Nanny BBC

Last night, the Nicholas Cage / Sean Connery film “The Rock” was due to be shown on TV. In their wisdom, and “due to recent events in Iraq”, they pulled it. Why ? and Why ?
Why #1 – what is in that film that could cause offence ? (aside from Connery himself). It is because it is about war ? about violence ? If so, I’m sure I can find a whole list of stuff they have shown since the onset of war which could be deemed offensive.
Why #2 – where in my TV licence, or in the BBC Charter does it appoint itself moral guardian and bastion of taste and decency ? If it is carrying this banner, then it has to take the views of everyone on board, and that includes people of all – and no – faiths. And why does it assume such a level of stupidity among it’s viewers ? Do they think we cannot make the distinction between what is news and what is a film ? Amazing that no matter what, they wil not disturb the broadcasting of such own-made dross as Eastenders or their never-ending and excruciatingly bad ‘lifestyle’ shows.
I don’t want them to nanny me. I don’t want some scared exec worrying that the BBC will get flak for showing a film like The Rock just because of what’s happening in Iraq. So what if 5 people whinged ? Why does their opinion matter when several MILLION will have watched and enjoyed the escapism ?
If they claim to cater to the wants of the majority, then they should prove that through actions.

USA Elections.
Wow are the BBC biased here. Check this story about Bush being wired during the first debate. Look how nearly all the story focuses on his jacket tailoring. Read between the lines and see that the BBC are not being in the tiniest little bit investigative here. Not one jot. Swallowing exactly what they are told. And is there a link to this site – – on the BBC page ? No, there is not. The BBC are not reporting this theory and then debunking it with views from other camps – they are just not reporting it. Why ? Seems very dodgy to me.
Now check that BBC page again, and look at the Drop-down box with the Candidates in there.
If you click on one, you’ll get the official BBC view, but look below it – look for links, and you will find 2.
Links to the Bush site and the Kerry site.
Excuse me ? Does Ralph Nader not exist now ? Has he not heard of the internet ? Is Nader leading the extreme Luddites ? Why are the BBC not carrying a link to ? Their excuse could be that he stands no overall chance, but hell, that’s not really the reason is it ? After all, even here in the UK they will list election candidates names whenever one of them is mentioned, yet here, on the BBC, on the impartial “not influenced by the Govt at all” BBC, they won’t list a link to a candidate, burying it instead on a lesser page.

BBC. Unbiased. That is true – if you work for the Govt that is.

4 thoughts on “Nanny BBC

  1. nader really isn’t in it anymore. He had trouble getting the 5,000 signatures in ohio to even be on the ballot, and didn’t make it in a good number of states. the best he can hope for is to draw some of the vote away from the real race.

  2. That’s sort of my point though – just because he can’t win doesn’t mean he should not be mentioned, and his potential role (Florida last time and Gore ?) could be crucial.

    Here, if I want my name on TV, all I need is raise the deposit and by law the BBC have to show my name if they show any other candidate.

    The Nader effect – welcome or not – cannot be ignored.

  3. On a point of law: It is quite likely IMHO that the ECHR will rule that the iniquitous BBC license fee is unlawful, – it is clearly in breach of the Vienna Convention, – accordingly it will then need to be abolished :). They might need to cut back on the Chardonnay 🙂

Comments are closed.