Strictly Come Dancing race row speaks volumes about BBC, says Carol Thatcher - Telegraph Strictly Come Dancing Strictly Come Dancing race row speaks volumes about BBC, says Carol Thatcher Carol Thatcher, who was sacked by the BBC for comparing a mixed-race tennis player to a golliwog, has accused the corporation of double-standards for retaining Anton Du Beke, the Strictly Come Dancing performer, who made a joke in similarly poor taste about a contestant. By Richard Eden 10:58PM BST 10 Oct 2009 e_SDLqI think how the BBC has handled it says quite a lot about the BBC," she tells Mandrake. "I was booted out." Baroness Thatcher's daughter points out that the broadcaster made an issue of her comments, which she made off-air after appearing on The One Show. "My case was a leaked private conversation," she says. "The BBC is not my favourite. It is for others to make comparisons. These things are going to carry on popping up, to be honest." While Bruce Forysth was quick to defend Du Beke, Adrian Chiles, The One Show presenter, publicly condemned Thatcher.

Carol's brother, Sir Mark Thatcher, told Mandrake that the BBC had behaved "like the Stasi". Related Articles Adrian Chiles: 'Beautiful women are too complicated for me' - Telegraph Adrian Chiles: 'Beautiful women are too complicated for me' Adrian Chiles has laughed off reports of a crush on his The One Show co-star, Christine Bleakley. Adrian Chiles and his co-star Christine Bleakley at the British Academy Television Awards earlier this year Photo: PA By Anita Singh , Showbusiness Editor 6:30AM GMT 22 Dec 2009 Follow So it was impossible to say who Chiles was talking about when he declared that he has given up pursuing beautiful women because they are "too complicated". The BBC presenter made the comments as Miss Bleakley continued to date Frank Lampard, the Chelsea and England footballer. They began seeing one another last month. In an interview with a Croatian newspaper, Chiles, 42, said: "I just want someone to take care of me." Chiles said he wanted to meet a smart person with a sense of humour - "not necessarily a beautiful one, as beautiful women are often too complicated", the Croatian Times reported.

The presenter, who is half-Croatian, was first linked to Miss Bleakley in March, when the pair were photographed meeting at a London flat. Chiles insisted that they were doing nothing more scandalous than sharing a takeaway. "We were in there for 52 minutes with two mixed kebabs. And if anything else was going on, would we have bothered with the mixed kebabs?" he asked. He also conceded that Miss Bleakley was a beauty far out of his league, and said speculation about a romance was wide of the mark. "It was like West Brom being linked with Ronaldo or something. Look at her, and look at me. West Brom might quite like to sign Ronaldo but it is simply not going to happen," he said. The Match of the Day 2 presenter was previously married to Jane Garvey, the Radio 4 presenter. They divorced in October. Chiles said the split had been very difficult. "Divorce is one of the worst situations in one's life," he said. Prospective girlfriends need to handle Chiles with care. "I'm very temperamental. Whenever I get mad, I think that's the Croatian part in me coming out," he said. His mother hails from Zagreb.

The West Bromwich Albion fan was the most-watched presenter on television in 2008 and was at the centre of the BBC 'golliwog row' in February this year, which saw Carol Thatcher sacked for likening a black tennis player to a golliwog during an off-air conversation with Chiles and the comedian Jo Brand. BBC News - The rules of speech crime BBC News The rules of speech crime By Clive Coleman BBC Legal Affairs Analyst Calling someone a "coconut" might sound harmless but it has landed one woman with a criminal conviction. So what qualifies as a speech crime? Councillor Shirley Brown has been at the heart of Bristol's multi-cultural community for 15 years, but in February 2009 she found herself at the centre of an unintended controversy. While taking part in a debate in the city council she called a female Asian councillor, Jay Jethwa, a "coconut". The word is used to describe someone who is brown on the outside, but "white" on the inside. In other words, someone who is said to have disregarded their cultural roots.

Brown used the word in a debate about the funding of black and ethnic groups in the city, and was upset that Ms Jethwa was advocating cuts. The whole incident was filmed and can be viewed on YouTube (see internet links, right). Speaking before the trial, Brown explained why she used the word. "I must admit, I was angry because I thought it was an absolute insult, because she is of Asian background. I was thinking how could you cut funding that is going to impact so many people. So the first thing that came to mind, instead of saying 'you idiot', I said 'you coconut'." Although she apologised a few days after the comment, and on several occasions, the matter went to a local and then a national standards hearing. 'Coconut' row councillor guilty Brown was reprimanded, briefly suspended from the council and then reinstated. But months later the case escalated when she was charged under the Public Order Act with using "threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress". It's a serious charge which comes with the threat of a criminal record. But why, given Brown's numerous apologies, was it necessary to turn this into a criminal prosecution?

In a statement released before Brown's trial, the Crown Prosecution Service defended its approach as being "in the public interest... because it alleged an offence where the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on discrimination against the victim's ethnic origin". On Monday Brown was convicted, given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs. The judgement is an important development in what might be called "speech crime". But what can and can't people say? Thatcher gibe The case re-opens the debate on political correctness and freedom of speech which last flared up so publicly when TV presenter Carol Thatcher used the word "golliwog" in the green room of the BBC One programme The One Show. Oreo biscuits and bananas are used in the same way Ms Thatcher was dismissed from the show, but not prosecuted for the use of the word. So while "coconut" can be a speech crime, is "golliwog" more acceptable in the eyes of the law? Although there are clear differences between the two incidents, Brown's case seems to establish that anyone directing the word "coconut" at a black or Asian person is liable to be prosecuted, in spite of any subsequent apology.

Had the impulsive councillor said something along the lines of "you have disregarded your cultural roots", she would almost certainly not have been prosecuted. It was the use of the word "coconut" to convey that sense which resulted in her facing trial. And coconut is not the only word used to signify that a person has disregarded their cultural roots. Others include "Oreo", the biscuit which is black on the outside and white on the middle, and "banana" which has been used in the Chinese community to signify "yellow on the outside, white on the inside". Heart of identity Such words are now hugely charged and it would be difficult for the Crown Prosecution Service to fail to prosecute in cases where they are used against an individual from the racial or cultural group concerned. Carol Thatcher was sacked by the BBC for saying "golliwog" Courts trying such cases however face considerable difficulties. The words and the level of "threat, abuse or insult" which they convey is very subjective. Some people regard the word "coconut" as highly derogatory. It can be seen as going to the very heart of a person's cultural identity and amount to an accusation of betrayal.

