is exactly the sort of person – demonstrably wrong on nearly everything that matters, yet constantly failing upwards – who has helped to make this country such an increasingly second-rate power. Personal dislike of someone else’s opinions should probably be separated from any judgment over that person’s job prospects. But all I would say is that if it was anyone else I would say they had no option but to resign or be fired.

6) One final thought. Various MPs have leapt on this with undisguised glee, as they have with the print media’s going-over at Leveson. All I would observe is that there is a risk in Britain of putting together a circular firing-squad. No bad thing, perhaps, in some peoples’ opinion. But I would simply rather see the institutions that we have work better, rather than see each take the other out in succession and then leave a vacuum. The print press shot Parliament three years ago. Since then certain MPs have tried to shoot the print press. Quite a lot of the print press as well as a lot of MPs are now hoping to shoot the BBC. Whatever emerges from this could easily be worse than what we currently have. If we are so intent on this firing formation, could we not at least put Lord Patten and all the other people who have screwed up this country into the middle of that circle and focus all of our attention on them?

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • rndtechnologies786

    Good blog.

  • NoNewsIsIndependent

    It’s been an interesting insight into how the BBC works. I now realise they are no a massive organisation which speaks with one voice but rather a a collection of well funded subbies whose only condition is that they follow BBC and Ofcom guidelines. So who care whose in charge. The real question is whose writing those guidelines?

  • Peter Palladas

    “It was John Humphreys’ [sic] painful questioning of the BBC Director General on the BBC’s Today Programme that ensured the BBC Director General, George Entwhistle [sic], had to resign.” – What is this, bloody Newsnight?!

  • Peter Palladas

    “John Humphreys’ [sic]” – Please don’t tell me the Spectator has fired all its subs as has the Telegraph?

    ‘Swanyway, history will record that it was not the grilling by John Humphrys that cooked Entwistle’s goose; if you listen to the tone of the man he had already given up and given in. I’ll bet a pound to a penny that the deal to resign was all but made the night before.

  • jamesak47

    I have a simple test for all those in BBC news management to take. Two questions:

    1. What are the 6 interrogative words key to any story?

    2. Why are those 6 words important.

    I was taught this at school; when I was 11 years old.

    If you are unable to answer, then you have no business making any journalistic decisions.

  • Short

    Pity the guy cannot spell the name of the ex-DG of the BBC

  • dodgy

    “… Did anyone in the BBC think the McAlpine story was a fast-track exoneration for the mistakes over Savile? If so, who?…”

    1 – Yes
    2 – We won’t tell you, because the BBC is allowed to be a private organisation when it suits it. See the recent finding on the Newbery complaint to the Information Commission for details.

    Your insightful comment on Chris Patten: “..demonstrably wrong on nearly everything that matters, yet constantly failing upwards…” could reasonably be applied to our entire establishment. We do not have a failing of individual personnel. We have a failing of (for want of a better word) culture, or fundamental policy. You could take a star from the past – Benjamin Disraeli, or William Gladstone, for instance, and they would be unable to stop the rot if they were given the PM position.

    The establishment structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt. And the usual tool for that process is a revolution…

  • Summer Seale

    Hi there, first time commenter and this is completely off topic, but perhaps somebody here knows the answer to my question: I can’t appear to subscribe to Mr. Murray’s RSS feed from his page here (, and I’d really like to. Is there a feed URL I’m missing? My feed app (Reeder) on my Mac appears unable to grab an RSS URL feed from that page, which is a shame. I’ve only recently learned much more about Mr. Murray, and I definitely enjoy many of the things which he has to say.

    Any help with subbing to his feed, whether here or another place at which he publishes (I don’t know any others yet apart from here) would be welcome. Thanks for any help and tips in advance. =)

  • Bara Evans

    It’s Humphrys with a y and Entwistle without an h – otherwise a good article on journalistic standards at the BBC.

  • Judith

    BBC will learn nothing from this. We will learn nothing from this. BBC will get back on its biased and corrupt agenda soon. Please do not worry.

  • Gary

    I’m shocked to discover Savile was a Catholic, shocked I tell you!
    Its so unusual for Catholics and Muslims to be involved in child abuse, isn’t it? Ain’t religion a wonderful thing.

    Perhaps the real question is why, when Jerry Sadowitz openly called Savile a pedophile way back in 1987, no one in the press, no one in the BBC, no one in the police, followed it up. I recall Victor Lewis-Smith called him a creepy child-botherer years ago.

    I have always utterly despised Savile, and am amused it has taken others so long to see what I saw immediately the first time I saw him on TV. The man had “creep” written all over him.

    The dumb media and press kissed this man’s ass, this man who was a darling of the press and the establishment, who stupidly allowed him into Broadmoor..

    The tabloid press worshipped Savile because he did work for “charidee”, the same tabloid press who ruthlessly hounded Freddie Mercury and Russell Harty, who harmed no one, would not touch Savile because he was heterosexual and an Establishment figure.

    Trust the police? Only if you are a guillible clown.

    The same overpaid, parasitic police who have destroyed evidence of pedophilia and repeatedly protected pedophiles. Yeah, you can trust them. You can trust the guys whose behavior is entirely self-serving and who are completely incompetent.

  • Gable Ratchet

    The media are perfectly happy to trash dead celebrities like L. Rossiter
    based on the spurious allegations of people zooming in – zombie-like –
    on the loadsamoney compensation they’re so eager to receive. But now,
    because it’s a politician, everyone’s up in arms about ‘shameful’
    allegations, publishing without evidence… etc, etc. Newsnight simply did
    what every other media outlet were doing, and got caught with their
    pants down.

  • JohnOfEnfield

    The “undisguised glee” at the trouble that the BBC has got itself into lately is because the BBC has become manifestly SO biased to its own agenda in the last twenty years that we are ABSOLUTELY delighted to see their comeuppance.

    I watch/listen to the BBC very little these days because of this bias but when I do their agenda is always clearly set out every day in their headlines

    Pro Labour, Pro the Public sector, Pro AGW, Pro Homosexuality, Pro Obama, Pro EU, Pro Palestinian, Pro immigration, Pro public sector broadcasting

    Anti Tory, Anti Capitalism, Anti AGW skeptics, anti Christian, Anti Marriage, Anti GOP, Anti Israel, Anti White.

