News of the World readers in common sense shocker..

I wouldn’t normally read the News of the Screws, but I was lead there by Guido‘s link to the ho’ dishing the (complete lack of) dirt on George Osborne’s past.

Anyway, one click lead to another and before I knew it I was up to my knees in cerebral sputum. Then I found this:

THE BBC is embroiled in a furious race row over talented BLACK celebs being booted off Strictly Come Dancing while WHITE stars with “two left feet” stay in.

Oops.. here comes the race card..

Heather Small, who was competing again last night, declined to comment. But a close pal said: “There’s definitely something in this. There may be institutional racism at work in the public vote.”

Apparently Heather Small was one of the contestants who was discriminated against by the British public. Now look. Heather Small was the singer in M People. She is a black woman from Manchester. A gobbier combination you may never meet, But Heather Small said precisely f**k all, and if she’d felt like saying something, I have every faith that she would have.

No, it was a nameless ‘close pal’ of Heather’s who gave the quote. Couldn’t have been a white middle-class lefty BBC production assistant type of ‘close pal’ could it?

But fear not – along comes Token to set the record straight. Token who wasn’t even on the fucking show, because he prejudged that such a situation would arise.

Black Olympic sprinting ace John Regis was also horrified, telling us: “I was shocked. I thought, ‘You must be kidding.’ It’s not like sport, when it’s down to performance—other factors come into play. Strictly is a middle-class kind of show and that possibly could be the area where racism still festers. I feel sorry for Don. I wouldn’t go on Strictly for all the tea in China.”

So I was pleasantly surprised to see the NoW readers giving this whole shebang a jolly good fisking. Because the comments often get purged, I’m going to include a bunch here – this story has provoked quite a response.

here we go again, so a black person does not get a vote and suddenly we are all racist, thank god they aren’t Muslim, then it would be plastered across all news bullitens for the next month.
Lets have a black Strictly then we wont have this problem, so John Regis is disgusted and says “You wont catch me on that show” unlike his running career, when everyone caught him

By john. Posted October 26 2008 at 1:39 PM.

all this just winds me up, i bet if the black people where still in, then all would be ok, why not just let them win! its always the same if black people dont get there own way. ohh i didnt win etc cos im black, NO MATE its beacause your crap . thats all.

By carl farrand. Posted October 26 2008 at 1:37 PM.

Is this story a joke?. I’m black and this kind of story does not good at all to the black communitiy. It’s PC nonesense gone mental.
I hadn’t heard of Don Warrington before so why would I vote for a guy I’ve never heard off?. I presume some black people in Britain must have voted for the “white” guys to win………is that racist?.

By Ryan O. Posted October 26 2008 at 1:23 PM.

People tend to go on who they like , then how they dance etc, it has nothing to do with racism at all .
Just people having there freedom of speech .
If thats not allowed then we no longer live in a free country , but more of a dictator state .
1 last thing as someone else pointed out the MOBS’S are racist how would they like the MOWO’S every year .
Grow up please and stop using the race card .

By tony. Posted October 26 2008 at 1:18 PM.

John Regis and others like them need to get a life, what a load of rubbish that man spouts, yes it was unfortunate that two black dancers were in the dance off last week but that has nothing to do with RACISM!!! get that through your head Regis!
People vote for whom they like wether that is because he or she is attractive, funny, a past hero of theirs or whatever, they do not vote for a person because of their colour OR do we now have to do what the PC brigade would have us do and pay money to vote for a black person just in case it might be seen as racism!
You make me sick with this race card rubbish all the time
OH! last year I voted for Alesha and This year I did vote the 2nd week for Don Warrington

By Terry Atkinson. Posted October 26 2008 at 1:09 PM.

Has everyone forgotten who won the show last year? Alesha Dixon won because she was a tremendous dancer and very likeable! You are in the dance off for a few reasons one being you cant dance and have failed to wow the public, another is you are a celebrity who has not been around for a while therefore people vote for the more popular soapstars,presenters,sports people etc. People should stop turning everything into a race war us Strictly viewers enjoy the show and vote for all the right reasons, dont turn a great show into a scandal!!