Bristol's multi-cultural community were clearly hurt and concerned by the comment from an elected councillor. To one prominent member of that community, at least, coconut has only one legitimate meaning. "It's not acceptable, unless you're talking about a fruit on a palm tree," says Amarjit Singh, who manages an Asian day centre in a suburb of the city. "Otherwise it is a racist comment. They should know better, they're the policy makers. They're the ones that promote community cohesion." Others take the view that the word is only mildly abusive, whilst some do not find it threatening or abusive at all. The way in which it is said, the context and reaction of the person at whom it is directed will all be important factors in considering a prosecution. But in the age of speech crime, a prosecution for the use of the word can now never be discounted Below is a selection of your comments. As an Asian who has been called a coconut many times, I am not sure if the term is racially offensive but it is hurtful to the recipient, however it is intended.

Watching the YouTube clip, Councillor Brown does seem angry at the cuts being discussed but she has time to compose herself before speaking, she takes the time to explain the context of words she is using so should understand that this is a considered personal insult, rather than a comment in anger on the policy in question. She goes on to state that the funding cuts are deplorable etc etc but doesn't explain why or what the funding would have been used for, and so bandying about insults (racial or not) in some kind of party political argument seems not very clever to me. Whoops, did I just call someone stupid? I'm sorry. That should make it better? Sam, Derby This debate and others like it reveal a truth about racism that many people prefer to ignore - being anti-racism does *not* mean the ignoring of race, historical context, or individual cultural heritage. What it means is not viewing those things as making someone inferior. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to view themselves as black, be proud of that, and think of it as part of your personal identity. Same for Asian, and, yes, even white too, although historical context obviously makes that last one a little different.

It's only racism when you think that your heritage makes you *better* than other people. Harry, Colchester My African-American friend openly refers to herself as an Oreo. No wonder people get confused - if she says it, it's OK, if I say it, it's racially abusive? Gemma, London I too often hear black and Asian friends refer to each other as coconuts and far worse, but because they are using the phrases it is seen to be acceptable. However if I were to use them I would be guilty of racially motivated abuse. This is a blatant double standard that is grossly unfair, I am tired of the assumption that because I am white I am automatically racist. It is time for ALL ethnic groups to treat each other with respect. Lynn, London The term "coconut" is THE all encompassing racial slur. Not only does it imply Black and Asian people should behave one way, it also implies white people behave another way. Whether she is sorry or not, Ms Brown used this word in a derogatory way and as such clearly possesses an underlying "understanding" of the way people should behave based on their skin colour.

Stephen, Birmingham I understand that the terms "coconut" and "Oreo" could be considered insulting to someone who is black or Asian and, by implication, white. That having been established, is there a list of legally acceptable fruits (not to mention biscuits) currently on the law books to which one can refer in order to adopt a safe armoury of inoffensive pejoratives? E.g. if I were to refer to someone as a "gooseberry", a "lemon" or a "limey", would I be liable for criminal prosecution and might I also run the risk of having my career and livelihood destroyed? When the law strays onto the territory of, what is in effect, the name-calling mentality of the school playground and believes it understands the rules of engagement, the law is a de facto 'Equus Asinus'. Paul, Guildford, Surrey It is very easy to use the wrong choice of words in a conversation. After apologising, that should be the end of the matter. Only persistent behaviour should be seen as racism.

Edwina Lee, High Wycombe, UK I used to work for a predominantly black and ethnic minority company and because I was one of the only white employees I enjoyed the nickname of "The Honkey" with absolutely no bad feeling at all - it defined me in the organisation. Mostyn, London It all depends on where you are. In South Africa people call each other "coconut" all the time. It's seen as a mildly insulting, sometimes slightly endearing term, but certainly nobody would ever be taken to court for it or ever get upset about the word. And in a world of stark ethnic difference, the term "coconut" can be a mildly amusing pointer as to the cultural bias of the person named. Jay, Cape Town, South Africa Where I live it means hard-headed. Plain and simple. Stuart, Belize City, Belize A coconut, apart from being brown outside and white inside, is also hard outside and soft (pure/unblemished) inside. Many a great man (no gender bias intended) in India are referred to be like a coconut - strict, disciplined, tough on the outside and soft, caring, forgiving on the inside.

In this case, an angry mind misjudged the reaction of the audience to a particular word, but the intent clearly was to avoid funding cuts rather than to insult someone. Sunil, London This is a horrible racist word, because it implies that the way you behave towards other people is determined by the colour of your skin. As a white person I find it offensive as it implies there is something inferior about being white. It was certainly unacceptable and racist to use this word. In my opinion it should have lead to disciplinary action, but I'm not sure about prosecution. Susannah, Gloucestershire, UK Why is what constitutes a speech crime important? Why aren't we asking "Why are there speech crimes?". Their very existence is ridiculous, meeting words with violence (the state, punishments). It is not a crime and if it is inappropriate then people who say these things will be ostracised, and rightly so. Euan McArthur, Ulverston Never mind dancing around with the euphemism disregarding your cultural heritage, "coconut" is plain, old-fashioned racism. Any one who uses the term is revealing their bias that black people should behave a certain way and always be ready to help other black people simply because they are not white.

People are just people, enough with the racism already. Mark, Guildford Ms Singh must be rather thin-skinned if she feels an insult like this requires the involvement of the courts. Yes, it's racist - mildly so - hurt feelings, let's move on. There is a massive industry of hurt feelings out there which is quite different from real racism, real sexism and real homophobia. Ms Brown was angry: nobody got hurt. Cut her some slack. Dave J, Norfolk Surely the most important aspect of this incident is that the offending word was used in anger (at the admission of Ms Brown) and because its use in this context also has racial connotations, the criminal offence is complete. I would, however, suggest that it is specifically this active mental aspect to the use of the word here in a derogatory way that makes Ms Browns behaviour wrong and rightly unlawful but I have long wondered if the automatic branding of someone who uses this or any other potentially 'racist' term in an entirely accidental (some might say 'ignorant') way is equally right. MW.