    It is so deep in their DNA that it shows itself even (especially) in entertainment shows such as the Now! show & Have I got News for You, let alone in “serious” programmes such as Today, The World at One , Newsnight & Question Time. (I remember with utter shame how the American Ambassador was treated after 9/11).

    So any sense of hurt & injustice on the part of the BBC, their intellectually corrupt reporters and their supporters is NOTHING compared to our joy at their being demonstrably found out.

    The BBC is – if I may slightly misquote the Lawrence Inquiry – “institutionally biased”. We delight in its current suffering and hope that it is terminal. The BBC deserves everything coming its way. WE tax-payers deserve better for £145.50 pa. Much better.

  • barbie

    The BBC have become institutionalised within themselves. It has not had fresh blood for years, and there lies it’s problem. It has a record of promoting from within, and that means there are no fresh ideas coming to the fore, but the same old ideas and traditions. It has spent money unwisely, freely, without cause to wonder where it comes from and from whom. We have seen the decline in progammes, yes, there have been some successes, but they have become few and far between. They have presenters, and celebraties on their books for years being paid large sums, for less work. Contracts which should never have been made in the first place; they should have been more flexible and subject to change and cancellation. It needs changing, it needs from top to bottom restructuring, with less staff and managers, and it needs to realise their access to public money is not a deep never ending pocket. It needs to come into the 21st century or fail completely. Discipline needs to be instilled with a code of conduct to make sure this never happens again.

  • Sarah

    “I think BBC reporters reporting on the BBC from outside their own offices in the BBC runs that a close second.”

    And the Spectator’s three top promos being about the BBC? And the Telegraph’s top spot being about the BBC. And the Guardian’s top spot being the BBC with a little story standing on tippy toes underneath it asking us not to forget the victims.

    The real story was lost long ago.

    When was the last time any journalist spoke to a woman in all of this? One of the hundreds of victims? All seems very resonant of the Rochdale case when journalists couldn’t keep their yaps shut about the danger of discriminating against men, occasionally pausing to ascribe motives and feelings to the girls without ever extending themselves and actually asking any.

    As usual the media wants to talk about the media and the blokes want to talk about the blokes,

    This is the free, plucky press, uncoverer of truthes we’re being asked to value.

    • eeore

      So women aren’t reporters?

      And yes you are right to bring the victims back into focus, and I was rather disgusted to see the Daily Mail calling the man at the centre of this ‘delusional’. But I just see your point with regard to sexual politics.

      • Sarah

        There are a few. They tend to be the ones standing on tippy toes saying “don’t forget the victims”. The blokes got interested in the sexual abuse for a while, about a day, but soon moved on to media infighting, career openings and severance packages.

        • eeore

          I’ll leave you to your sexual stereotypes, and the darker politics that drive them.

    • Eddie

      Errrr…because the children’s home in north Wales was only for boys, maybe? And the man who made the relevant allegations was a boy too, not a girl?

      Jeez you really are fabricating a dumb feminist pity party constantly, aren’t you? It’s disgusting and pathetic – and the victims have been edged out of the story because or fuckwits like you wanting to turn the Savile thing and now this into a hobby horse to any grievance any feminist has and to use it to demand more women on TV!

      And it is morons like you Sarah who accuse innocent men without any evidence who are respopnsible for doing the most damage.

      And you also cray wolf and accuse innocent men of rape and child abuse – so thanks to selfish twats like you, real victims aren’t believed.

      You should keep your yap shut, you boring little bint.

      The Rochdale case involved Asian gangs and was all about race – and the problem there was the authorities not wanting to take action for fear of being called racist, so multiculturalism was to blame – so no, nothing like this one.

      • Gary

        Blaming feminists for the activities of the Catholic Church and Freemasons is bizarre logic.

        Savile was a Catholic (do you notice a pattern?) and nearly all the Wales abusers were Freemasons, as was the QC who destroyed the evidence, Mr.Elias.

    • Eddie

      “The real story was lost long ago”
      Yes, the real story about innocent men falsely accused by twats like you who have tried to use the issue of child abuse, utterly disgustingly, to promote your own feminist pressure group politics.
      Those who allege child abuse are often not believed because of liars like you who accuse every man you meet of child abuse!
      Yu really are a disgusting pity party wet little feminist, aintcha? TV is largely controlled by women these days, esp at the BBC, which is why the news is so overly emotional all the time, with endless stories about celebrities, and not just hard news as it was.
      Oh and Helen Boaden has just resigned from Newsnight. Is she a bloke then?
      Fucking idiot.

      • Sarah

        I think he was accused by a white, straight, male policeman and w white, straight, male journalist, Ed. A twat like you. Other than the creepy bits.

        But nice try with trying to blame women yet again.

        • Eddie

          A ‘twat’ is a vagina.

          Do you like using the name of the female sexual organs as a term of abuse?

          SEXIST PIG!
          Helen Boaden – head of news. Is she a man then?
          It is hysterical female pressure that caused this silly witch- hunt in the first place; if newsrooms were run by men as they used to be, and our TV were not so feminised and emotive and celebrity obessed (so as to appeal to a female audience) then we could have had this whole matter dealt with calmly and intelligently. Not the hysterical mess we have.
          Compare 1970s reports to the ones now. That is my evidence. Where is yours? Oh I forgot – you don’t have any, just you bigoted opinions.
          You may think you are right but you are factually wrong.

  • Seepage

    Douglas “You say no print media would interrogate their owners or bosses in such a way” but don’t recognise the key difference with the BBC. It is owned and paid for by the people so is obliged to treat its bosses as any other.

    Having said that it has devoted two years of relentless programming to see off Murdoch where in its own case they are already trying to say: Move on now please. (Listen to the comments of the engloomed Jim Naughtie and the bored Evan Davis on Today.)
    They can’t have it up them which is why the fact that they diverted £1 billion to their BBC pension scheme last year goes unremarked.

    Their statist certainties are just that.

    • Gary

      Entwistle resigned, did Murdoch?

      Has Kelvin Mackenzie accepted full responsibility for Hillsborough? Nope.

      The BBC has not, to my knowledge, bribed police officers and turned Scotland Yard into a corporate subdivision, which is what the lickspittle British police became under Murdoch.

      Hillsborough, Charles De Menezes, Phone Hacking, the police/press collusion was and is a threat to national security. The boys in blue committing treason by bending over and serving a foreigner.

      If you have read Private Eye’s “Street of Shame”, you would know that the press are completely corrupt and conceited.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    “But let’s not all shoot the BBC.”


