Tuesday, 30 April 2013

The BBC, Football, Ageism & Equality

I thought various BBC hirelings would be like the 80's Ska impresario today and, ahem, Buster Bloodvessel (sorry) over the lack of "out" gay footballers.

The BBC makes no attempt to hide its role as promoting homosexuality these days, despite that "lifestyle choice" shortening lives by circa 20 years.

Yes the journos and presenters who always accuse churches of being "fixated" with homosexuality, were very firmly fixed on homosexuality - again.

I cannot take these people seriously. Why so? Well we have the extreme political correctness of Richard Bacon on Radio 5 who told off a Daily Telegraph critic for not finding a new comedy all about a 'gay couple' (called Vicious) remotely funny. Bacon complained that the critic had a Telegraph anti-gay agenda. To which he replied that a. he was homosexual. And b. it simply wasn't funny.

How ridiculous for hard drug user Bacon to have his own agenda so that he could tell off a homosexual for not 'backing' a queer comedy - not to mention bemoaning that a Telegraph critic had a Telegraph outlook! Would he dare moan at a Guardian writer for promoting a homosexual programme? No. This is the BBC after all!

But it's not this ultra-PC nonsense I find most offensive: it's the two-faced nature of the BBC.

They bang on and on about "equality" so that schoolchildren should be "informed" about homosexuality (NB not its health risks etc), yet they regularly sack or replace women presenters because they're no longer dolly birds (as in the CountryFile case) and public school boys and girls are still woefully over represented at the "equality" conscious Beeb.

Never mind the fact that the balanced Beeb has tons of Guardian reading presenters (officially the most read paper at the Beeb and the least read in the country!), yet I have never heard a single Beeb presenter seriously question abortion, homosexuality etc.

One only has to look at the twitter accounts of BBC employees and hirelings to read rabid atheist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion writings by many of these people many of whom had the poshest upbringings.

This is why when the BBC goes into overdrive to promote homosexuality, AGAIN, whilst waffling on about equality and freedom... I take it with a huge pinch of salt.

When the BBC emiploys more working class, non left wing, Christian and pro-family journalists, presenters and researchers (especially in news, presenting and journo positions) - then I might take their lip-service to equality more seriously.

Tonight on Newsnight, Paxo asked why football wasn't homosexual friendly on the terraces. These people gave no concept of working class culture, football banter and the need for real freedom of speech.

If the Beeb's Guardianistas had their way football would be finally emasculated leaving a boring homogenous grey mass, sponsored by X Brand multinational, all owned by oligarchs, oil barons etc and no local roots or local culture on the terraces at all. But at least the less than 1% of active homosexuals would be happy!

Dear Lord save us all from such banality.

BBC Ignorance on Tudor History

An "historian" on CountryFile last night claimed Henry VIII's "Defence of the Seven Sacraments didn't sell a single copy in Englnd".

Er.... Because it was printed for circulation to Princes, Bishops and universities throughout Europe.

Honestly, it was either clumsy spin or terrible ignorance and the BBC should know better... Or maybe not! Sheesh.

Friday, 26 April 2013

Homosexual Militants Attempted Murder Against Pro-Family Activist

We should ask ourselves why the BBC has chosen not to cover a hate-attack on a French pro-marriage campaigner.

Given recent attacks and threats against those who seek to defend the family, by homosexual/feminist militants, perhaps the police should start taking these hate crimes more seriously?

Link:
Marriage Protester Stabbed

Thanks to 'Bones You Have Crushed' 

Friday, 12 April 2013

Why We Should All Worry About the Twitter Police

It's a moot point
As long as they are not gratuitously offensive, I think people should have freedom of speech. Part of me balks at this because I love Our Lord and Our lady and I know people will use this to attack them and their Church. But I also think the Church - the Mystical Body of Christ - is strong enough to fight back.

Don't you think the Protestants in the 16th Century used all manner of arguments, good and bad, true and false, against the Church. But when the Church got its boots on at Trent and via the Jesuits, it fought back, won back millions of souls and perfected what it already had and rooted out genuine abuses.

The problem today is that since the 60s and 70s the Church simply hasn't put its boots on. The enemy of the Faith is biting chunks out of the Church, and souls are being lost (especially in Europe), and too many Bishops are too busy playing golf and pat-a-cake with heretics to worry about defending and promoting the beauty of our dogmas.

Not Just the Church

Let's be frank though, it's not only Catholicism that comes under attack via free speech. In this week we have heard of a police youth commissioner (or somesuch) being sacked for making "racist" and "homophobic" statements and a police sergeant coming under pressure for making a statement against Margaret Thatcher.