Martin Winlow, Hetrs, UK Medusa’s daughter and the golliwog | Liberal Conspiracy Medusa’s daughter and the golliwog 9:13 am - February 6th 2009 by Steve Platt Share on Tumblr In the league table of personal insults, calling someone a ‘golliwog’ ranks about on a par with calling them a ‘muppet’. Even as a racial insult, it’s not quite the sort of epithet that you hear bandied about at BNP meetings (though they do sell golliwogs in BNP t-shirts at some of those meetings, apparently). Nevertheless, if Carole Thatcher had said it on air, I don’t suppose there would have been much disagreement about her being taken off air as a result. Nor do I think there can be much disagreement with The One Show presenter Adrian Chiles, Jo Brand and others for picking up Medusa’s Daughter over her use of the word during an after-show conversation in which she blabbed out her ‘off-the-cuff remark made in jest’ to describe a tennis player in the Australian open. (Why the widespread coyness, by the way, in naming the tennis player concerned?

I couldn’t find one mainstream news outlet prepared to say that Thatcher was talking about French player Gael Monfils. Didn’t any of them think it might have been instructive to get his opinion on the subject?). I don’t think it suggests any degree of sympathy for the use of racially-based epithets, however, to feel that the reaction to Thatcher’s foot-in-mouth has been just a little OTT. When the Beeb doesn’t have the bollocks to broadcast a DEC appeal for Gaza, it feels a mite disproportionate to start acting all macho over an ex-prime minister’s gobby offspring.

BBC apologises for new racial faux pas - Thaindian News Thaindian News BBC apologises for new racial faux pas July 5th, 2009 - 2:11 pm ICT by ANI Tweet London, July 5 (ANI): The producers of BBC’s The One Show have apologised for a new racial faux pas, which comes just five months after the channel sacked Carol Thatcher for comparing a tennis player to a ‘golliwog’ on the show.Some viewers of the BBC One programme complained after actor Martin Jarvis complimented a fellow guest, Fatima Barkatullah, who was wearing a niqab, a face veil in which only her eyes could be seen. “You have wonderful and lovely eyes,” the Telegraph quoted Jarvis, as telling Barkatullah after she had explained during a discussion about Muslim women’s dress that wearing niqab or burka was partly intended to discourage unwanted attention from men. “The producers were apologising in the green room afterwards. But I knew he meant it in good spirits. Martin said afterwards that he was just saying what the whole nation was thinking. I think some people were offended on my behalf,” Barkatullah said.

“My husband met him in the green room afterwards and told him he wasn’t going to ask him to step outside,” she added. In February, Carol Thatcher was banned from The One Show after being reported for referring to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, the French tennis player, as a “golliwog.” The daughter of former British prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made the remark during an off-camera conversation with the presenter Adrian Chiles, who was described as “shocked.” Although the conversation took place in the green room and not on air, her remark was heard by several members of the production team, as well as Chiles. (ANI) I Support Thatcher! What a load of ‘golliwog’ rubbish! | Tony Blair I Support Thatcher! What a load of ‘golliwog’ rubbish! Bet you never thought you’d hear me saying “I support Thatcher”!? Well tonight I do. Carol Thatcher, daughter of former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Carol Thatcher has been removed from ‘The One Show’ after comparing a tennis player to a “golliwog” in the Green Room on the set of a BBC programme. Not on the air but it seems others took offence between glasses of wine.

Oh, for Gawd’s sake. Well, that’s me finished with The One Show. And you know something else? I was watching the BBC News report on this as the BBC lawyer came on the screen – Mark Stevens I think his name was – and, hopefully this won’t upset him too much, but I immediately thought he looked like a “golliwog”. He is lucky enough to be a man with a good head of hair. THAT’S why I thought he looked like a golliwog. He is white!!! Am I now to be persecuted for flattery? I have no idea yet who Carol Thatcher was referring to, but unlike others, it could well be that this poor woman was actually the only one in that esteemed Green Room gathering who is actually colour-blind and was talking about the tennis player’s hair, and not his colour. Rumour is that it was the white Scot Andy Murray she was referring to. If so – touche. Andy Murray, Scottish tennis player, at the Australian Open, January 26th 2009 This blogger says it was a French tennis player Whatever, it’s really too, too silly.

I’m sure we have a long-neglected family golliwog somewhere in the attic. I’d better be careful who I invite to my home in future in case they want to do a “hunt the golly” expedition, and string me up from the attic alongside the golly, if they find one. BBC drop Thatcher over 'Golliwog' comment...File photo dated 03/07/2004 of Baroness Thatcher and her daughter Carol in the Royal Box at The Lawn Tennis Championships at Wimbledon, London. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Tuesday February 3, 2009. Carol Thatcher has today been dropped by the BBC after she referred to a tennis player as a 'Golliwog'. The daughter of the former Prime Minister made the remark after filming last Thursday during a conversation with the show's presenter Adrian Chiles and several guests. See PA story SHOWBIZ Thatcher. Photo credit: Kirsty Wiggleworth/PA Wire What a mad, mad, mad, mad world!

UPDATE: The BBC has been inundated with calls and e-mails supporting Carol Thatcher and astonished at the BBC’s over-reaction The Telegraph has this report WHAT A CROWD OF WOLLIGOGS Just remembered something – a youngster I know, still struggling with language, used to call one of these unmentionable creatures a “wolligog”. That’s my new name for the Beeb. Now who’ll that upset most. ‘ The Gogs ‘ of North Wales or The Wallies of the BBC? Share this: The thought police, eh Allan? Effing ‘ell! You know that box in the corner – maybe it’ll soon be watching us, watching them ;0) And this from someone who is not unhappy about the government’s supposed Big Brother society. As long as they are tracking the bad guys too. Oh, just remembered something I should pass on to readers. KEEP YOUR HOTEL KEY CARD AND CUT IT UP WHEN YOU GET HOME If you ever go to a hotel that uses one of those card keys to get into your room, DON’T HAND IT BACK when you check out. Reason – it holds all your details that you left at Reception including your credit card details, name and address.