    Au contraire.


    • Gary

      Leveson is imminent, the entire media and press is going to implode, as will the police, already universally despised and set to be further disgraced.

      Meanwhile, 4chan, Reddit, and others will continue to circulate and discuss the dozen Establishment pedos widely listed on the internet.

  • Justathought

    Douglas Murray is part of the MSM group think typically found in the BBC. All too often he misses examining the causes and ramifications of the underlying upheaval in our institutions. He has failed to articulate the implications of his fellow Scottish voting for independence. As an informed writer on Irish politics he has refused to acknowledge the impact of the Scottish referendum with the Stormont call for devolution of powers to set their own rate of corporation. The net result is that now both unionists and nationalists are united in wanting the 12.5% rate and the nationalist party has announced it will begin lobbying in 2013 for a poll for a united Ireland.

  • Baron

    A current BBC trailer for a new serial on poverty runs for almost a minute, the camera scans through examples of world poverty and its opposite, those of wealth. As the voice says disparagingly something about the the rich, can anyone guess whose picture appears on the screen? Bill Gates’s, Abramovich’s, Mark Zuckerberg of the Facebook fame ………? Nope, that of GW Bush.

    The former US President may not be everyone’s flavor of the world (few days back, he voted for the messiah by mistake), but is he truly the embodiment of the world evil rich?

    • eeore

      Well he probably didn’t pay for the program.

      But let’s be fair, Bill Gates is doing a wonderful job relieving poverty with his vaccination programs that kill off the useless eaters,

  • dalai guevara

    ‘…Newsnight business looks set to continue being about media malfeasance rather than the more important issue of overlooked child abuse.’

    followed by:
    ‘Having appointed the shortest-termed Director General ever, and put his full confidence in him, the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten,
    probably cannot remain in place.’

    Hahahaha! Sign up to contribute to Hislop’s pages?

  • Baron

    If the BBC’s Humphreys are as excellent as you say they should become not only better in the pursuit of truth in the private sector, but also be rewarded more.

    Nobody has ever argued the BBC lacks talent, but that the talent is directed in moulding the world to the talent’s liking. The width (all platforms, old and new) and depth (all genres from straight news to children programmes) of the BBC reach these talents have at their disposal suffocates everyone else.

  • 2trueblue

    Firstly Patten is not a Tory. He would fit very well with the Liberals. He is just not up to the job. He has had a cushy ride and now it is time to address the real problem and trim down the BBC. There are some things the BBC does well, but it does not have the top spot anymore. It needs slimming down in a big way, looking at things that it does really well, right through to things that they are less well. It lacks the ability to look beyond the organisation and question anything they do. This has bred a complacency throughout the BBC and it is questionable whether it has the ability to do so and grow.

  • eeore

    Of course it may well be that the offending article was part of a wider plan to discredit Tom Watson; who curiously has slipped from the story.

  • Iain Hill

    Re Patten: A friend of mine used always to say on these occasions of inexplicable attainment. “Nothing succeeds like failure”.

  • LordBlagger

    But I am torn on this. Not because I think he is good at this job, but because I cannot stand Chris Patten. It is not just that his politics are so appalling, but that he is exactly the sort of person


    You couldn’t quite bring yourself to say he’s a Tory.

    Ho hum, more bias.

    • gelert

      If Patten is a Tory then I’m the Virgin Mary.
      Patten is an opportunist,who in his early years saw that his best path to the top was via the Tories.

  • LordBlagger

    The nadir in this case probably came the other week when BBC reporters door-stepped other BBC reporters on their way into work at, er, the BBC. I think BBC reporters reporting on the BBC from outside their own offices in the BBC runs that a close second.


    Ah yes, you want a cover up.

  • LordBlagger

    he first is that the Newsnight McAlpine story is devastating


    Look at it. McAlphine – It’s a Tory problem. Tory Tory Tory all the way

    Clywd? Hmmm, not one mention of Labour running the council.

    Bias? You Bet. It’s an attempt at smearing.

    It’s also an attempt at trying to deflect from the own involvement with Saville and covering up a criminal, allowing him to go on a commit more crimes.

    Bias? Yep all the way. And under their charter that is illegal too.

    • Gary

      Savile was a Catholic who was chummy with the Establishment, he was very much on good terms with the tabloid press. The man was knee deep within the media/government/police nexus, which we know is interconnected.
      Interesting, isn’t it, that the same press that fawned over Savile (an abuser) hounded Freddie Mercury (a man who harmed no one).
      If Jerry Sadowitz knew, then the press must surely have known Savile was a nonce.

  • Rhoda Klapp

    Perhaps the chairman of the trust ought to be somebody who does NOT believe in the BBC’s self-serving legend? Who does not feel obliged to defend it when it breaks its own charter. Who works for us, in fact. There is no member of the great and good who could convince in this role. No-one in the house of lords, no fat bastard already on a dozen quangoes, no weasel-faced harridan leading a leftwing council somewhere. We need an outsider, and I mean outside all UK political life. A foreigner, perhaps.

    • Baron

      Rhoda, the outsider will go local in no time at all, or the anointed will make his life hell.

      The majority of the Guardian reading bunch at the BBC have but one messianic aim – to tell us how we should live, what we should think. They can get away with it because they don’t have to rely on our paying for the lectures voluntarily. If they were to spar for the punters’ shilling in the market of open ideas, they would be, as the Guardian appears to be, near implosion.

      • Gary

        The Daily Mail is more obsessed with telling people how to live than anyone else, and is so economically short-sighted and stupid it thinks rising house prices are good for the country.
        All newspapers are near implosion, they are an outdated medium which has no place in the age of the internet.

  • Colonel Mustard

    This article reminds me of Noel Coward’s “Don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans” but the battle against the BBC is not yet won.

    It might have once been a great institution but it needs to get back to being a national broadcaster to everyone, unbiased, rather than the broadcasting wing of the Labour party and Guardian.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Every down arrow is a badge of honour, thanks. Because I know my comment has been read by and pissed off the gang of incorrigible lefties referred to.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Well, the down arrows might mean that people don’t see a need for another “national broadcaster to everyone, and that the BBC can be whatever it wants, as long as the public isn’t paying for it .

        • Colonel Mustard

          Even yours.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Huh? Not following you here.

  • Bluesman

    Would it help if the Chairman (or Chairwoman) were full-time?

