Why isn't the BBC covering a story - about itself?

One of the major news stories on TV news on ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News, and the major national newspapers are the allegations that the late childrens' TV star - Sir Jimmy Saville - was a recividist abuser of young girls.   It comes as a documentary is to be broadcast in two days time on ITV when women who claim they were abused, and a few who worked with him, will be telling stories about what he did.

The allegations are from the 1970s, involve girls ranging in age from 10 to 16, and one alleges rape.   Of course Saville's family is appalled these allegations are coming out now, given he died last year, but it has caused one high profile TV star, now a campaigner for children who are abused, to offer some contrition that people knew of rumours, that people had stories of catching him with girls, and chose to turn a blind eye.

He is dead, he can't defend himself.  He had no wife or children of his own, but he was one of the most popular TV personalities of the age.   

Yet if what the women say is true, and apparently the individual cases, coming from women from multiple parts of the country, have many common features, then it is far from surprising that young girls, with vulnerable backgrounds hardly felt able to complain (who to?) about a popular, famous, wealthy and well loved celebrity?

The 1970s were a period when it was remarkably difficult for children to be believed over abuse, particularly from otherwise well trusted figures.

However, what this story highlights is whether the BBC colluded in that culture, consciously or otherwise.

The BBC has made one sole statement, which is to say that it has gone through its files and found no record of allegations made.  It has also been reported that BBC decided against broadcasting a story about the allegations last year, because it couldn't substantiate the claims made by the women - which would only be possible if someone else was watching, or someone who the girls told could remember it (or was asked).

However, is that really a surprise?  Shouldn't the UK's leading broadcaster, a broadcaster that claims its right to demand with threat of prosecution £145.50 from every household, to compulsorily fund its nine TV channels, nine national and umpteen local radio stations, undertake some more scrutiny of its behaviour?

Is it not conceivable that if any of the girls made an issue of it, it would be dismissed, that the BBC was utterly unreachable in this age, for anyone seeking to complain, that anyone talking like that about such a popular ubiquitous star would be dismissed?  

How has the BBC changed in its treatment of TV hosts who spend time with children?  

Most of all, why isn't the BBC covering this and questioning its own (largely now retired) management of the time?

Doesn't it demonstrate that a state owned "public" broadcaster is incapable of being objective over its own behaviour, that it cannot be truly accountable and that if it cannot scrutinise its own staff, over 30 years after the event, that it can't possibly pretend to be some bastion of morality in the media?

In which case, how dare the BBC and its sycophantic supporters claim it has the moral authority to keep forcing people to pay for it - when it has taken a commercial, private broadcaster, to raise the taboo of a famous late TV star who may well have been a child abuser.

Allegations over major years (Guardian)
Saville interviewed under caution of allegations regarding girls' home (Telegraph)
Saville "Gary Glitter did nothing wrong" (Telegraph)
BBC newsroom assistant witnessed Saville snogging a young girl  (Telegraph)

Liberal Democrats deserve obliteration at next general election

I have a naive fondness for a few elements of the Liberal Democrats in the UK.  It solely comes from the era during which it actually did advocate for less government, less intrusion of the state in both economic and personal lives and it was - at the time the Liberal Party - a real choice compared to the comatose Stalinist-lite economics of Labour and the "slowing down the inevitable trip to socialism" of pre-Thatcher Conservatives.

However, those days are long gone.  The Liberal Party made a convenient alliance with the breakaway Social Democratic Party, which left Labour at a time when its policies included neutrality in the Cold War and economic planning that was, seriously, barely one step removed from that of the like of East Germany.  However, Labour abandoned that under Blair and the Liberal Democrats stayed still becoming a party to the left of Labour, opposing military action against Iraq and calling for higher taxes and at one point for Britain to join the Euro.