This applies everywhere, not just in the UK. You are NOT required by any law to hand it back to the hotel, even if requested. Rob February 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm | Reply I agree about the lawyer (Mark Stevens) and my house mate said the same thing. I associate Golliwog with the hair more than anything else. Looks like the BBC are using the racism excuse again to get rid of someone they’re fed up with. They did the same with Kilroy, not that I agree with his views but he’d written the offending article a whole year before and it was only when the BBC wanted rid of him that they dragged it up. February 5, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Reply Yes, Bill. I have always thought of Carol Thatcher as a very nice, normal, well-balanced person. I don’t know how we re-educate people on what IS and what ISN’T insulting or MEANT to be insulting. We have become humourless unless it makes us sound clever, edgy, or over-zealous in our cynicism. Today all of that is considered acceptable.

And you are so right about the suggestiveness, innuendo and mean & nasty personal remarks that seem to go without censure. What an odd crowd the British have become. My only hope is that the fuss this has caused might change things. Perhaps someone will offer Carol her own show. And get rid of The One Show. Miky February 8, 2009 at 11:21 am | Reply Hi Dave, It seems this is an ‘age’ issue, as well as being over abundant political correctness. If you’re a certain age – not sure which age – maybe over 40 – you are not so concerned about this kind of language, for the reasons you give here. Getting rid of all the under 40s at the top of the Beeb might help. These people are the ‘prejudiced’ and to be blunt the ignorant who make these value judgements for ALL of us. And we haven’t all had our values shaped by the last 20 years only. The BBC is supposed to be representative of all of us. With such as Ross, Brand, Clarkson on board they clearly don’t. Thanks, Mary.

Please keep checking in – I MIGHT stll be here – not indefinitely, though. I used to have a life once! All the best to you. Bas May 18, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Reply Well I must say, a lot of closet racists on this site. Gollywog and Sambo have never been acceptable. I am a Black South London man, who has been abuse with the above words, plus other words. You all know she meant to cause offence, otherwise she would not have said, oh sorry, she thought it would get a laugh. Yeah Carol who is lauging now. The Doll is horrid. Dave says he has happy childhood memories of a Gollywog. Dave what a nice childhood you had. Now conside mine. School playgroun, Gollywog chants, Sambo go home. and you all wonder why Black boys are the way they are. I think you all should be ashamed of yourselves. Born South London.

I dont offend anyone with racists name, I expect the same, but no old boy Dave want to re live his happy childhood roaming the street with a NF T shirt, singing zeil Hile, while cuddling his golliwog. May 19, 2009 at 10:03 am | Reply Hi Bas, You’re not right about “closet racists”. I honestly don’t believe I have ever been “racist” about anyone. The point is that if you’ve lived for more than 3 or 4 decades those words were never MEANT (in the social context when they first saw light of day) to put people down. I realise it can be hard to get your head round, but it WAS no more racist than calling people “whitey”. In recent decades, in my opinion, it really became way OTT as to how offended people became over the use of such words. PC writ large. Even though I personally don’t recall EVER using them. But we mostly went along with the PC-proscribed instructions, because we mostly “got the messsage”.

In Britain where we have TRIED and yes, often failed to integrate properly, we have tried all we could to banish racism, and to show by at least 99% of our actions – anti-discrmination laws etc -that we DO mean to leave racism in the past. That’s why it is so depressing that a woman of a certain age referring to a ‘golliwog’ is seen as “racist” despite the other 99% of evidence proving otherwise. I just think a little more balance in taking and receiving life as it is, warts and all, history and all, memories, past fondness of golliwogs, whatever, would be start. I’m no racist, whatever your simplistic conclusions lead you to. What about you? Iain Dale's Diary: Carol Thatcher: Why Can't the BBC Be Consistent? political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com Tuesday, February 03, 2009 Carol Thatcher: Why Can't the BBC Be Consistent? Chris Moyles is Radio 1's star DJ.

Two years ago he was involved, on air, in an incident which led to him being accused of racism . Halle Berry, no less, felt that he was indeed being racist. In December 2008 he faced another allegation, after he asserted that "Polish women make good prostitutes". On neither occasion did the BBC fire him, let alone discipline him or even make him apologise. On both occasions the BBC said he was "poking fun". Today, despite issuing a full apology, Carol Thatcher was fired by the BBC - not disciplined, but fired - from the One Show, after she likened a tennis player's hair to that of a golliwog. It was a jokey remark made off air in the Green Room. And the tennis player concerned is allegedly the hideously white Andy Murray. The logic of the BBC's argument is that the very mention of the word 'golliwog' is considered racist. Utterly preposterous. Whatever Carol Thatcher said off air should not have been made public by the BBC. By firing her in this manner and allowing all this to enter the public domain, they have branded her a racist when she is patently nothing of the sort.

When dealing with the BBC, having the surname of Thatcher is not an advantage. However, if you are a fat, loudmouthed git with a surname of Moyles (or Ross, or Brand) you can get away with anything. UPDATE: I will be on the Today Programme sometime after 8.30am discussing this with Amanda Platell. UPDATE Wed 9.30: I am now reliably informed that the tennis player concerned was NOT Andy Murray. Posted by BBC Institutional Bias: February 2009 BBC Institutional Bias This site highlights a series of issues that I have noticed in The BBC over the years - mostly related to the Institutional Bias in The BBC. Pages #War015 BBC reporter Robert Peston. In a small article in Thusdays Daily Mail at the bottom of page 7 the following was reported:- Fresh questons are being asked yesterday as to whether the BBC's reporter Robert Preston is being used as a Government stooge. On Wednesday's 10 O'Clock News, the corporation's business editor excitedly reported that Sir Fred Goodwin was drawing a pension of £650,000 a year.

The announcement completely overshadowed news yesterday that the RBS had made a record £24 billion loss and that the taxpayer would have to Insure the bank against future losses of up to £325 billion. The BBC has already defended Peston against claims that he was 'acting as a instrumnet of the Treasury' over the HBOS and Lloyds deal. Given the BBC's previous form in the matter of bias I smell a rat and believe the BBC and New Labour are far too close for comfort. Posted by #War013 The credit crunch The BBC continues its bias reporting of the credit crunch always supporting the Government's line that this is a worldwide problem and that Gordon Brown is no more to blame than anyone else. Never pointing out or accusing New Labour Ministers of being totally to blame for allowing this to happen in the first place. Proof if proof were needed came to me this week in a summary article in the lastest edition of the 'The Week'. The article by Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek explains how Canada is not only surviving the credit crunch but positively thriving in it. Canada is alone amongst industrial nations in that it has not had one bank collapse.