  • Colin

    The only people shooting the BBC right now are employees of the BBC and members of the BBC trust, and those shots are being aimed at its collective feet. the idea that outsiders and enemies of the BBC are responsible for the complete breakdown in objectivity, leadership and common sense is seriously misguided.

    • Colin

      Patten has fired another shot into the collective big toe of the beeb by authorising a twelve month severance package to George Entwhistle, even though it seems he was only entitled to six months.

  • Vulture

    Just because the BBC pays you our money for the occasional broadcast, Douggie, you shouldn’t mount a kneejerk defence. For the truth is that the BBC is rotten to the core – on everything from the Middle East to Global Warming to its insistant, blatant and indeed obsessional bias against the Right-wing. The real scandal here is that the BBC mounted a deliberate campaign of lies to smear top Tories as paedos – in order to deflect attention from its own role in protecting Savile and other perverts over decades.
    This calls for a thorough purge from top to bottom – starting with the horrible Patten. But for that we would need a Thatcher: instead we have Dave – who appointed his soulmate Chris as Chairman. So I wouldn’t wait up for fatty to go. So long as he stays, however, this scandal will continue to stink to high heaven.

    • 2trueblue

      As you so rightly say, it will not happen. The BBC is so entrenched in its stance to the left and there is no will to change. A vastly trimmed down BBC will be the only way to clear it out to present the public with a good, reliable, cost effective, professional station.

    • Justathought

      If Patten cannot articulate in the next twelve hours a plan to restore confidence in the organisation that he heads then he is toast.

      • Russell

        Patten is haed of a different organisation, The Trust, that group of another pile of overpaid ‘executives’ who are supposed to look after licence fee payers.
        A good start would be to publish an organogram of the organisation so we can see exactly how many of these overpaid Directors, Managers, Editors,we are paying for and exactly what they do for our money.

    • eeore

      You don’t know that was the reason why the story was run. I can see from a partizan perspective it fits your narrative but there are plenty of other reasons why this happened with explanations from cock up to conspiracy.

      As for purging the organisation. Mrs Thatcher didn’t do it, Bliar tried at the time of the Iraq war, and the last time the licence was up for review Gordon Brown’s regime hinted at it again. So I find it odd that on this issue you have thrown your lot in with New Labour.

      • Baron

        eeore, in 1976 Daniel Bell in the ‘Coming of Post-Industrial Society’ wrote: “… nature and human nature ceased to be central to the new Post Industrial society, as fewer now handle artifacts or things so that reality is primarily the social world, which gives rise to a new Utopianism that mistakenly treats human nature as something that can be engineered and corrected by instruction from the enlightened betters’.

        The Register piece (see brossen99 link) describes a case in point for the AGW, it tells you how it’s done, a few anointed set up on a crusade for which they never got a mandate. They self appointed to that elite phylum that thinks it knows what the society needs, the rest of the BBC opinion formers of the same membership follow it wherever an opportunity arises from news commentary through period drama to kids programmes on the CBBC, it’s mostly a soft indoctrination, nothing blatant, one hardly notices its corroding power because it’s the cumulative that’s of import.

        Look, my blogging friend, Baron wouldn’t mind at all if they did all that stuff provided one didn’t have to fund it, but then without the impost the BBC agitprop of the anointed would be very likely as successful as is that of the Guardian.

        • eeore

          I am well aware of the program of the New World Order, and I am well aware Agenda 21 to bring about the rule of the ‘enlightened betters’ (whom some might call the illuminatti), and I am well aware of Margaret Sanger and her call to mask the eugenics program under a veil of liberalism. And I long ago bothered reading the New World Order propaganda in the Guardian, and listening to BBC news – beyond occasionally tuning into the world service.

          I was replying to Vulture’s outburst, because all it does is to allow those pushing the agenda to paint those who object as angry and irrational. Just as those who oppose them with reason are called conspiracy theorists.

  • 15peter20

    “put Lord Patten and all the other people who have screwed up this country into the middle of that circle and focus all of our attention on them”

    Like who? Not, presumably, the party leader who did most to promote him.

  • brossen99

    This is the real BBC scandal ! … … … … …
    The 28 people behind this … … … … …

    • Colin

      The report in the Register is shocking. I’m not sure it’s as big a scandal as savile and the attempt to stich up the tories by associating them with child abuse, but it needs to be looked at. The fact that it’s been largely ignored goes to show where the establishment agenda really lies.


      Indeed so. And if you look at the Common Purpose website, you see that it has infiltrated our society to a shocking degree, yet which journalist has ever mentioned it? It’s time it received the same exposure as everyone was happy to give Freemasonry some years ago.

    • eeore

      Indeed but that is the reason for the alternative media, and hence while this whole affair works as a stalking horse for those groups seeking to close it down.

  • Eddie

    Could it not be that the quality of staff has declined because the BBC no longer recruits on merit alone, but on the grounds of diversity?
    Is the quality of reporters on Newsnight what it used to be? Do they have the same checks and balances? Are all reports seen by senior staff and lawyers before broadcast? This is the BBC FFS, not student radio at Essex polytechnic!
    Also, it seems the BBC is cutting corners with certain stories and assuming things – fatal for any news journalist. With issues such as racism and sexism, as well as with sex crime and child abuse, it seems everyone at the BBC is happy and willing to brand individuals and bully them with no evidence at all.
    I have also noticed BBC programmes making massive assumptions and broadcasting really amateurish reports: for example, Woman’s Hour’s features are often so biased they should be classes as propaganda for the Fawcett Society – and yet thay laughingly claim they are impartial!

    • AnotherDaveB

      They just wanted to smear the Conservative Party. There were no checks or balances required.

      • Andy

        Exactly. And to divert attention from Sir Jimmy Savile, their own home-grown child abuser.

        • Gary

          Savile was a Catholic and was allowed into Broadmoor by a Mr. Kenneth Clarke, about whom rumours are circling on the net.

          • eeore

            Linked to Bilderberg no doubt.