By l small. Posted October 26 2008 at 1:09 PM.

Would the two people voted off want to be kept in soley for being black and pitied?
1) If the two people scored highly from the judges, perhaps most people assumed they would be safe and wanted to waste their phone call on saving a celeb they liked – that is the way voting for who you like works rather than voting for who you dont.
2) People vote for the celeb they like – its an entertainment show not a dance show, so people are not voting for the best dancers. Viewers no doubt enjo watching John Seargent struggle to dance as it is more entertaining than a flawless dancer.
3) Heather Small is a great singer, but as I recall had success in the mid to late 90’s. Has she done anything since so that the gerneral public would know her? She is a bit bland anyway so is it because she is black or just boring. I dont know the other guy either sorry to say. It might be that viewers do not have a raport with these two people which may or may not be down to colour.
4) People do vote/like people they can relate to. If the show’s main viewers are white middleclasses then perhaps it is not intentional racisim but a somewhat natural leaning to ones own identity. I am fortunate to be from a younger generation and went to a school with a number of races and religions, but out parents did not an there is a divide which I don’t think is intentionally racist.

By Adam. Posted October 26 2008 at 12:49 PM.

This is crazy…the race card is always played and I dont think that has anything to do with things its a convenient way of causing even more trouble in this very troubled world we live in….and for the BBC to say it looked bad for them, because they were not voted for is twaddle to put it mildly…others have been in the dance off that didnt deserve to be there either so what would the BBC call that???????

By delta. Posted October 26 2008 at 12:57 PM.

The racist card is getting very boring now………..

By Misty. Posted October 26 2008 at 12:56 PM.

you cant make people like each other by law, anyway don’t watch rubbish and you will be fine

By Peter Woods. Posted October 26 2008 at 12:53 PM.

Have that, PC BBC nobbers.


Massive, humongous balls on a man.

See previous posts for my general thoughts on the BBC.

Today in the Times, Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, writes. He begins, I think, poorly, with a false premise.

Don’t make the BBC share its licence fee

Okay – well my starting point would be abolishing the license fee and stringing up the whole BBC trust.

He continues….

At the BBC Trust – the body responsible for representing the public interest in the BBC and safeguarding the corporation’s independence – we accept that there are real financial pressures for the commercial channels. But we don’t believe that the answer lies in undermining BBC independence or its contribution to the economic and cultural life of this country.

Taking some of the licence fee to prop up others sounds a simple solution – but it would have serious consequences. Chief among them would be a threat to the independence of all broadcasters and a dilution of public accountability.

For the BBC, the licence fee provides funding unfettered by government and a clear line of accountability back to those who pay


– and research shows that they understand where their money goes. Sharing it with Channel 4 and others would inevitably require a new public body to distribute the money: a single institution that broadcasters would seek to please – rather than their audiences – in return for funding. And even if the BBC was excluded from this new quango, what would happen if the demands of its customers outstripped its supply of ring-fenced licence fee? Could it, would it, resist knocking on the BBC’s door for a greater slice?

I mean, this is just amazing. The unquestioning sense not only of entitlement, but the assumption that there is remaining public support for the communist BBC.

I’d really like to see this man queuing at a soup kitchen in nought but a TKMaxx carrier bag.

In other news, the Beeb will be cutting back on Champagne. Which is nice of them.

Your money: How the BBC spends it

* Champagne: £57,000 a year

* Bottled water: £360,000 a year

* Taxis: £13.8m a year

* Christmas party: £250,000 a year

* Telephone bills: £21m a year

* Private school fees: £300,000 a year

* Air travel: £16m a year

* Hotels: £4m a year

All figures are from the most recent Freedom of Information requests on the BBC website

Twats to a man.


Update: Since The Times have a habit of pulling the comments section of stories when they don’t like the direction of the comments, I’m posting a snap of them here:


People pay a license fee for this shite???

Some bloke on the Telegraph put in a nutshell what a growing number of people think of the BBC’s news and political coverage.

Last night’s edition [of Newsnight] was a disgrace. The first 20 minutes were spent on wittering about something which hadn’t happened yet, the vote in the Senate, and then a pointless interview with the French finance minister on the financial crisis. The programme’s reporting of this important subject is going round and round in ever decreasing circles.