Few would doubt today that the party was wrong about that, and although Nick Clegg, to his credit, decided that a coalition with the Conservatives was a better move than trying to prop up the spendthrift remains of Gordon Brown, the party has continued to show itself to be little more than the electable version of the Green Party.  The one area where it could add real value, which is to reduce the surveillance state, the party has proven to be impotent and incompetent.  It has defended the extension of surveillance powers to now require all telcos and ISPs to keep records of every website everyone in the UK visits, every email address they send emails to, on the basis that they already are forced to keep records of every phone call and it is just about keeping up with technology.   So the British state now gets to require records kept of what you're reading, what you're looking at, what you're searching for, but don't worry - if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear right?

That alone should disqualify this lot from being a party with any liberal credentials at all.

Its passionate love of the European Union, obsession over climate change and the "need" for unilateral British action regardless of cost and who pays that cost, and wet attitude to foreign policy and defence are little compared to the latest ramblings - which is that everyone earning over £50,000 should pay more tax because it is "fair".

The Liberal Democrat's main contribution to discussion over reducing the budget deficit is not liberal in that there is no interest at all in shrinking the state.  This party believes that the current 45% of GDP dedicated to state spending is about right, and the way to reduce the deficit is to increase taxes (whilst reducing taxes on the very poorest).  It is pure redistributionist socialism, and it is envy mongering.

Whilst early talk was of a "mansion tax" which would simply be an annual tax on the value of homes over a certain value, this has now become a tax on homes worth over £1 million.  In London there are tens of thousands of such properties, more than a few owned by families or retired people who wouldn't consider themselves wealthy per se.  

The latest talk of those earning over £50,000 paying more should be electoral suicide.  This comprises the top 10% of income earners in the UK, but notably in London it is worth saying that this is far from being wealthy.  A decent two bedroom flat in middle class parts of London can cost £1500 a month in rent.  Try feeling rich with £60,000 a year, after tax (which takes away 31% of that with a marginal rate of 42% on each additional pound).

The Liberal Democrats constantly tout the cliche "fairness", yet that 10% earns 30% of income and already pays 50% of income tax.  How fair is that?

The Liberal Democrats are social democrats, and are, as advocates of the status quo and more tax, simply socialists.  They are where Labour now is, under "red" Ed Miliband, the unions' choice, and given the party is keeping the Conservatives in power, deserves to be obliterated at the next general election.

The big debate in 21st century politics is, once again, the role of the state.  On economic policy, there is nothing liberal about the Liberal Democrats, with no interest in abolishing the absurd shop trading laws that keep London's Oxford Street closed before 11am and after 5pm on a Sunday, no interest in liberalising planning laws that mean planning permission is needed in most boroughs for the smallest of works on your own land, and a religious opposition to more airport capacity.  On social policy the Liberal Democrats are uninterested in talking about laws on drugs, laws on censorship and as we have seen, are incapable of understanding state surveillance.  Finally, their attempts at reform of the "constitution" consisted of trying to adopt a version of the Australian voting system and making most of the House of Lords elected with 15 year terms.

Pointless and counter-productive.

The socialists of the Liberal Democrats should go to the Labour Party where they will find the usual interfering busybodies keen to create new laws, spend more money, invent new taxes and be forever committed to thinking that they are uniquely placed to know better how to spend other people's money.   The liberals, wherever they may be, should go to the Conservative Party, and help it dry up and become, once again, the party of less government and more individual responsibility.   For the SDP part of the Liberal Democrats have no raison d'être given Labour is no longer the home of Erich Honecker like economics, and the Liberal part has largely evaporated, in part because the Conservatives are no longer out to bully homosexuals, scaremonger about dark skinned people and fear ambitious women.

Not that I have time for either of them, Labour set the scene for the current recession and for years kept a delusional paranoid megalomaniac in charge of the public finances (so deluded he boasted that he had abolished boom and bust), the Conservatives are now in the thrall of Whitehall and are led by an indecisive whim and poll worshipping pragmatist.  