      • Eddie

        I would agree that the fact that the (wrongly) accused man was a Tory grandee probably did cause more gleeful enthusiasm amongst BBC producers and reporters than if he had been person who was not well know; but if the accused had been a Labour Lord, I suspect he would also have had his reputation trashed with almost equal glee. A non-political matter was politicised though – which does nothing to tackle child abuse past or present.
        The problem here was basic: the BBC, perhaps desperate to make amends for the Savile fiasco, went too far the other way and ran a feature that they should not have run, because they wanted to believe the accusations of someone abused in the 80s.
        A Sceptical approach is always best – and the media really should stop craving ratings by getting itself into a paedo-hunting frenzy, and scaremongering, and exaggerating child abuse outside the home in the way it always does to appeal to ‘mums’, and instead leave such investigations to the police – who can investigate outside the medi glare.

        • Reconstruct

          But we know this not to be true. Evidence: Margaret Hodge and the Islington paedophile scandals.

        • Gary

          That’s the same police who destroyed evidence and are utterly incompetent and corrupt. The police are full of Freemasons.

          They are not trustworthy. No one I know trusts the police. No sane, rational person would trust such a bunch of hopeless clowns.

          • Eddie

            But if the choice is between the police investigating crimes, or having trial by Twitter and the ‘mums’ army’ of morons out there, I know who we should choose.

            The criminal justice system and the law largely exist to protect people from people – in this case, falsely accused me from screaming harpies bent on revenge against anyone called a ‘witch’ by some bullshitter on Twitter.

            I do so hope ALL those who have falsely accuses innocent men on Twitter and TV are arrested now and hope Lord MacAlpine takes the lying scum to the cleaners – on behalf of all the innocent accused men who cannot afford a spare £100k to bring a case of libel, slander or defamation.

            • Gary

              The criminal justice system exists to serve the interests of the political establishment. There is no justice.

        • martinvickers

          If one were honest, one would have to say –

          1. the McAlpine/Newsnight debacle is almost entirely the child of the Savile/Newsnight debacle – rather ironic on remembrance weekend (WWII so clearly growing, weedlike, from WWI)

          2. I can’t but feel that the Savile debacle was NO debacle at all –

          in that case, notwithstanding the rumours and all the other possible leads, the trust in the key witness for that particular report fell apart, due if memory serves, to a forged letter. Newsnight pulled the report on that basis, and heads then rolled.

          -In retrospect, however, the decision taken by the then Newsnight editor was entirely right – if you have doubts on the key witness, retreat and re-examine. It was the right thing to do.

          And they got slated for it. Or suspended.

          Any surprise therefore that when the next similar problem arose, now denuded of its ‘reluctant’ editors, the new naive faces took the lesson that, if in doubt, run the story, and simply hold back a name or two? For fear of being slated for holding the story.

          The media storm/ouycry over Savile, and the withdrawn Savile Newsnight created the perverse incentive to run half baked stories, for fear of it happening again.

          3. McAlpine/Newsnight was a complete debacle. and predictable. Entwhistle now pays the price, ironically, for giving them the original Newsnight editor’s head over Savile to hold off the mob.

          • Eddie

            I have never heard of a ‘forged letter’ from the Savile witness.
            Though I agree, Newsnight and no professional journalist should run a story without evidence. It seems they allowed the hysteria of the mob to make them pander to that mob by in effect betting on MacApline being a paedo – and if he had been, no one would care, would they?
            Well they should. Plenty of men get wrongly accused all the time in our paedo-obsessed country (and people just will not accept that it is parents in the home who are most likely to be child abusers anyway: the ‘family’ that some romaticise constantly).
            But Rumour and allegation is not enough. It seems to be for the press though, and for all the morons out there who accuse any man they dislike of being a paedophile (which is now used as a weapon by the mental and vengeful).

            • martinvickers


              In my view, Newsnight would never NORMALLY have run with the McAlpine story – but a perfect storm arose – Editors suspended for previously refusing to run difficult child abuse story – widespread pressure to ‘believe the victim’ – incentive to run such stories come what may – outsourced investigations because all the money is going to managers rather than reporters – plus absence of experienced heads at NN to give critical judgement because they’d all been suspended!

              If Entwhistle had not jumped the gun on the suspensions re Savile, it is significantly less likely that others would have felt under pressure to run half-baked McAlpine story.

              • Eddie

                Interesting link – and I do not disagree with your conclusions.

                The big question is: why hasn’t ‘Fiona’ been arrested and charged? Ditto for all others who have made false allegations?

                The increasingly hysterical preoccuptation with hysteria in society and the media is certainly doing nothing to help children, that’s for sure.

                The mob has been in full cry lately online and elsewhere – with the internet a hotbed of gossip, hearsay, fantasies, mischief-making and rumour. If we were talking about expenses claims being fiddled it would not be so serious – but we are talking child abuse here, and men accused are assumed to be guillt forever after any accusation, and anyone who has conrtibuted to that gossip and rumour, or who has casually accuses any man of child abuse, should hang their heads in shame indeed. The posters on the Speccie who have done so (ie Sarah and Ruben) should be ashamed and apologise too.

                Really, we need new laws to stop this mob behaviour – but we do have some laws but they seem never used: making false allegations knowingly is a crime. Let’s arrest people who do so.
                And let us NEVER forget that most child abuse takes place in the home and is done by parents or family members, and half of child abuse is done by women too – and most male child sexs abusers get access to kids via single mums, it seems, so they can rape another man’s children.

      • Gary

        Paxman has stated it is because of too many managers and not enough actual staff. Too many middle men and suits.

        • Whyshouldihavetoregister

          And as usual Paxman is a bloviating arse.

    • Sarah

      Yes it could be that the presenters, producers and journalists at Newsnight, the BBC Director General and the Chairman of the BBC Trust are all female, non-white and homosexual. Unfortunately for you, none of them are.

      They’re all hideously male and white and ostensibly straight. As incidentally, we’re or are Savile, the Prime Minister, Jon Humphries, Lord McAlpine, Mr Messam, the police man who misnamed his abuser, George Monbiot and 95% of the free press.

      Stop blaming your mess on the rest of us.

      • Redneck


        Do you not think it incongruous that you don’t find usage of: “They’re all hideously male and white”, offensive?

        • Sarah

          Do you not find it incongruous that you do?

          • Redneck


            I firmly believe in free speech therefore it matters not a jot to me what anyone says. However, it does strike one as odd that overt hatred of whites is not regarded a “hate-crime” or racist.

            For example the case of 15-year old Kriss Donald: I suspect, were the roles reversed, this would have been treated as the most heinous racist murder of all time. Instead, barely registers as a hate crime. Curious but I think most British & American White Males, if they’re honest, know the score.


