OFFICE SPORTING CHAT TO BE BANNED ?

It's reported that some woman from something called the Chartered Management Institute wants discussion about sporting subjects to be "curtailed" in the workplace. Apparently she feels that such conversations, particularly about football and cricket, exclude women and lead to what's termed "more laddish behaviour". 

This woman, Ann Francke, is quoted as saying on the BBC's 'Today' programme "A lot of women, in particular, feel left out. They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not being included".

My God. There are days when I truly believe that I am living in some sort of parallel universe to the one in which I grew up. Would Ms Francke have similar thoughts about men being "forced" to listen to interminable chat about babies, pregnancy, periods, domestic abuse and the like ? If she is correct in her statements, why is it that every sport covered by television outlets now seems obliged to include women presenters, commentators and pitch side interviewers ? Indeed, why does she not complain about these poor women being "forced" to endure these male activities ? 

Of course, it was the good old BBC that gave a platform to this lunatic woman, just as it gives platforms to every crazed leftie, liberal, feminist, Tory-hating, nutter. Presumably Ms Francke would like to see company bosses instituting rules about what can and cannot be discussed by their employees - out goes sport and in comes the detail of changing nappies at 3 in the morning; chat about the mechanics of motor vehicles banned in favour of more genteel discussion about the merits of different types of sanitary protection. 

And, anyway, exactly what is "laddish behaviour" ? In my experience, the behaviour of groups of women is often every bit as "girlish", and revolting, as is the behaviour of groups of men; in fact, the women can be far more disgusting. 

The worst part of this episode is that my licence fee has been used to provide an outlet for this insanity and the BBC has happily considered that it's a worthy subject for one of its supposedly 'flagship' programmes. Frankly, the sooner 'Today' goes the same way as the appalling tripe that is the Victoria Derbyshire programme and, indeed, the whole BBC goes down the same drain with them, the better.

BREXIT OPPORTUNITIES STILL IGNORED.

The BBC remains relentlessly pro-Europe, left wing and anti-Conservative, as it's assorted news stories and reports of today confirm.

It's been headlining stories based on information supposedly received from unnamed government sources and analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a body whose predictions have become as unreliable as those of the Bank of England, International Monetary Fund and any other organisation with an overblown view of its own brilliance. 

According to the latest reports, discussions with the European Union are on the point of collapse and the government is putting in place contingency plans to disrupt the EU's future business. Reported  'leaks' from the EU side are entirely negative about the Prime Minister's latest proposals and a "government official" has "told the BBC" that the EU had not shown any desire to move towards acceptance of Mr Johnson's plans. It seems that "No Deal" is now the only likely outcome, at least according to these unidentified sources. However, given that the BBC is unashamedly pro-EU, might this not just be part of their contribution to Project Fear, insisting that all is doom and gloom ?

Allied to these stories, reports and leaks, the IFS has come up with a new set of predictions which claim that "No Deal" will lead to government borrowing reaching levels not seen in more than 50 years, and this on even the most optimistic "No Deal" scenario. Again, negativity piled on top of negativity, with little coverage given to the potential opportunities that will open up once the UK is free of the EU strait-jacket.

Instead of supporting OUR Prime Minister and OUR government in its negotiations, the BBC, much of the rest of the media, organisations such as the IFS and Bank of England, and many other high profile, but entirely self-interested and unrepresentative bodies, continue to focus on supposed dangers of Brexit, rather than promoting the very obvious opportunities. Why is this ?

Surely it is because these organisations benefit from the cosy and protectionist world of the European Union, a world run by the liberal left and one in which hard choices rarely, if ever, have to be made. The BBC's turmoil over the recent investigation into remarks made by the usually excellent Naga Munchetty demonstrates just how difficult this particular media outlet finds it to be open and honest, with its wishy-washy Director General being very easily swayed by a left wing assault on the judgement of his own complaints procedures. The BBC, and the rest, love the protective blanket provided by the EU's labyrinthine organisation and socialist doctrines; they'd much rather blame others for whatever goes wrong than accept responsibility themselves and so we have stagnation with no one making any meaningful decisions about anything, unless its the lowest common denominator that all can agree on.