However, the Liberal Democrats have no purpose anymore.  Voters, who once saw them as a protest vote whenever Labour disappointed them, know this.  In 2015 opponents of the government will mostly vote Labour, supporters will vote Conservative, there is no point in voting for a version of Labour that keeps the Conservatives in power.

It's just a matter of time.

Taking from the poor to give to the rich

Yes that's what Labour's David Cunliffe and the Green Party's resident vulgarian, Russel Norman are advocating.

Peter Cresswell gave some clear reasons why it is delusional as economic policy, I'd like to make it a lot simpler.

Devaluing the New Zealand dollar would be the government stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

How?  Because those who win are exporters and those who lose are people who save cash in the bank.

Those with modest savings, without stocks or shares, without the means or wherewithal to shift their money into foreign currencies, equities, gold or property, are the losers in any devaluation.

It debases the cash they hold, whether it be in banknotes or bank accounts.  It takes away from their ability to consume, to buy what they want if it comes from overseas or is dependent on imports as a major factor of production.

It means the poor will less be able to afford an overseas holiday.

It means the poor will less be able to buy a laptop or a games console or a new TV, or books that aren't printed in NZ.

It means the poor will have to drive less (not that the Greens give a damn about that)

The winners are farmers, vintners, hoteliers and moteliers, in essence those who own export oriented businesses (or in the tourism sector) who suddenly find they can undercut competitors in other countries (or in the case of tourism attract visitors).

That of course makes for another group of winners.  Foreign consumers of NZ goods and services.

Devaluation discounts the prices they pay, which of course is the opposite of what happens to the goods and services NZers buy from them.

So there you have it.  The Labour and Green Parties want to reward those who sell goods and services overseas and their foreign customers, by taking wealth directly from New Zealanders who import goods and services from overseas, and who undertake foreign travel.

If you have enough money, you can open foreign currency accounts, you can shift your depreciating NZ dollar into other assets or commodities, and protect yourself from this government endorsed theft by stealth.

However, if you're relatively poor, with savings largely sitting in a bank, you've had it.

That's from the parties who, like attention seeking poseurs, are pretending to live like poor people to highlight how tough poverty is. 

They want to take from the poor to give to the relatively well off. Why?  

Because their entire philosophy is to intervene, to do something, because they know better than the millions of people making individual decisions about what to buy and sell and at what prices, because they are uniquely blessed with greater knowledge, so they can debase the wealth of some to better others, so they look like they've done something good.

They're not.  They are ready to steal by stealth.  Don't let them.

Only white people can be racist

Labour, Greens, Maori Party and Mana all share this view of racism.

The post-modernist structuralist view of reality is that which carries the mainstream of academia in universities in the English speaking world.  It is what most of our leftwing politicians were raised on, and it is what causes them to believe that a fairly simple concept - racism - is not simple at all.

Racism is, from a classical liberal definition, the belief that another person is inferior (or superior) purely because of that person's racial heritage.  It is taking those physical characteristics to judge that person.

Racism is irrational and has been the source of countless bloodbaths in history, and remains a primal drive within humans that overrides the rational faculty with fear and loathing of "the other".  

Objectivists consider it antithetical to individualism, which judges people on their behaviour and ideas, not their heritage.  Ayn Rand said as much herself.

Yet why do some say that non-white people can't be racist?  Well it has been eloquently explained by the Socialist Worker - the British Marxist newspaper which demonstrates that once you have put everyone into silos - then you can label them any way you wish.  Consider for a moment the irony of those who claim to be against racism using the very same techniques as those they oppose to classify others and then to seek to initiate force against them on that basis.

" the idea that black and Asian people can be racist towards white people is wrong. It confuses a reaction to a racist society with racism itself.

It is true that black and Asian people sometimes respond to racial discrimination by saying that all white people are part of the problem. Some say all whites are inherently racist. They may even make crude jokes to this effect.

These ideas can impede the fight against racism. But they are not themselves racist.

Racism is more than simple prejudice, no matter how ugly or unpleasant. It is the combination of prejudice with power. It occurs when a group of people are discriminated against because they are seen as inferior."