            • Sarah

              “hideously white” does not indicate hatred of whites. It is a gothic horror image, irony. It is incongruous that white people get offended by its use and not by what its use is meant to highlight: ie. that our state broadcaster with its extraordinary powers to influence is overwhelmingly run by one group of people.

              • Eddie

                No – it is a racist insult.
                The British population is overwhelmingly white, you MORON. Most blacks are in lower social class groups – and not many lower class whites end up on TV either.
                Between 9 and 16% of the Brtish population is ethnic, most of those youngsters, and blacks are actually about 1-2% of that: so black people are from what I see massively OVER repressnted on TV (every drama, advert, news show has black faces – not Asian or Chinese, but black). CBBC is maybe 40% black and maybe 10% white (and then only white women are allowed).
                You are a complete bullshitter Sarah and have not the first clue what you’re talking about.
                Evere worked in TV eh? Evere even been inside the BBC building? Know anything at all about BBC’s recruitment strategies?
                It DOES NOT MATTER that any industy is run overwhelmingly by one group of people demographically speaking. Most airline pilots are white male too. Most working in Indian restaurants are south Aasian males. Most in Chinese restaurants are Chinese. Most TV drama producers are female – and the HR departemnt at the BBC is OVERWHELMINGLY FEMALE – and it is these politically correct bints who roll out policies that discriminate against white men for no other reason than their race and gender, and who do not elevate MERIT to its true role as the ONLY factor that should matter.
                Correlation does NOLT equal causation – as I have told you many times. The prdominance of men and/ore whites in any profession at any level does NOT prove that there has been any discrimination at all.

              • Eddie

                No, of course ‘hideously white’ does not indicate a hatred of whites.

                Nor does ‘disgustingly darkie. indicate a hatred of non-whites – it’s just being ‘gothic’, innit?

                Similarly, ‘stupid Paki’ is just a non-racist geographically-specific term of endearment, and ‘fucking dumb jungle-bunny’ merely an affectionate expression of zoomorphic ethnotolerant love.
                Well thank you Sarah for enlightening us with your…errr…interesting logic there, love.

                ‘Hideously white and male’ is not sexist either.
                Oh no – and it is in now way racist or sexist in any way, ever, always, because the BBC diversity department (which exists to discriminate against white men says so).

                But really, local councils and hospitals and schools are ‘filthily female’, aren’t they? Hideously ethnic and female, in fact.
                Maybe why they’re in such a vibrant and diverse fucking mess, eh?

              • eeore

                Legally it does if whites find it offensive.

                • Sarah

                  But whites don’t find it offensive. They just really want to.

                • eeore

                  And women like having their bum pinched.

                • Caron’

                  Having somebody touch you intimtpately without your consent is not the same as somebody saying something about the group you belong to. Do you not see a difference?

                • eeore

                  Yes I do. One creates a atmosphere in which one group attempts to diminish another, which oftens leads to the justification of violence. The other is an exchange between individuals that rarely if ever leads to anything. Which explains why the law treats one so seriously it adds an extra tariff on convictions, whilst it rarely if ever prosecutes the other.

                • Eddie

                  Hilarious! Sarah is now so deluded she thinks she speaks for all white people in the world! So that’s almost 60 million in the UK alone.

                  How amazing is that! She can read the minds of millions and know intimately all their opinions and desires!

                  She must be the Messiah! (either that, or she’s a very silly bint!)
                  Nurse! We’ve got another one for yer…

                • Eddie

                  Oh yes, and the law also states that the PERCEPTION of racism is enough to prove racism. (This is why I recommend to all my former students: to say an attack was racially motivated if they were ever attacked and needed to get the rozzers there quickly – racist attacks are prioritised, and there needs to be no evidence, just perception, to allege a racist attack – and it’s equally valid if your attackers are the same colour as you too).
                  Moreover, the ethos of ‘self-definition’ (as recommended by African-American campaigners) means that anyone can call themselves black, if they consider themselves black, no matter how white their skin.
                  So as a black man, I can say that Sarah is indeed being racist and sexist when she refers to the BBC as being ‘hideously white and male’.

                • eeore

                  On a side note I was interested to see that in the report produced @2005 on race and the criminal justice system the group most likely to be convicted, @70%, were ‘refused to say’.

        • Eddie

          Ah yes, but you see, in the misandrist dystopia of Sarah-world, sexism is only sexism if directed against women, not men – who she sees as all being bastarda and rapists anyway.
          The burning envy and hatred of Sarah and other bitter twisted littel sisters is NOT what most women feel though – because most women certainly reject the sexist bigoted moronic man-hatred of the feminasties. No surprise that 5 out of 6 women wouldn’t call themselves feminists eh?
          Most women are normal and lovely and have relationships with men – and their fathers are usually men too, I find, as are their sons.
          One must only wonder what sad hurtful experience turned Sarah from a shy self-hating little girl into the monstrous manhater she is now. Germane Greer can blame her father who came back from the war; Andrea Dworkin can blame the man who raped her (though maybe he got lost in the rolls of fat and is still there!); Sylvia Plath can blame her husband and father (though without the connections of the former and the money of the latter she would have died unknown and spared us her awful self-pitying poems). But Sarah, who will she blame? ALL men it seems.
          Sarah is like a plastic Miss Haversham decked out in Primark! Shame she doesn’t walk a bit closer to some Christmas candles really…

          • Gary

            The Catholic Church, the Freemasons, the Judiciary, all male dominated professions and all hotbeds of pedophilia. There’s no getting away from the fact that old boys clubs seem to revel in buggering children.

      • Eddie

        Sarah displays her staggering ignorance as per usual, like a psychotic mental patient waves around his dribbling cock proudly for his imaginery friends to admire…

        There are in fact female presenters of Newsnight, and ethnic minorities on the staff – as on many BBC and Channel 4 programmes – and they are there NOT through merit but because of BBC diversity policies which surreptitiously discriminate against better white men in order to promote less talented ethnic women. This BBC diversity policy has meant that the means to decide who gets a job or promotion at the BBC is no longer merit – and there has been dreadful positive action to promote some really 4th rate women and ethnic.

        Many at the BBC could be classed as the 3 Ms: middle-aged, menopausal and mediocre.