If there is one ultimate benefit to be gained from leaving the EU it is gaining the right to make our own decisions, unencumbered by the need to obtain the agreement of 27 other nations, every one of which has its own vested interests. Why can't the BBC, BoE, IFS and the rest see this ?

"THIS WEEK" CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DIE.

Is the BBC for real ?

I have read that the corporation was approached by Andrew Neil regarding a continuation of the marvellous "This Week" beyond the end of its current contract, but didn't like his suggestion that it should be broadcast at a slightly earlier time. As it is, "This Week" rarely starts before 11:30 at night and goes on until well after midnight, a bit late for a live programme.

As a consequence of the BBC's attitude, "This Week" will come to an end in a very few weeks time; the best, by a very long way, political discussion programme on television, will end. It's replacement will be a television version of a 'geeky and cheeky' podcast chaired by Laura Kuenssberg, meaning that serious political debate will be banished from the BBC in favour of it being trendy.

While Andrew Neil is a skilled, informed and brilliant political journalist, presenter and interviewer, being well supported by Michael Portillo and a range of others - Diane Abbot, Alan Johnson, Liz Kendall, Miranda Green, to name but a few - Kuenssberg is a lightweight who seems more interested in delivering monologues that end with a final 'clever' remark. 

Neil is always scrupulously fair in his questioning and remarks, being equally aggressive in his interviews of all and sundry, whatever their opinions, but has, nonetheless, been 'accused' of being a Tory, something which he denies but which is the usual slur aimed at anyone who isn't an out and out leftie; by contrast, some of Kuenssberg's questioning, comments and general intonation make it very clear what she does and does not approve of. 

I, for one, shall avoid the new programme which will undoubtedly be a 'dumbed down' offering, and can only hope that some other channel is encouraged to take Mr Neil and friends on board. Otherwise, "This week" will be very sadly missed.

GEORGE OSBORNE - YESTERDAY'S MAN.

Hearing former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne on the radio this morning was like listening to an old cracked record that really has no more use.

Having given up his parliamentary seat as soon as things didn't go HIS way, Osborne now makes large sums of money from a variety of jobs; somehow, he manages to fit in being editor of the London Evening Standard, though whether he actually does this job or just makes use of the title in order to pillory the current government might be a moot point. Whatever he does, Osborne is a committed Europhile and wants the UK to stay within the shackles of the European Union.

This morning he gave us the benefit of the wisdom  of his 47 years, wisdom accrued from his highly privileged background of rich parents, public school and Oxford, where he was a member, along with David Cameron and others, of the infamous Bullingdon Club. Even with these advantages, Osborne was clearly not that bright, failing to gain employment at 'The Times' or 'Economist' before finding a lowly freelance role at the 'Daily Telegraph'. Undeterred, he changed course and moved into politics, finding employment with the Conservative Party and ultimately rising to a senior position, though not quite making it to the job, courtesy of David Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on the vexed subject of the UK's membership of the EU.

Since running away from parliament, Osborne has taken to sniping from the side lines, taking pot shots at Prime Minister May and her government whenever possible and continuing to promote the European Union and the UK's membership thereof. Today's interview was no different. According to Osborne, Mrs May has it all wrong, the government's approach is all wrong, the EU is wonderful and, basically, he knows best. Blah-blah.

Osborne is yesterday's man but in typical fashion the Europhile BBC happily looks for any like-minded bodies to spout their liberal-Europhile, anti-nationalistic views. Being proud of Britain and believing in its ability to compete independently is bad; kowtowing to a Europhile elite with its collective nose in the trough is good. The stifling bureaucracy of the EU and its adherence to evermore restrictive rules and regulations is good, being free of such burdens is bad.

Really ?? Osborne and the BBC deserve each other but I wish they'd keep their 'wisdom' to themselves.

INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES FALLS SHORT.

The reporting of the conclusions of a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) seems to be a classic example of leaving things out.

In an analysis carried out at the behest of the BBC, the IFS has apparently said that people's wages are now, on average, 3% below what they were 10 years ago at the start of the financial crisis. The BBC reports that this effectively means that, on average, 'real' annual wages are £800 lower than they were. They add that for people aged between 30 and 39, the fall is even greater, at £2,100 a year or 7.2%.