Finally a report on David Cameron’s speech arrived, and it suggested that Newsnight had missed the point.


Cameron’s speech was about ideas and quite traditionally conservative ideas at that. He discussed themes such as sound money, personal responsibility, low taxation, social reform and civic engagement that does not have to include the interference of the State, and argued that these values and beliefs are a better basis for enduring this crisis and building recovery.

This needs held up to the light because it is an important argument by someone who will probably get a chance to try it out for real in Number 10. Disagree with the premise, deconstruct the argument, counter it, but don’t try to pretend that it is not significant.

Why does Newsnight do this? Surely it is not stuffed full of Communists? On the evidence of last night, it seems there is not a soul on the programme (or if there is he was off last night) who can comprehend conservative arguments. And why should they be able to? In certain parts of the BBC are people who never encounter anything which is at odds with their liberal-left orthodox world view. If you were one of those people, you would really have had no idea what Cameron was going on about for most of his speech.

And that would be absolutely fine, if they went out on their own, launched a liberal-left TV channel called, say, Newsnight, and found advertisers or subscribers to cover their costs. But why should the rest of us pay for it via our license fee?

Hat tip to Guido Fawkes who has also reported on Newsnight’s on-going inability to report correct information on the financial markets.

This would all be comical were it not for the fact that Newsnight trades on its reputation and is taken seriously by those in politics and those interested.

And, as Iain Martin points out above, this is paid for by a compulsory tax on receiving unencrypted broadcast signals.

A long standing blog, Biased BBC, tracks the bias that is so ingrained in the BBC that their own just cannot see it.

Personally I don’t own a TV. The principal reason is that every time I start to think about getting one, I happen to watch some in a hotel or suchlike and I remember what complete and utter toss it all is. The other reason is the Telly Tax Nazis.


It’s all about global war, Ming.

Well now,

If we’re (stupid enough) to believe what the gubnment and the BBC tell us, we need to be saving the planet. Because we can’t assume that it managed just fine for the millions of years before we got here. That climate activity through the warm periods and the ice ages was all caused by burning fossil fuels. Because pteradons flew Lear Jets and stegasaurus drove HumVees. Colossal existential wipeouts were caused more by Easyjet than by asteroids & meteors, cosmic radiation fluctuations, castrophic volcanic episodes, reversals of the Earths magnetic poles etc.

So, obviously I’m doing my bit for the planet.

  • By disposing of all my household waste in a garden incinerator, and needless to say it’s not because the council are theiving tossers who dress up service cutbacks as environmental initiatives, thereby not emptying my friggin’ bin.
  • I also fly to the other end of the UK frequently, sometimes for a single 1 hour meeting. This obviously cuts down on road and rail congestion as well as freeing up internet bandwidth that would have been ringfenced for video-conferencing.
  • When I work from home, I run my car’s engine for an hour, to do my bit for the economy and the profitability of the oil companies and the government.
  • I admonish my guests for closing the doors or turning off lights when they leave rooms.
  • I run the aircon with the windows open.
  • The gas fire too. Sometimes as well as the aircon.

Arrrrggghhh. Just because all these interfering fuckers, with their sanctimonious proclaimations and injunctions, need to just leave me the fuck alone.

I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with this wittering bint, but in this case, I do.

I feel bad that maybe I’m not doing enough. But then it occurred to me – I’m doing more than most. I’m not having children. That’s about as environmentally friendly as it gets. Putting less people on earth does far more to prevent global warming than buying organic blueberries.

Sadly, there’s a mistake in her sidebar, where it says:

she writes a humorous weekly column, Cassandra.

I won’t hold it against her.

I bet she doesn’t even know that there’s a whole organisation behind her cause:

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

Sounds good to me. Especially the bit about becoming less dense.

In the meantime, a nod to a couple of sites doing sterling work of opposing the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming. – not exactly balanced, but I like it.

A Hot Topic Blog – There’s something beautiful about the footer of this site, where it saysMade on a Mac– using the lentilists’ own weapons against them.