Britannia Radio

THE HARDY BOY.....

>> SUNDAY, JUNE 27, 2010

The BBC love him - just can't get enough of him, in fact. I refer to the loathsome Jeremy Hardy. I was listening to "I'm Sorry I haven't a clue" on the BBC earlier today (Still missing Humph) but it was spoilt by Hardy's malign presence. Were that not bad enough, it was announced that fun-loving Jeremy has a new series starting later this week on Radio 4. Hardy is distinguished, if that is the right word, for his hard left political views. He suggested the Royal Family were parasites; he suggested that anyone voting for the BNP should be "shot in the head"; he supported alleged Irish terrorists - very much a thoroughly modern man. Laugh? I nearly paid my license fee.

More Big Questions

Sorry for bringing up this topic again. I don’t care for daytime TV, but a couple of weeks ago I heard that one of the topics on The Big Questions was to be about the morality of Israel, so I switched on. Unfortunately something went wrong with the transmission near the beginning, and the rest of the episode, including the Israel topic, was abandoned.

As today’s B.Q. concerned Islam’s PR campaign, and curiosity led me to the programme’s online messageboard. I was interested to see that several of the comments concerning the missing B.Q. blamed a conspiracy. Zionists, they said, had scuppered it. There was some discussion about whether the debate that did take place could be uploaded onto i-player, but computer said no.

It could be that Israel’s case was heard at last. I gather from Jonathan Hoffman’s comment that it was a good debate. We’ll never know.

Over the last few decades the BBC has managed to turn Israel’s wrongness into a certainty. It’s established as a a given.
Therefore, unless it includes a caveat in acknowledgement of that certainty, every fact containing a whiff or a hint of evidence to the contrary is inadmissible. In the absence of a nod in the direction of Israel’s innate wrongness, every teeny fact-ette will be discounted as Zionist propaganda.

Similarly, in political and journalistic circles, the ‘two state solution’ has turned into a bizarre cliché. ‘Two States’ is now established as a *solution* as though it’s the definitive answer to a mathematical problem. But how is two states the solution? What will it solve?
The idea that giving the Palestinians what they want will solve everything is very nice and tidy in theory. But is that what they really, really want? zigazig-ha?

Hamas and other Islamist organisations say they want the removal of Israel altogether, and the annihilation of Jews everywhere. Would that be a satisfactory solution? Would that constitute full and final settlement?
Many very aggressive and angry people clearly want much more than that. Obviously not the P.R. Muslims on B.Q.; or the nice Muslims, or the real Muslims, or the Muslims that don’t live in the massive ‘Muslim lands’ surrounding Israel.

So let’s call a spade a spade. I suggest that the two state solution is renamed the two state experiment or the two state trial, like a medical trial, where they test the side-effects of a new medicine, and try to find out whether it cures the patient, or kills him.

And further, I suggest that whenever this trial or experiment is mentioned on the BBC, it isn’t always in the context of the certainty of Israel’s innate wrongness.

THE PREDICTABLE BIG QUESTION

Hi folks - back from my short break and tuned in to watch the Kay Adams presented "Big Question". (Nicky Campbell must be off on a well deserved holiday, again) What a delight to know I am back in Blighty. This morning saw the following "issues" debated; "Is it time to get out of Afghanistan"followed by "Should we legalise and tax drugs" and then "Does Islam need better PR" The bias in the audience was unbelievable - hard to imagine that this programme was actually recorded in the UK but then again, with the BBC as selectors of the audience, who can be in any way surprised?