No doubt many will see this as being a terrible indictment of government policy over the intervening period, presumably this being the intention of the extremely dubious reporting. However, so much information is omitted from the reporting that it's actually impossible to draw any conclusions from them.

There is no mention of the substantial increase in personal tax allowances which has occurred over the same period, nor of the rate of inflation compared with what might have been expected but for the impact of the crisis; for instance, what has been the impact of the multi-year freezing of petrol duty ? There is no mention of the impact of state benefits and other state intervention such as free nursery places and free school meals. There is no explanation as to the meaning of the various terms - are we talking about gross or net wages ?  What does 'real' annual wages mean ? Indeed, what did the study consider and how have the results been arrived at ? What assumptions have been made about wage growth, and other factors, had there not been a financial crisis ?

It is also the case that the study seems to assume that average wages should always rise and that any fall is automatically bad. What about productivity ? What about the effect of falling unemployment and how more people working on the lowest wages may have affected the figures ? Has there been an increase in people choosing to be self-employed which has had an impact on the figures ?

I have not read the report itself, but it's clear that either it's a very limited report or it's reporting by the BBC has been extremely selective and highly questionable. Either way, reports about it should be read with extreme caution and cynicism.

CRISIS IN MASCULINITY ? WHAT TWADDLE !

The BBC makes a programme which it calls "The Big Questions" in which presenter Nicky Campbell acts as the facilitator for a group of presumably specially selected panellists. Today's edition posed a pretty ridiculous, not to say pretentious, question "Is there a crisis in masculinity ?"

This is not a programme that I usually watch but today I decided to give it a go - big mistake. The studio panel seemed to be comprised of, on the one hand, people who don't like either being men or simply don't like men, and on the other by men who had either little to contribute or had some pretty weird and extreme views. There didn't seem to be a normal man amongst the lot of them,, barring one who did actually say that he couldn't really understand the twaddle that was being discussed.

I gave up watching this rubbish after 30 minutes or so and I won't be wasting my time in this way again. However, for what it's worth and in case Mr Campbell is still trying to answer his own  question, there is no crisis in masculinity. What there is, is a media obsession with sexuality, 'equality' and the terrible way that men have supposedly treated women over the ages. This garbage has, of course, been hyped up by a mixture of left wing feminist, lesbians and man-haters, with assorted homosexuals and others who claim to have 'gender issues' or problems with 'identification', jumping on the bandwagon.

For some reason that I fail to comprehend, our political representatives have fallen in line with this nonsense and we now all have to fall over backwards to pretend that men and women are 'equal', whatever that may mean, that homosexuality is a 'normal' activity and it's perfectly reasonable for people to 'identify' with a gender other than that with which they were born. The misdeeds of a very few men of dubious character, such as Harvey Weinstein, have been used to justify branding all men as rapists, paedophiles and worse, with the result that men are now more oppressed than women have ever been. Men are now routinely discriminated against and have to think very carefully before making any remark, or carrying out any action, to which 1 women in a thousand may object. The world has gone mad, with fact and truth replaced by a type of Orwellian approach which imposes a perverted form of language and logic on us.

Today's programme did nothing to identify any supposed crisis in masculinity although it did expose the highly confused views of at least several of the panellists. For the vast majority of people, men are men and women are women; they get on with their lives much as men and women have done for many years without suffering any crises of identity. The only people who are in crisis are the man-haters who simply can't come to terms with the facts of the real world of ordinary men and women.

Why the BBC gives a voice to these messed up loonies and wastes our money on such appalling programmes is the real 'Big Question'.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE *NOT* EQUAL !

This evening the BBC is broadcasting a programme that involves messing about with small children in an attempt to demonstrate that boys and girls are essentially the same. A Doctor Abdelmoneim has some daft ideas about supposed 'gender bias' and has set out to prove his theories by dressing boys up as girls and vice versa along with an assortment of other nonsense. Of course, the BBC, wearing its equality-mad hat, is only to happy to subject us to such drivel whenever it raises its sorry head and the opportunity to follow this experiment in 'gender neutrality' was obviously too attractive to miss..