We are approaching a dangerous time. Children who make tongue-in-cheek off-the-cuff remarks deemed politically incorrect and policemen who air their political views (both on their private Twitter accounts) are put under huge pressure.

It is a silly state of affairs. It is a dangerous state of affairs. It matters not whether we agree or disagree with their statements, or whether they were silly or serious. We should have a level of freedom of speech. This means that, short of gratuitously offending people by attacking an institution, group or person with genuine hatred (i.e. "I hate all gays/blacks/Catholics/whites/Protestants/Man Utd supporters" and so inciting possible violence against them), we must be free to state our beliefs without fear of a media onslaught and pressure to resign our job.

That means if I say:

I hate homosexuality
I hate immigration
I hate Catholicism
I hate racists or xenophobes
I hate Protestantism
or
I hate Man Utd or football

it shouldn't matter how ridiculous my statement is or is perceived to be, how ill-informed (ignorant) I may or may not be, I should be free to do so without fear or favour.

A policeman who says 'I hate Thatcher' should be as free to do so as a teacher who says 'I love Thatcherism'. A magistrate should be able to say 'I loathe homosexuality' as much as a GP should be able to say 'I think homosexuality will secure our future.' A comedian should be free to say that 'Catholicism is the greatest hatred and the source of all our woes' as I should be to say that 'our culture is rooted in Catholicism and it offers the answers to all mankind's woes.' A scientists should be free to say 'I don't believe in man-made climate change' as much as a scientist should be free to say 'man-made climate change is an established fact.'

There is a world of difference between sensibly airing your genuinely held views and being gratuitously offensive, just as their is a world of difference between a tongue-in-cheek jibe at a TV show and foul and abusive language.

If we're not careful we will create a climate of fear. Furthermore it will be those who might make sensible comments on social/political and similar matters who are silenced leaving the floor open to those who "go with the flow" as dictated by what is politically acceptable.

The chattering classes and Islington-set may see nothing wrong with that now, but what if the government changes? What if they start losing their jobs and start being locked up for airing liberal views? Those who cheer as the police knock on doors or investigate serious or silly tweets deemed un-pc or politically "offensive" might want to think twice, for it could be their doors getting a 6am knock and their livelihood at risk a few years from now...

Genuine liberties are hard won and easily surrendered.

It washes both ways of course. Will those dancing on the streets at Margaret Thatcher's death be so easy-going and understanding should some people organise similar celebratory street parties when Nelson Mandela dies? I would wager they would attack them and seek their arrest.

With certain freedoms come certain responsibilities, as Catholics well know (free will and all that).

Sunday, 7 April 2013

Another Anti Catholic Film? Or Not?

Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland
I watched an interesting film earlier entitled The Experiment, starring the brilliant actor Forest Whitaker (superb in The Last King of Scotland). The basic synopsis is that a group of people needing money are put in prison conditions to conduct an experiment and they quickly revert to type. The prisoners revolt, the guards become vicious etc.

I won't go into the pro's and con's of the film (rated 15). It is interesting, but has many holes in the idea, not least that they wouldn't all just grit their teeth, get by for 14 days and pick up their money.

Anyway, at the beginning we are introduced to some of the main characters. Forest Whitaker himself is seen in his home with religious iconography, not least a picture of the Sacred Heart near the TV. Straight away I turned to the family members watching it and told them that he would be the "baddie" and would turn out to be sadistic.

So it turned out. Why is it Catholics in Hollywood films usually turn out to be corrupt, evil, violent... In the 50s the good guys wore white Stetsons and the bad guys wore black Stetsons. It seems it's only in a minority of films now (ironically some classic horrors) that Catholicism is good and the baddies are classic baddies.

I know life isn't straight-forward and I like a film with twists and turns as much as the next chap. And I know Catholics can go bad (e.g. Martin Luther or Robert Mugabe), but I do get a little fed up when a main evil character is given the back story of being Catholic as a way to knock Catholicism.

Or am I just being uber sensitive?

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Jeremy Irons Asks if Fathers Can "Marry" Sons to Avoid Tax

In a recent post I said the media has a fixation with sex and especially homosexuality.

I saw this clip mentioned online. Yet again we see how the politicians and media are preoccupied with sex, homosexuality and the oxymoron that is "gay marriage" (it ain't gay and it ain't marriage).

It's Jeremy Irons being interviewed by the "Huff Post" - which has a whole homosexual section. He makes some perfect and worrying points, but watch the spin at the end by a "reporter" from a journal clearly pushing for "gay marriage" and how Mr. Irons has to appear "at ease" despite his misgivings. Presumably because he wants to work in Hollywood again...

Jeremy Irons

Enjoy!