Last year the World Economic Forum ranked the country's banking system the healthiest in the world America's came 40th and the UK's 44th. Why has Canada been so stable well because while the USA and Europe loosened regulations on thier financial sectors the Canadians insisted on keeping old fashioned rules. - simple really just use some common sense. I wonder why the BBC doesn't report this very newsworthy story? Simple because the BBC is institutionally biased and as part of this country's elite the BBC would not want to upset the establishment and their cosy relationship with New Labour. Posted by #War012 Chistopher Booker on Climate Change. Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph today points out that the BBC once again have shown their bias on this subject. First they reported last week that a leading climate scientist in America Professor Chris Field warned that " the severity of Global warming will be much worse than previously believed" yet it turns out Professor Field is not even a climate scientist but an evolutionary biologist and a video the BBC promoted was pulled when it became clear it actually showed temperatures falling not rising!!!!

Second the whole debate over the Artic ice cover turns out to have been based on a faulty satellite which was giving false information but the BBC still pushes as fact that the Artic ice is reducing. The BBC just don't live in the real world but in a parallel universe full of politically correct socially liberal elites. Posted by #War011 - BIAS AGAINST RURAL LIFE & PERSUITS 17 February 2009 12:28 PM One Man and His Blog I had forgotten until BBC Radio Oxford phoned me this morning that on February 17 1976 “One Man and His Dog” was broadcast for the very first time. It made Phil Drabble a household name – he was a bit over-dressed – and I was never convinced that he actually liked Border Collies – but he was great, the programme was great and it developed a huge following. When I was asked to follow on from Phil on his retirement I was honoured.

I didn’t even know that a new presenter was wanted, but by a stroke of luck Phil Drabble was making a series on conservation for the BBC and they came to my small farm, with my good friend Gordon Beningfield, the sadly departed countryside artist, to film a small segment for the programmes. For some reason the producer liked what I did for the programme and suggested I put my name forward to replace Phil:” you are a natural”, he said. I was short-listed, screen tested and I got the job against some top-line experienced presenters. I loved it. I felt it was an honour – a true country programme with real people in some of the most beautiful parts of the country. But oh dear, who was in charge of programming? A grey man with a ten o’clock shadow; someone called Mark Thompson. Sadly the man who now pays Jonathon Ross £16,000 a day didn’t like sheep dog trialling so he switched the programme to 3.00 on a Saturday afternoon to reduce viewing figures.

It worked, even I didn’t watch it on a Saturday afternoon and viewing figures plummeted to the same number as Countryfile, so One Man and His Dog was axed (but Countryfile stayed on – very odd). Fortunately I organised a protest and personally delivered thousands of letters to the Television Centre demanding the programme’s return. That in itself is interesting. The BBC received thousands of letters saying sack Jonathan Ross and they kept him – the BBC received thousands of letters saying keep me and One Man and His Dog, so they sacked me and dumbed the programme down to a pathetic parody of itself The powers that be were appalled that I, a Vocal Yokel, had managed to drum up so much support – and all that without a degree – how shocking. But they got their revenge. It had been noted that I had stood for Parliament for the Referendum Party (saving my deposit) and took part in the various Countryside Rallies and Marches – consequently I was sacked for “my attitude” towards the dumbed down programme – which was rubbish – and more sinisterly – “your other activities”. “My other activities” – what have they got to do with presenting a sheep dog programme?

As far as the BBC is concerned I have been virtually persona non grata ever since – the highlight - being invited onto “Question Time” – the invitation being suddenly withdrawn two days before the programme, with no valid explanation – and it was never re-issued. Is that a record? Interestingly David Bellamy also stood for the Referendum Party and took part in the Countryside Marches – he vanished from the BBC at the same time – there’s integrity and even handed public service broadcasting for you. Never mind – I suppose David Bellamy’s departure made room for that wonderful bunny and grey squirrel hugger Bill Oddie – urban, Oxbridge and Vice-President of the League Against Cruel Sports. Obviously my “other activities” were the wrong ones. The good thing about the One Man and His Dog dramas is the fact that the BBC crew – who I got on extremely well with, presented me with a wonderful hand carved crook – which is still one of my most treasured possessions. All was not lost because there is an even better programme than “One Man and His Dog” – it is called “Come Bye” – proper sheepdog trialling on Horse and Country Television (Sky Channel 280).

Despite financial hiccups – we hope that last year’s World Championships will be on before too long. That was a remarkable event, with 50,000 spectators and twenty-two competing countries. The most astonishing aspect of the competition of course was the fact that although it was a World Championship held in Britain, it was totally ignored by the BBC. I am afraid from all my experiences of the BBC from Question Time, Countryfile, One Man and His Dog, The One Show etc I can only conclude that the BBC is institutionally uninterested in the real countryside, the people who live and work in it, and the problems and the discrimination that they face day by day. All this of course breaks the BBC’s own Charter and the codes of conduct derived from it – and whose in charge? Yes, Mark Thompson – him again. To view Robin Page's Original Article in The Mail LINK Posted by #War010 The BBC's reporting of the corrupt Mrs J Smith #War010 The BBC's reporting of the corrupt Mrs J Smith Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail on Saturday accuses Ms Smith of thievery and challenges her to sue him.

He says she got away with her expenses fiddle of claiming her second home allowance for her constituency home for 4 reasons. 1. The Commons Dept for Finance and Administration is notorious for allowing MPs to fiddle their expenses. 2. The wholehearted complicity of the Conservatives and LibDems as they are just as bad. 3. The refusal by the Parliamentry Commissioner John Lyon to investigate the case. 4. The BBC's very partial and highly unprofessional coverage of the story. He goes on to say on this last point:- "Rather than give a careful and unbiased account, its gullible political reporters immediately took the official government line. For example a report on Radio 4's Today programme by Andy Hosken - before the official ruling - claimed that Ms Smith had not broken any rules and was, therefore in the clear. While it was extraordinary for the BBC to prejudge the case at such an early stage, it was even more surprising that Hoskens had failed to understand the parliamentary rules on MPs' expenses. He wrongly referred to expenses being submitted to the Fees Office, an organisation which changed its name. Other mistakes were even more grievous.

the BBC man told listeners that MPs had an 'absolute discretion' to decide which was their main residence and which was their second home. However the official rules do NOT allow absolute discretion, or anything remotely resembling it, and assert that in most cases the decision will be a 'matter of fact'. Indeed, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stated late last year in a crucial ruling: ' If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accomodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliamnet is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that theMember's main home is in the constituency.' To view Peter Oborne's articles LINK & also on 13-Feb-2009 HERE So once again the BBC proves it is institutionally bias and is NOT honouring its Royal Charter. Posted by #War009* - Lady Thatcher and Tasteless Bias BBC faces fresh criticism over offensive remarks about Baroness Thatcher The BBC is facing fresh criticism after two comedians made offensive remarks about Baroness Thatcher on a prime time quiz show.