In case anyone, including the those at the BBC, has any doubts, boys and girls are DIFFERENT. Not only do they have different bodies, they also have different biological functions; as a consequence they tend to have different driving forces and desires. Women have babies and suckle their young, men do not; the hormonal differences between the sexes are there for all to see - women suffer periods and men suffer the never-ending growth of beards. Men tend to be bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women; men's ambitions tend to be different. The play of boys and girls, which Dr Abdelmoneim seems to think is interchangeable, is nothing more than preparation for later life, boys tending to ape their fathers and girls their mothers.

There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that men and women have equal opportunities in life but to pretend that they are actually 'equal' is nonsensical. To extend this rubbish to experiments on children is coming close to the eugenics of the past, but in reverse; while eugenics attempted to prove differences, the new mania is to prove that there are none. In this crazy world of equality, men and women, genius and idiot, criminal and law abiding, Inuit and Bantu are all 'equal', which may sound right but is nothing more than politically correct drivel.

Geniuses are celebrated, idiots are locked away; criminals are locked away while the law-abiding are relatively free. The Inuit live lives which the Bantu couldn't possibly endure, and vice versa. Far more men than women seek powerful positions of authority, something which has nothing to do with opportunity but is all about desire.

Dr Abdelmoneim's experiments border on child abuse and the BBC is complicit. It should be ashamed of its politically correct promotion of such appalling and utter nonsense dressed up as science.

ELECTION DEBATE : WAS IT WORTH THE EFFORT ?

Last night's election debate on the BBC told viewers nothing that they didn't already know, but highlighted the way in which politicians distort facts to their own benefit.

With Theresa May opting to be elsewhere, Amber Rudd represented the Conservatives. She was opposed by a 5 socialists and Paul Nuttall, whose UKIP party policies seem to be designed to appeal mostly to the extremes of both left and right. Unsurprisingly, the socialist mob rounded on Ms Rudd and threw as much mud as they could muster.

In essence, Ms Rudd stuck to the Conservative line of economic competence while the assembled socialists all made wild claims of crippling austerity and vast poverty afflicting our nation. All said that they would throw huge sums of money at these supposed problems. All did no more than continue their principal policy of buying votes with promises of making everyone rich.

No one ever questions what 'austerity' really means nor does anyone question the claimed levels of 'poverty' that the left claims exist. In truth, the current 'austerity' is nothing of the sort and true poverty is virtually non-existent in the UK. While some people may be less well-off than others, very, very few live on the streets as the likes of Caroline Lucas of the Green Party would have us believe.

One of Labour's big promises is to increase the 'living wage' to £10 an hour; they say this would relieve the supposed poverty that exists. What they don't say is how such a move would impact on business, productivity and employment or on inflation; inevitably, all three would suffer negative effects, compounded by the proposed increases to corporation tax. Inevitably, businesses would become less profitable and many would close; both inflation and unemployment would rise. So much for the socialist nirvana.

While Corbyn and his main socialist allies, Caroline Lucas and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru, all spout this same nonsense, Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats adds his party's determination to keep the UK in the European Union to his mishmash of policies; despite the outcome of the referendum, Farron still keeps harping on about how unfair it all is and how the people just don't understand, or didn't know 'what type of Brexit' they were voting for. It's all tripe. The Scottish Nationalists want independence and UKIP wants immigration sorted out.

So there it is. No one learned anything new and what we saw was 7 politicians squabbling amongst themselves, mostly trying to see who could score most points off of the others, while 6 of them took pot-shots at the absent Prime Minister at every opportunity. Truly excruciating television.

In the end, the voters' choice remains the same. A degree of economic stability and a controlled exit from the European Union under the Conservatives, or higher taxes, higher borrowing, rip-roaring inflation and economic catastrophe under Labour and an amalgam of other left wing parties. 7 days to go.

GRAYSON PERRY POINTS WAY TO END OF LICENCE FEE.

Last night, I was unfortunate enough to tune into 'Radio 4' at about 10:30 and was confronted by a right old load of drivel.

 

There was a time when the annual 'Reith Lectures' were something to look forward to, being delivered on serious subjects by highly respected and erudite speakers. A vast variety of topics were covered and they were always of interest; sadly, this is no longer the case. Today's 'Reith Lectures' have been 'jazzed up' to include 'modern' subjects and speakers and include globe-trotting journeys, all, of course, at public expense.