        But of course most people in a serious newsroom will be middle class white and male – because men are much better at hard news than women, and educated ethnics often get pushed into accountancy, medicine or law by mummy and daddy gee. Most doctors are female and ethnic – no wait, they are HIDEOUSLY female and ethnic huh? Most drama producers are female though, and it seems to me most TV presenters are these days too (ever since educated and knowledgeable men were forced out because they lacked the teeth and tits of people called Fiona who know fuck all about antiques or the countryside or politics yet seem to present all programems about them and get paid £600k a year for their irritating smarmy ignorance too!)

        Most airline pilots are also white men – would you prefer quotas so women who can’t even park their cars within reversing into bollards get to play aeroplanes eh?

        • Trofim

          “Sarah displays her staggering ignorance as per usual, like a psychotic
          mental patient waves around his dribbling cock proudly for his imaginery
          friends to admire…”

          So you’ve not much experience of ” psychotic mental patients”,

          • Eddie

            Only Sarah…

          • Sarah

            Eddie cycles between psychotic, bint, dear, love and incongruously, man-hater. There was a bitch and a whore in the early days too.

            I don’t take it personally, he says it to all the girls.

            • Eddie

              Sarah – you are a massive misandrist, sexist, liar, maker of false accusations of child abuse against me and others, and generally a disgusting putrid little fleck of rotting cunt-dribble trickling down this otherwise interestingt message board.

              But that’s fine – because every time you post an argument, it is disproven in its expression by the sick psychotic bigoted, truly pathetic bint who makes it. Loser!

              Sad and funny, you are, sad Sarah. Like a female Jimmy Savile indeed. Yuck!

              • Sarah

                “disgusting putrid little fleck of rotting cunt-dribble”
                “sick psychotic bigoted, truly pathetic bint”

                The live ones don’t rot Eddie. I’d say trying some time, but clearly you mustn’t go near any live women and you’ve got to get the police in over that dead one you have behind your kitchen wall.

                • Eddie

                  Illiterate as well as innumerate, I see… But at least you can copy and paste – like the average 5 year old then.

                  Touched a nerve, huh?

                  I stand by my rather accurate descriptions of Sarah the lying libellous witch who accuses men on here of being paedophiles – based on NO evidence at all of course (and who is one of those sick bitches who will falsely accuse a man of rape or child abuse, thus making real victims less likely to be believed).

                • Ruben

                  “touched a nerve”

                  You’re the one who seems to be having some kind of anxiety attack or emotional breakdown, Eddie. It’s uncomfortable to watch.

                  And your repulsive, aggressive language and behaviour is getting on my nerves.

                • Eddie

                  Go away then, Rube. Another pointless post from a pointless poster. My post was not addressed to you – and if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. OK?
                  I respond in kind to vile allegations to repulsive posters who alllege that I am a paedophile (based on no evidence at all of course).

                • Ruben

                  It’s a bit difficult to avoid your posts, they take up three quarters of every page. You are inflicting yourself on people.

                  But that’s beside the point, I don’t stand back and not intervene when I see somebody behavingly badly, in your case appallingly.

                  You’ve been doing this for a long time before anyone suggested you seemed to have abusive traits and beliefs common to abusers. If you want to convince people you’re not an abuser, I would suggest a good way of going about it would be to stop being abusive.

                • Eddie

                  Go away, Ruben.

                  And your maths is as bad as Sarah’s! By the way, you don’t seem to mind Sarah’s waffling turgid posts which take up half of every page and in which she falsely accuses me and others of racism, sexism, woman’hating, paedophilia, and child rape.

                  Biased are we?

                  Do Ruben thinks it is OK for someone to call someone else a paedo with no evidence, and then accuses a person who strongtly defends themselves and rightly abuses the evil bitch who makes such fale allegations of being wrongly abusive? Errr…. Do you work for the BBC by any chance?

                  Bye bye, Rube. You are no hero, love, just a prat.
                  The only persopn at fault here is the poster who accuses other posters – who she does not know, and in fact knows nothing about – of being child abusers., That is fucking SICK!

            • Eddie

              Question: is Helen Boaden a woman, Sarah? Or perhaps a girl? She has just resigned as a Newsnight head of news.
              Oh but wait, you said yesterday that the staff on Newsnight were all male?
              Have Helen Boaden just had the fastest sex change operation in history then?
              Or are you a ignorant little lying blockheaded bint who constantly makes false accusations without evidence (in the manner of all those women who cry rape falsely, it seems)?
              I think we all know the answer eh…

            • Michele Keighley

              You might not take it personally, but if he said it to me I’d have the son of unmarried parents frogmarched to the nearest padded cell.

              • sarah

                Hi Michele,

                It’s tempting. But you know, if I spent all my time rounding up paranoid, psychotic woman-haters, I’d have no time left to crash planes, stitch up innocent men, cry rape, ruin boys’ educational and sporting prospects, promote wheelchair Indian dancers or bring the country and the BBC to its knees via the medium of remote female mind control. I have to prioritise.

              • Eddie

                You assume that Sarah is telling the truth – you really musn;t believe the psycho, who alleges any man who disagrees with her is a sexist, a woman-hater, a racist, a paedophile and maybe the big bad wolf too eh?

                Sarah is a well known liar and bigot: force an allegiance with her if you want, but all normal women steer well clear of ths spitting hissing feminist nutjob called Sarah. (She is so damn desperate to make friends and recruit others to her psycho-femi-cult that she will reply to you and try to forge allegiances, I promise!)
                Most women, thank goodness, are nothing like Sarah and do not share her bitter twisted hateful opinions on men.

        • Gary

          Savile was Catholic. It seems Catholicism and paedophilia go hand in hand. Savile’s abuse occurred during an era when old boy networks ruled the country; government, the BBC, the police, etc. These old boy networks are always tolerant of abuse of women and girls, and use abuse of boys as a form of dominance.
          These middle-aged men, due to sexual failure, seek to rejuvenate themselves by raping girls and boys.
          Its is a small step from Hebephile to Paedophile.

        • Sarah

          Eddie, as I’ve already told you, I would be delighted if there were quoatas for female pilots. I know you have a really bad memory, but I have a feeling you remember that conversation so why are you asking me the same question again? And using the same, tired, inaccurate anti-female propaganda again?

          Women are safer drivers than men.

          Mile for mile.

          We subsidise poor and dangerous male driving through our insurance. Just as we subsidise so many other types of poor and dangerous male behaviour in society through our taxes, bank charges and license fees.

          Do you want me to explain the maths to you one more time?