By Laura Roberts and Richard Edwards In The Telegraph 09 Feb 2009 Senior Tory figures have condemned the broadcast. In Friday night's episode of QI, Jo Brand, who was caught up in the Carol Thatcher "golliwog" controversy, and Phil Jupitus both made comments which have led to complaints being lodged and further anger from viewers. When a picture of the former prime minister was shown with her eyes and mouth deliberately altered, Jupitus pointed at it and shouted: "Burn the witch!" Brand had earlier made a joke comparing Lady Thatcher with an Epilady hair remover. She said: "It was great, actually, when she became Lady Thatcher, because then she sounded like a device for removing pubic hair". The host, Stephen Fry, laughed and said: "It's true! Absolutely. The Brazilian Lady Thatcher". Brand added as an aside: "Eliminate straggly pubic hairs with the lady thatcher". The BBC said on Sunday it was too early to say how many complaints have been received about the show, which was broadcast at 9pm on BBC One. A spokesman added that it was filmed in June last year and "bears no relation to current events".

But senior Tory figures condemned the broadcast and some viewers said they were "astounded" and "disgusted" by the remarks. Lord Tebbit told The Daily Telegraph: "It is another depressing episode. Lady Thatcher has been treated like this by the BBC for the past 30 years. It's no good asking them for an apology. It's like trying to stop a dog from barking. "If we have a Conservative government then we can do something about it. The BBC is another part of the destruction of Great Britain. "The truth is that the BBC doesn't know that it is biased. It thinks that Guardian reading champagne socialists are the norm." In online forums, several people said that they had lodged formal complaints. On the My Telegraph website, a member called Roger, in Winchester, wrote: "I was disgusted to hear Jo Brand's remarks about Margaret Thatcher ... which both Stephen Fry and the rest of the participants seemed to find highly amusing. "This is typical of the sort of arrogance we have come to expect from foul-mouthed, left leaning "comedians" and the double standards to which they adhere. "It also illustrates to double standards being applied by the BBC who, at the very least, should sack Brand and issue an apology.

I have formally complained to the BBC." A comment on another forum said: "This is such double standards by the BBC. Is it OK to ridicule and be nasty about Mrs Thatcher on national TV, but not OK for someone to say something in private? Jo Brand obviously has a real issue with the Thatchers." Another viewer added: "Ms Brand's comments about Lady Thatcher were astounding. Does she really think that it is perfectly fine to talk about Thatcher, an elderly, largely defenceless and somewhat unwell lady, in that particularly disgusting manner? Doubtless she would speak of her own mother that way. "Has the BBC any understanding at all of the public's disgust? Ms Brand should never be employed again by the BBC. Why should the license fee payer be obliged to fund her?" Brand stormed out after Carol Thatcher likened a black tennis player to a "golliwog" during a private conversation in a green room at the BBC. The corporation has received 3,300 complaints about its decision to sack Thatcher, with 60 calls and emails in favour of its action. She is understood to be considering suing the BBC over her dismissal from The One Show.

The BBC was further embroiled in controversy on Friday when Jeremy Clarkson referred to Gordon Brown as a "one-eyed Scottish idiot" during a radio interview in Australia. Clarkson was forced to apologise, via the BBC, after being condemned by MPs and disability charities for the remark. To view the original article LINK Posted by #War008 The BBC is now run by a narrow sect..... Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail yesterday Thursday 5th Feb wrote under the heading :- "The BBC is now run by a narrow sect, blind to the good sense and values of those it serves." He criticises the decision over Carol Thatcher saying nobody in the real world really cares and yet she looses her job and Jonathan Ross keeps his for a far worse incident which did cause a public outrage. He says towards the end:- "I am not in favour of racism or sexism either. Nor are most people.

But when a once great public organisation is so denuded of belief and idealism, when it bears down with the blind obsession of a witchfinder general on small solecisms while disregarding gross aberrations of taste, iti s time to question its remit." It is increasing clear that Mark Thompson, incidently a man of principle and conviction, can no longer control the BBC. In my opinion the BBC is moving towards a confrontation with the public who increasing see the BBC as completely out of touch with their own aspirations and beliefs. To read the whole article CLICK HERE Posted by #War007 - BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias' #War007 - BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias' The BBC is out of touch with large swathes of the public and is guity of self-censoring subjects that the corporation finds unpalatable, an official report has claimed. As part of the report's research the BBC's own controller of editorial policy admitted that people felt that the corporation was guilty of a "bias of omission" by not covering their views.

Authors of the report called on the corporation to be more "open-minded" in the views it reflects and warned against "bias of elimination" which it branded "offensive". The report noted that the BBC had "come late" to several important stories in recent years, including Euroscepticism and immigration , which as it happens, were "off limits" in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone". Research for the 80-page report showed that viewers were "frustrated" by political correctness at the BBC and feel the corporation is dominated by a London-centric bias, reflected in its programmes, presenters and coverage. The report, which was commissioned by the BBC and written by independent programme-maker John Bridcut, also warned that if the BBC's viewers did not feel that the corporation was reflecting their lives and attitudes people would lose faith in it. Their review hit out at programme-makers for misjudging where "cultural mainstream" opinion stood and for wanting to "swim" against popular opinion. Staff were told to avoid imposing their own liberal assumptions on the audience and told to "embrace a broader range of opinion".