 

This year, the lectures are being delivered by Grayson Perry, a person admired by a few as an artist of sorts but either ignored or laughed at by most. Whether or not anyone would have taken any notice of Perry but for his highly publicised habit of dressing in women's clothing is a moot point; what can't be denied is that his selection as the 'Reith Lecturer' was horribly misguided.

 

Perry drivelled away with occasional puerile anecdotes but, as far as I could tell from a brief hearing,

he said almost nothing of any note; indeed, I suspect that most half-educated art students could have done better. If Perry does have anything significant to say about art, he certainly wasn't saying it last night and one has to wonder what the BBC was thinking when they chose him to deliver this auspicious lecture series; presumably, some young arty-crafty type had the final say.

 

With their increasing determination to attract mass audiences by playing to the lowest common denominator, desire to be 'with it', adherence to consistently left-wing attitudes and rejection of anything deemed to be 'old fashioned', the BBC has surely built a damning case against the continuation of the licence fee. Today, there is very little on the BBC that I choose to watch or listen to, most of its output being awful; the licence fee is simply an annual tax on my television.

 

Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of the BBC but no more; apart from a handful of programmes and presenters, it is a shocking mess. It is, I fear, time for the licence fee to end and for the BBC to stand, or fall, on its own two feet.

CALL THE MIDWIFE !

I frequently find the BBC to be very deficient in a whole variety of ways, but I have to admit that, now and then, they come up trumps.

 

They do have a virtual monopoly on top quality when it comes to scientific documentaries and at least some of their political coverage is pretty good. The problems seem to arise in the areas of soaps and dramas where their performance  is extremely hit or miss - the soaps are universally appalling while the dramas are sometimes terrific and sometimes dreadful.

 

'Ripper Street' is a classic example of utter rubbish, a series which has no discernible historic truth beyond its setting. It is tripe of an almost unbelievable nature designed purely to attract an audience of the illiterate and uneducated masses, those who have no idea whatsoever of the realities of the times but are only too happy to be entertained by a programme which relocates the wild west to east London.

 

At the other end of the spectrum is 'Call the Midwife'. This is a series which is so evocative of past times and so real that it is almost unreal. The casting is superb as are the performances; the storylines, so far, are utterly believable and anyone who experienced those times, the 1950s, or has any feeling for them, can do nothing but be drawn in to the drama and pathos. This series is, without doubt, one of the greatest in the BBC's long history.

 

'Call the Midwife' is brilliant. My one fear is that, if it continues for too long, it will become no more than another drama-soap, a means of attracting an audience of ever decreasing understanding. The storylines will be subverted for the usual BBC left-leaning causes and it will degenerate into the usual tripe. Please, please, please, don't let this happen. The series is far too good for that; it needs no embellishment or sensationalism. When it's run its natural course, let it go, but, with luck, that could be a little while yet.

PLANET DINOSAUR JUST 'JURASSIC PARK' ON TV.

Watching the BBC series on 'Planet Dinosaur', perfectly narrated by John Hurt, I have to say that the graphics, and the story, are somewhat gripping. However .........................

Since when could a multi-tonned object with leathery wings take off from a standing start, as shown in the last programme ? Is it really likely that a huge long-billed flying dinosoar could exist outside of a very specific eco-system ? What is the evidence for weird dinosaurs with colourful wings that a) were loving towards each other, and b) stayed with their eggs until they hatched ?

The graphics make a great story but where is the real science ? To me, it's all a bit like 'Jurassic Park' - great entertainment but ................. ? I know the Beeb didn't make the programme and, looking at the credits, it was mostly supported by an assortment of people from American institutions, but it is surely wrong to present such a programme as fact when it is nothing of the sort. This was more an exercise in attracting an audience than in disseminating real scientific truth. Lots of hyperbole, amazing graphics and the propogation of a view of the world that is barely, if at all, supported by the facts that separate us from the world of more than 100 million years ago.

Given that our understanding of our own country's history of less than a thousand years ago is a little blurry, how can we possibly have any real knowledge of what was happening one hundred thousand times as long ago ? Yes, we can make guesses but to present such as fact ?