Regular readers of this diatribe will please excuse this month’s departure from my usual jovial jottings as I turn my bile to the UK’s BBC, that cabal, ...that publicly paid for ...cesspit of one size fits all, lefty, save the planet, asexual tossers! (Note to self, - you have to come off the fence on this one, and commit to an opinion!).

I refer principally to the Conservative Leadership debate, or should I say debasement.  All of the participants in this public flogging should have predicted that the BBC, via Emily Maitlis, would attack Boris Johnson and the others throughout the programme. So did its coverage the following morning. ‘Words are actions,’ said Nick Robinson on Today, sententiously editorialising.  ‘Again and again Boris Johnson gets his words wrong.’  Up duly pop Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband, Heathrow airport expansion and the precise wording of the promise to leave on 31 October, all licensed to do so by the weak decision of Boris and the others to go on.

Such debates are structured against Conservatives and conservatism. The actual electorate in this leadership contest would not instinctively defer to a 15-year-old schoolgirl from Glasgow who told the candidates they should condemn the UK to extreme and pointless poverty by achieving ‘zero-carbon’ by 2025. But the ‘optics’ of the programme made it impossible for the candidates to say that. Instead they all grovelled to the poor, indoctrinated, non-voting child, each striving to seem greener than the other.

Similarly, when confronted by Abdullah Patel, the mufti from Bristol, the candidates were in no position to know whether he was a moderate Muslim or one of the not insignificant number who denounce Jews, want women covered up etc. So when Mufti Patel complained of Islamophobia, Sajid Javid, who, it is known, is extremely suspicious of the very concept, proposed an independent inquiry into the alleged problem in the Tory party. All the other candidates, including Michael Gove, who utterly opposes the idea, cravenly agreed.

If he had seized the moment to say this, he would have improved his chances of reaching the final run-off, but he didn’t dare, because of the fundamentally hostile environment of the BBC.

The very next morning, Guido Fawkes found tweets from Mufti Patel, a retweet which wants to relocate Israel to the middle of the United States and a tweet which complains that ‘Every political figure on the Zionist’s (sic.) payroll is scaring the world about Corbyn’.  So it turns out that the anti-Islamophobe is also an anti-Semite.

By then, of course, the damage had been done.

All of this begs the question, why weren’t these people vetted?

Of course, the BBC is now run by morons who consider that anyone over the age of 45 years is well past their sell-by-date, and should never be listened to, and should most definitely never appear on screen. Although, we are useful for one thing -  paying the licence fee, after all poor Gary Lineker must be nearly on his uppers, I mean, how could you possibly manage on a meagre £1·7million a year salary, all for being blokey and reading an auto-cue. (Tosser!)

Although people over 75 will naturally be annoyed to have to pay their television licence fee once more, unless they are poor enough to qualify for pension credit, the decision will, in fact, empower them. Gordon Brown should never have let them off payment in the first place since they are the greatest users of television and radio in the country and are mostly not the poorest either.

So long as they were getting the services free, they had no power over their content. They have had to endure ever more abasement before the young, propaganda for women’s football, preaching about Greta Thunberg, and the removal of people of their age from the screen. Now that they will have to pay £154.50 a year, they will carefully consider whether it is worth it, and therefore become a pressure group which the BBC cannot so easily scorn.

There will be two other effects. The first will be that large numbers of tottering elderly persons will be hauled before the magistrate for non-payment, exciting public rage against the Corporation. The second will be a great technological advance among the white-haired as they learn from their grandchildren how to watch all sorts of interesting things through all sorts of interesting media without having to pay anything at all to the BBC.

This brand new generation of young metrosexuals that seem to run everything, know everything, despite having never done anything other than own an iPhone, all favour socialism. I suspect that is because they confuse ‘socialism’ with ‘social media’ and believe it has something to do with selfies or other modes of narcissistic recreation. Sadly, no one has yet broken it to them that the two planks of socialism are - 1) abolition of private property and 2) equalisation of wealth.  What wouldn’t you give to be a fly on the wall when those two facts of life suddenly dawn on them?

As usual, ...answers on a post card please!

Spain’s Supreme Court has correctly increased the prison sentence for five men at the centre of the so-called “Wolf-Pack” rape case. The judges ruled that the defendants, who sexually assaulted an 18-year-old at the 2016 Running of the Bulls fiestas in Pamplona, are guilty of rape and not sexual abuse. They had been convicted of the latter charge by the provincial court in Navarre that originally tried the case.

All five of the men were detained last month, according to police sources, on the basis that they presented a flight risk.

José Ángel Prenda, Jesús Escudero, Ángel Pozas, Alfonso Jesús Cabezuelo and Antonio Manuel Guerrero, have had their sentences increased, but in the case of the latter, the court added another two years for having stolen the victim’s cellphone after the sexual assault. The judges also increased the compensation owed to the youngster to €100,000.

The original sentence from a three-judge panel in Navarre was highly controversial, and sparked widespread protests across Spain for its perceived leniency.

The decision also sparked a public debate about the definition of sexual violence, and about whether the Spanish justice system is addressing it adequately.

The case was appealed before the Supreme Court after the High Court of Navarre ratified the original sentence in a 3-2 vote in December of last year. Two members of the five-judge panel had entered a dissenting opinion, asking for the prison sentence to be raised to 14 years. 

Welcome to July 2019, welcome to Streetwise Magazine