In the report, a news and current affairs producer recalled an instance where he had proposed a Newsnight investigation into the subject of "abortion on demand" but had been accused of being "anti-abortion" for even suggesting the idea which was not pursued. Roger Mosey, former head of television news at the BBC, now head of sport, is also quoted as saying the corporation displays "fairly overt support" for multiculturalism. Scroll down for more... He also admitting having some sympathy with claims of a "liberal/pinko" agenda at times. He recalled a news item about ethnic communities becoming the majority in parts of east London, where a reporter had told him that they had "worked really hard" to find a white resident who was happy with the situation. Research in the review also found that even ethnic minorities felt that political correctness had gone to far and others said it was diluting comedy and entertainment at the broadcaster and complained of a "restrictive mind-set". Authors of the report called for a "periodic reality check" on shows like The Archers and Casualty as well as news programmes. The Archers has at times come under fire for losing its rural culture with increasingly metropolitan storylines.

It suggested that the broadcaster had been late in picking up on "pavement politics" such as concern over the loss of weekly rubbish collections and had been "caught on the hop" by the success of UKIP in the 2004 elections. It warned of the dangers of an "institutional bias" in favour of stories generated by parliament rather than stories with populist roots. The report also urged the BBC not to "close down the debate" on climate change, despite the corporation admitting that it no longer felt it necessary to justify equal space being given to opponents of the consensus on the issue. The broadcaster's Oscar's coverage also came in for criticism over the presenters who were "transfixed by the glitz" in an "impartiality free zone' and called on the BBC to clamp down on its journalists becoming "opinion merchants ". It also faced claims of political correctness over Muslim terrorist suspects who were arrested last summer. One member of the public surveyed for the report claimed: "I think the BBC is too politically correct.

The BBC were saying '21 men have been arrested' and I thought 'what's happening?' So I flicked over to Sky and it says '21 Asian men have been arrested." The report claims that the BBC's editorial advisory department and its recently formed College of Journalism need an extended role so that impartiality is addressed much earlier in the production process. It claims that impartiality should remain the "hallmark" of the BBC and said the balanced natureof its reporting was an "essential part" of the BBC's contract with its audience. The report singled out hit sitcom The Vicar Of Dibley and a season of programmes on Africa. An episode of The Vicar Of Dibley featured Dawn French promoting the Make Poverty History campaign. "The implication was that the cause was universal and uncontroversial, whereas the Make Poverty History website made clear that it had contentious political goals," the report said. Nowhere in the episode was it pointed out that the writer Richard Curtis was himself spearheading the campaign. The report also quoted a senior BBC executive as saying that impartiality in the Africa season was "as safe as a blood bank in the hands of Dracula".

The report makes a series of 12 recommendations, or "guiding principles", which have been approved and adopted by the corporation. To view the original of this article CLICK HERE Posted by #War006 - BBC SQUIRREL COOK IN by Robin PAGE! Informing on the One Show That the One Show should be involved in all this nonsense is totally unsurprising. Last year I was invited onto it to talk about grey squirrels – yes I want them severely controlled. Oddly, the pro-squirrel guest was the urban Anika Rice. The famous “Green Room” was full of luvvies being luvvies – telling each other what they had done, where they had been and how absolutely luvvy they all were. I read a book. Earlier in the day a researcher had asked me what I would do to control grey squirrels – “eat them”, I replied. I have eaten them casseroled, as a burger and as squirrel pate. “Will you get us a squirrel to eat on the programme?” they asked. In next to no time a gamekeeper friend had three squirrels dressed and jointed, ready for the oven.

Then came the politically correct message; “Oh it has been decided that you can’t eat squirrel on the show, it is wrong to kill animals for entertainment”. So the One Show had caused three squirrels to be killed for no reason at all. The odd thing about this of course is the fact that the BBC is almost Cookery Programmed out with Ready Steady Cook etc – all using meat as part of their “entertainment”. Perhaps BBC executives don’t realise that beef, lamb and pork are just as much “animal” as squirrels. After the programmes, the main presenter, the rather characterless, bland, Adrian Chiles said:” You won’t write about this will you Robin?” Why not? What a shower – and was it you Adrian who behaved so despicably against Carol Thatcher – were you the INFORMER? The one good thing about the programme was that Anneka Rice appeared to know nothing about squirrels, and the next day “Save Our Squirrels” the organisation fighting for red squirrels asked me to be their Patron. That of course will teach the BBC absolutely nothing.

So Dave, come on – for goodness sake organise a BBC licence boycott – if enough people did it the Government would have to take action against the Bigots Broadcasting Corporation. If Dastardly Dave is too much of a wimp – how about the Mail leading the way? To view the original of this pre BBC Bias Article telling what goes on behind the scenes and showing just cow dishonest The BBC actually is CLICK HERE Posted by #War005 - Come on Dave - Boycott the BBC (Robin Page) #War005 - Come on Dave - Boycott the BBC (Robin Page) Come on Dave – so far during my time of political re-think, you have shown that you couldn’t actually lead a sugar mouse out of a paper bag – now show some leadership – stop being a political pc-wimp and lead a licence-payers’ strike against the BBC. What is going on? Carol Thatcher has had a private conversation with contributors to the BBC’s increasingly dreary and predictable “One Show”. Her conversation has been entirely legal, yet an informer has complained to the BBC’s thought-police and she has been sacked from the programme.

Incredible – Jonathan Ross’s obscene phone call actually broke the law – he gets suspended; Carol Thatcher had a legal, private conversation – she is fired. Just as in Eastern Europe before the wall came down, or in the Third Reich, an “informer” has reported her for incorrect behaviour (1984) and she has been punished. What a state to be in. Britain is gradually filling with informers, Quislings, collaborators and vigilantes, as New Labour turns into New Fascism. In the new order of things left has become right and right has become confused. To help show how politics has been hijacked by the devious and dangerous – remember Henry Williamson, author of that wonderful book “Tarka the Otter”. Despite his books he never received an honour – why? He believed in a united Europe – just like today’s EU and for his trouble he was called “right wing” and “a fascist”. Now bizarrely, and I cannot work out how it has happened, those of us who are AGAINST the EU superstate are referred to as “right wing”. Sixty years ago we would have been left wing and acceptable. Today we are apparently right wing and unacceptable.

