Wednesday 17 June 2009

Why Simply Report Hate, When The BBC Can Create It?

They had been so quiet for so long, hadn't they? Then a triumverate of righteous all turned up at once like speaker-equipped buses announcing shit-babble.

The Manc twat clubbed his keyboard to smithereens again, laughably insisting he was previously employing some obscure kind of hate-satire which missed its target (he must be more of a piss poor writer than we thought, then, as well as a missing link with learning difficulties which we already knew).

Complainants against the hate-filled nurse who wants all smokers dead have received a reference number for the upcoming whitewash investigation. If you don't know what that was about? Listen again below and e-mail your friends.

Now Comrade Beeb have decided to join in the smoker bashing too.

And get this. They self-report their own invited opinion piece as a bona fide news item, whilst simultaneously bumping dissenting voices.

I received a call from Five Live late last night telling me that my interview at 7.40 this morning had been cancelled because of "three breaking news stories". It slipped out however that Five Live Breakfast was still going to interview Professor Terence Stephenson, the new head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, whose blog on the BBC website calls for a ban on smoking in cars when children are present.

Three news stories which only resulted in the dropping of one small rebuttal? Can't have been that big really, can they, seeing as a BBC commissioned columnist was allowed his one-sided view in its entirety? And on Radio 4, and on the lunchtime TV news (complete with congenital liars ASH quoted as a truthful source), and on ... etc etc.

Funnily enough, mine and many others' comments didn't appear on the BBC web-site today either, so Mr Clark wasn't alone by any means.

The Telegraph picked up the story and ... err ... didn't add anything to it at all. It's a straight lift from the Beeb.

It must have caught the fake charities as cold as it caught Forest though, as they were all wibbling at cross purposes.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said the charity was in favour of a ban on smoking in cars.

The risks were not just to children but to adults suffering from conditions like heart disease, she said.

That's the problem with being caught off-guard, Debs wasn't able to tailor her junk science quickly enough to the nonsense in hand so had to just grab what she was working on at the time - the total ban on smoking in cars, with or without children present. An interesting view into the future, I thought.

Then there was the very odd contribution from BRAKE. They didn't seem to know what they were supposed to be agreeing with. Less did they know what 'evidence' to use ... so they didn't bother with any.

She said: "There is no specific offence at the moment which says you can be charged with smoking at the wheel."

That'll be because it's not illegal, dear.

"But you can be prosecuted for not having proper control of your vehicle."

Whether smoking or not, one must presume?

"Having one hand off the wheel and dropping ash over yourself, or obstructing your view with smoking, means you are not concentrating on your driving."

Having one hand off the wheel? Like when changing gear, you mean? Obstructing your view with smoking? How fucking big are the cigarettes she has seen?

And then the very, very, very best bit.

"I think we would be in favour of a ban because there's some confusion at the moment whether it's dangerous."

Was this dozy mare on the lash last night or something? Was she hopping around this morning, phone stuck one-handedly to her ear, desperately trying to get her keks on when being asked for her 'expert' opinion?

She 'thinks' they would be in favour of a ban, probably because they haven't yet discussed it, but seeing as it has been brought up, her natural response is to say yes, even though she doesn't know if it dangerous or not.

Well, if that doesn't sum up righteous logic to a tee, I don't know what does.

One thing that is certain is that it's more wasted taxpayers' cash. No-one is asking for this, as usual, except fake charities and the BBC, and guess who pays for them? It will be brought in, there's no doubt, but will be as unenforceable as the ban on mobile phone use, the law on kids using booster seats that the police can't be arsed to bother with, and going back to 1983, the seat belt laws.

Just another spiteful, illiberal, doctrine proposed by ignorant, hate-mongers with skewed agendas. Fortunately, it might wake those who have thus far been in a stupor as to the Stalinist nature of Labour and their trot friends at Comrade Beeb, and drain the leftist vote away a little more, so I'm all for it.

UPDATE: The Beeb left no stone unturned with their propaganda this time. They even threw it onto the kids' news too, complete with quotes from children who had been, in no way, fed leading questions. Oh no.


Pavlov's Cat said...

Did you also spot this one on the beeb

Smoking actors 'to be rated 18'

I believe the proposal comes from the same bunch of fuckwits who were the prime movers on the hiding fags in shops report.

wv. peakerbu

Dick Puddlecote said...

Ah, Smokefree Liverpool, a fine collection of swivel-eyed airheads.

Thanks for that PV, I hadn't realised that they had re-floated this idea. Again, I'm all for it as it would mean Mary Poppins being classified as an 18 as the Dad not only smokes, but sings a song about how great smoking his pipe is.

The more idiocy like that gets exposed, the better IMO.

Unknown said...

Dick, I don’t think I’ve ever had a post published on the BBC website ever. I suspect that some bastard has a full time job trawling all pro-smoking sites for names to freeze out should they have the temerity to try and post any dissenting opinions.

Here was my effort.

“Professor Terence Stephenson is of that ilk that relentlessly seek to eliminate smokers civil liberties, and it must all be done under the veil of protecting children. After all who in their right mind would argue with that. How long will it be before homes come under attack?

ASH bandy around bogus nonsense, particularly about ‘passive smoking’ saying that it kills, but can’t give autopsy evidence. Sadly the BBC simply accepts whatever they are told without question or debate.

Ultimately we are on the road to prohibition, and will there be a time when people like me will be forced to attend centres where I can be treated for my abnormality, and perhaps made to take part in medical experiments involving eugenics?”

I saw the item showing our Professor sitting conveniently in a car peddling his infant babble-shite to camera…the only thing missing from his forehead was a tattoo of a twat!

But what me made me laugh out loud was a beeb reporter, like some adolescent sycophant puking up figures lovingly supplied by ASH. My favourite number was the one that said smoking inside your car is 23 times more dangerous than smoking outside.

Now, I’m just marginally brighter than a couple of birthday cake candles, but even I would ask what kind of scientific experiment was ever carried out to establish that ludicrous nonsense.

Why don’t we fast-forward a few years…when each of us will receive this leaflet through the post.

All Ministry Orders will be obeyed

Anyone found to be in contravention of the Nanny Ministry edicts will be brought before their local interrogation centre Grupenfuhrer. Under questioning it will be necessary to inform on those that smoke in your household or those that you know to be smokers amongst friends and relatives. Members of several anti-smoking lobbies such as ASH, and SCOTH, will be present at these sessions.

Old Holborn said...

I'm off to blow smoke in a baby's face.


Antipholus Papps said...

And yet they say nothing about the noxious shite your car is spewing forth, do they? I'd have thought smoking in the car might provide some protection against exhaust fumes.

ade said...

I got a smoking-related post onto HYS once, which even mentioned the fake charities (this was the one where the beeb claimed that £5bn was "five times" the £1.7bn previously claimed to be the cost of the NHS treating "smoking-related" diseases).

It lasted about an hour before a sharp-eyed moderator spotted it & pulled it.

Fucking bastards. Hanging's too good for them.

Rob said...

The more things they can classify as illegal, the closer the State gets to its dream - the ability to arbitrarily arrest anyone it cares to. They can then persecute their political enemies without having all of that tedious mucking about with stuff like law, ethics, etc.