          • Eddie

            Nope – I think you’ll find that was another lie, love.
            Men (who do proper and difficult driving against the clock in unfamiliar territories) have about the same number of accidents as women who dirve half as far per year on average. Of course, the accidents men have are more serious – well, most women are too weak and scared to even drive on the motorway, so no wonder!
            Add to that the fact that there are more male drivers, and you can see how your statistics are flawed.
            If women had to drive as men do, they would have many more accidents indeed. As it is, most women seem unable to park without reversing into a bollard!
            You can’t do maths, silly!
            Men are safer drivers than women and way better at driviung innately – because they are decisive and have goo spatial awarness. You are making a basic error on the maths – and of course allowing the tiny number of major accidents caused by men to create false averages. Weak students often do this – so decide that all people 2000 years ago live to 20 because that was the average age of death. Really basic error, but one made by mediocre thinkers all the time.
            And as I said before, weirdo, I would support the setting up of a female only and female-piloted airline – then angry mental bints like you could travel with them, and intelligent men and women could travel in airlines with the best pilots (all male). If we’re lucky, your female pilot will reverse her Boeing 747 into s sky-bollard (ie a mountain) and rid the world of feminist manhatig weirdos in one fell swoop.

            • Sarah

              “Male drivers have a 77 percent higher risk of dying in a car accident than women, based on miles driven.”
              Traffic STATS, a detailed and searchable new risk analysis of road fatality statistics by Carnegie Mellon for the American Automobile Association.

              • Eddie

                No – your statistics are wrong, love, because yuou are not comparing like with like.

                One can say that a man has a much higher chance of dying in plane his is piloting than a woman – because, guess what, the vast majority of pilots are men.

                Ditto with cars. Most women just toddle, drive to the supermarker and school, NEVER do serious difficult driving or go on the motorway – so even they can’t manage to have a fatal crash whilst reversing into a bollard.

                Women really aren’t very good at statistics or maths, are they?
                If you can’t understand how your statistics present a false argument, then I would recommend going back to school. Year 7, too.

          • Eddie

            And we men massively subsidise women through our taxes – men pay most of the tax paid in this country, and women get most of the benefits from the welfare state, which isn’t very fair now, is it?
            I suggest that women should pay 5% more income tax to balance things.
            Understand der maff, love?
            Safe drivers subsidise though who have accidents – either through no fault of their own or through others’ bad driving. No gender at all is relevant here. But men do most driving, drive much more then women, do difficult and dangerous driving, so of course have bigger accidents – but the number of accidents is the same for men and women, even though women drive half the mileage men do and do much easier driving. Got that now? Moron.

      • Eddie

        Helen Boaden from Newsnight has just resigned.
        She is I believe a woman. She is hideously female, and one of the many 3Ms at the Beed: Middle-aged, Mediocre and Menopausal.
        Therefore, sexist Sarah’s assertion that all Newsnight staff are white men is proven to be utter bollocks – which is predictabel really, because that label would accurately describe all of her opinions. Psycho Sarah has once again proved herself a liar and an idiot.
        (incidentally, Wimmin like that have ruined TV drama, and turned it into a soapy mess aimed at 3Ms just like the producers of that crap; Lorraine Heggessy was controller of BBC1 in the 90s – she demoted men, replaced tjem with women, and turned down Life on Mars because it was, and I quote, “too blokey”. La Lorraine is the one who introduced Indian dancers and wheelchair spinning to accompany the ident, instead of the BBC globe. How very pc…)

        • Gary

          Fact is that all-male societies such as Catholic Church and Freemasons are synonymous with bullying and buggery.
          TV drama was laughable “John Actor is Monkfish” crap in the days of the old boy networks. I remember it, it was naff beyond belief.

          • sarah

            And then there’s the middle-east. An advert for male government if ever I saw one.

            • Eddie

              Dear me Sarah, how can anyone make such a false argument – such a enormous spurious assertion – and still keep a straight face?

              So, according to you Psycho Sarah, the problems in the Middle East all stem from the fact that their Islamic governments comprise men and not women. Do you SERIOUSLY think that getting women in there would stop them being Islamic nutters? REMEMBER HERE: Women are always more conservative and more religious than men, and in Islamic societies they rule the home and are in fact the muscle behind the male finger on the trigger that blows up bombs and shoots guns.

              Of course women don’t directly do any of this stuff: they conveniently get men for fight all their battles, like two sluts dahn the pub egging on their meatheaded boyfriends to beat the shit out of each other!

              Your argument is ironically pretty close to that of the Islamists who argue that if Islam were institutated around the world, we would live in Utopia – for you, read women. You are as extreme and mental as any radical raghead, Sarah, love.

              • Sarah

                Yeah I see where you’re coming from.

                Countries with high female representation in government: Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, France, Spain, Switzerland, New Zealand.
                Countries with low female representation in government: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, China, every other corrupt, autocratic, misogynist hell hole on earth.

                • Eddie

                  NONSENSE – another false argument.
                  The countries you mention are not world powers.
                  The USA, almost every European country, all have men dominating government and have for 200 yeares – which is why we have a stable, prosperous, democratic country where women have the vote.
                  You really are a female chauvinist pig, ain’tcha?
                  Your thesis that all countries will mostly men in government are corrupt and autocratic; and that countries with more women in power are somehow utopias of peace is your fantasy and that of other deluded feminists.
                  Men are in charge because they run things better. Women are often the pressure on men who do bad things – criminals, terrorists etc. Behind every corrupt man there is a woman, non?
                  The countries you mention are ruled by women IN THE HOME – because if you knew anything yoyu’d know that women are far more religious and extreme than men. It is not men who spread vile Islam around the world and oppress wom,en – it is women who force girls into marriage and circumscise them actually. Not men.

    • Gary

      Paxman has correctly stated it is because there is too much middle management, too many bland suits.
      Nothing to do with “diversity”. Savile would not have got very far in the present BBC, because pedos tend to thrive most in male-dominated environs.

      • Eddie

        And don’t forget, that behind every great man there lies a great woman, and by the same token, behind every sick abusive man there is woman who made him that way. Just ask Mrs Hitler…

        Most kids who are abused are abused at home – usually by parents or step-parents of siblings or family friends. This whole Savile and MacAlpine thing is a huge distraction – because people don’t want to face the fact that parents are the number 1 abusers of children. And our single mother culture creates the context for abuse too. In comparison, the kids abused in male only contexts are a fraction of the whole.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here