Can somebody explain please as I am clearly rather dim? So Carol Thatcher’s crime is that she suggested that a French tennis player with ringlets looked like a golliwog. Well, the fact is that I don’t know his name, but I think I know who she means simply because he does looks like a golliwog. When I was a child I had a golliwog; today I have a golliwog mug and when I went to America a couple of years ago I bought a collection of Little Black Sambo stories, sold to me by a black shop-assistant. When I told her how pleased I was to find the book and that in England it would be difficult to buy, she said:” How ridiculous, the stories and illustrations are wonderful – they should offend no-one – they are beautiful”. Never mind, most of the pc-whites at the BBC would presumably not regard her, as proper black – white BBC executives are the true defenders of black people from racism. But who informed on Carol Thatcher – that is the big question. They should either be sacked or sent to Malawi for a month for a bit of education.

Last time I went there I flew to Lilongwe from Harare on Air Where Are We, sorry, Air Malawi, and that was after a flight on Zambia Scareways – sorry again, Zambia Airways. Oh dear, and once in my hotel I received my first shock – the local paper had an obituary for a “Mr.Sambo – a true born nigger”. When I first went to Malawi it was run by a “wicked dictator”, Dr Hastings Banda. The airport was efficient and the planes ran on time; the new capital showed vision with large plots of fast growing eucalyptus planted throughout the city for wood and charcoal; the roads were repaired and the streetlights worked. Outside the land was tended and for the first time for decades Malawi could feed itself. But oh, woe, pc Britain in the form of Tory Lynda Chalker, Baroness Wallasey, decided that Malawi was undemocratic. It was almost as undemocratic as the system that had made Lynda Chalker a Baroness. In 1992 Lynda Chalker was democratically thrown out of the House of Commons.

She was then undemocratically made Baroness Chalker, and although the electorate had rejected her, she continued in Government. From there, as Minister of State for Overseas Development, she had the audacity to lecture Malawi about “democracy”. Well, Malawi is a democracy now and it is also a shambles. Corruption is rife, the country no longer feeds itself – the country no longer works – so that is what Lynda Chalker evidently regards as the fruits of democracy. Go, “One Show” informer and actually learn something in Africa and I would almost bet my bottom dollar that you will be able to buy a golliwog in Blantyre. To view Robin Page's original Blog of this item on The Mail online at CLICK HERE Posted by #War004 The BBC and the Gaza charity ad. #War004 The BBC and the Gaza charity ad. I read a very good article in the latest Spectator by Rod Liddle about the BBC and the Gaza charity ad. In it he argues that the BBC was absolutely right NOT to broadcast the ad as it was clearly biased in favour of the Palestinians with every attempt made to serve there cause.

He went on to congratulate the BBC for their balanced reporting of the recent war and therefore concluded for the BBC to have shown the ad would have broken their even handedness. On reflection I agree with Rod Liddle because it is so important that the BBC honours its Royal Charter and is balanced especially with its worldwide reputation at sake. HOWEVER I find the hypocrisy of the BBC completely beyond comprehension because ,as explained in post #War002, the BBC is institutionally bias in virtually everything else they broadcast - following in the main the liberal left, politically correct, human rights and multicultural agenda. Posted by Oxfam slammed by anti-racist group for selling golliwog dolls on their website - Daily Record Thank you for subscribing! Could not subscribe, try again laterInvalid Email ANTI-racism campaigners have slammed Oxfam after it emerged the charity are selling second-hand golliwog dolls on their website. The charity giants – best known for their work tackling poverty in Africa – featured two of the dolls for sale online at £11.99 each.

One of the dolls is described as a “vintage handmade golliwog in need of a little tlc to restore him to his former glory”, with all profits from the sale going to help fight poverty in Third World countries. But critics have hit out at Oxfam for selling toys that are now seen as a symbol of racism. Jatin Haria, executive director of the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, said he was “very surprised to see Oxfam of all people selling golliwog dolls”. He added: “The debate about whether the golliwog is a racist stereotype that domesticates prejudice, or simply a child’s nursery character, has been raging since the 1950s. “But there is no dispute over their origins – created by Florence Kate Upton in 1895 who described her invented character as ‘a horrid sight, the blackest gnome’. “She clothed her golliwogs in the same apparel as the black-faced minstrels then prevalent in Europe and North America, with thick lips, unruly black hair and paws instead of hands and feet. “And ever since then, they have been used as an offensive racist caricature of black people.

“It is reported that in the 1960s, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders wore a Robertson’s golly brooch for each Arab they had killed. “After the war, ‘wog’ became a general slur against all brown-skinned people in the UK.” He continued: “We hope that no one these days would use ‘wog’ in any sense of the word. “For some reason people still find it OK to use the term ‘golliwog’ to describe black people – more recently none other than Carol Thatcher herself, when referring to the black tennis player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. “We would call on Oxfam to reconsider their decision to stock these items as if they were just ordinary toys.” A spokeswoman for campaign group Show Racism the Red Card Scotland said: “Golliwogs aren’t really appropriate toys to be on sale because of the fact they are based on racial stereotyping. “We have spoken with Oxfam and have recommended that the items be removed from sale.” After Upton created the golliwog it later became popular in the UK as the mascot of Robertson’s jam. The golliwog doll was a favourite for collectors.

But by the 1980s, it was increasingly seen as offensive and critics claimed it was a symbol of racism due to its depiction of black people. Robertson’s dropped the golly from their labelling in 2001. Yesterday, an Oxfam spokesman said: “These items were advertised in error and are being removed from the Oxfam website. “We apologise for any offence caused.” In recent years, the Daily Record has reported on a number of scandals involving golliwog toys. In 2008, a store in Lanark was slammed by anti-racism campaigners after it sold a number of golliwog items. The Jolly Gollies collection on sale at the Watt Bros store included a mug, a photo frame and a glitter snowglobe. The images portrayed the dolls in the style of the Black and White Minstrels with oversized white lips and striped trousers. In February 2009, Carol Thatcher was sacked from her slot on the BBC’s One Show after she made off-air comments comparing French tennis player Tsonga to a golliwog. Despite being confronted by presenter Adrian Chiles and other guests, Thatcher refused to apologise and was promptly axed. Like us on Facebook

Question: Which television presenter was sacked by the BBC in February for comparing someone to a 'Golliwog'?
Answer: CAROL THATCHER