There you understand it, you are not racist if you are black and treat someone who isn't black in a negative way purely because of that person's race.  Why?  Because the racism isn't expressed by individuals' reactions, but by those actions with power.   

Power from the Marxist structuralist perspective is purely binary and is extracted from the bourgeoisie-prolertariat dichotomy that Marx and Engels propounded, but adjusted to fit the post-colonial narrative invented by academics.

It goes like this and it is worth deconstructing to see what it really means:

"The vast majority of people, black or white, aren’t in positions of power. Yet most of those who hire and fire staff, and make and implement policies that affect the lives of millions are white.

This, in the British context, is deemed to be because of racism.  Not to deny that it didn't exist officially and unofficially on a considerable scale when most of those migrants' ancestors arrived, but it is taken as given that position that this is the sole reason.  

Many among them hold racist views and they are given a chance to put their prejudices into action. And it’s not just racist individuals who discriminate—the capitalist state does too.

So it is now asserted that "many" who hold power, who are managers in business hold racist views.  No need for proof, it is "fact" and recirculated as such.  Then the state does so too.  Again, who would deny there are always a number in the Police and other institutions who act this way, but then the "capitalist state" disproportionately hires people of minorities as well - yet if they acted in an objectively racist manner in hiring, that would be "ok".

It is for these reasons that darker-skinned people are more likely to be out of work, in poor housing and the victims of racist policing. They are at the bottom of a racial hierarchy.

Again, just a bold assertion.  If a manager doesn't hire the black candidate for a job it is racism, not because the candidate might not be the best candidate available.  Another assertion is this "racial hierarchy".  It isn't one created by the state, or even businesses, but one that is created to fit the post-modernist Marxist view of race.

If a white person argues that all black people are illegal immigrants they are using racist ideas to side with the powerful against the oppressed.

Really?  Which of the powerful argue that all black people are illegal immigrants?  Who outside the nutty fraternity of the National Front claim such nonsense?  It's just an inane racist comment.

Racism runs deep in capitalist society because it is such a crucial component of the system. That’s why black and Asian people can accept racist ideas about themselves and other oppressed people. 

Now we are really into the fantasyland thinking.  If you think racism is a critical component of capitalism, you'll hate capitalism, yet racism isn't only irrelevant to capitalism it is antithetical to it.  For racism is fundamentally irrational, and it involves treating individuals not on their talent, intelligence and abilities, but their backgrounds.  Businesses that write off people on that basis are losing opportunities for talented staff and management, but would also be incapable of developing and marketing products for people, because of racism. The most systematically racist states in the world have been fascist-socialist constructions that have had capitalism under their jackboots.  

What does this all mean?

Leftwing parties almost universally advocate the state undertaking activities based on the "affirmative action" model following the philosophical contortions expressed above.  

If you are Maori, Black, etc, you are deemed to automatically fall into the oppressed proletariat category, so state sponsored scholarships, loans, grants and programmes, including quotas for employment, are deemed to be "correcting" the racism you have endured.  Blank out if you are actually a high income professional or son/daughter of such a professional (the people typically most able to take advantage of such programmes).  

Statistics of poor economic, health or educational performance are deemed to be "because" of racism, for any other explanation is inconvenient (and it is racist to even search for alternative explanations).

If you seek "one law for all" or to end racially determined institutions or programmes, you are "racist", because you don't understand that the state is racist and needs to be racist to counteract its own racism.

Yes, the racist state needs to be racist (which isn't racist unless it is expressed by the powerful, which the state is) to not be racist.

Of course in the 1930s in Germany, the state saw that there was vast racism in the management of business and government in the form of one race that ran everything and was seeking to dominate and enslave the race it saw as inferior.  That was swiftly addressed of course, and naturally few today would claim that the success of Jews in pre-war Germany was because of racism (indeed to some extent, in spite of it).

So is it not time to intelligently take on the post-modernist structuralist view of racism and the state in the developed world, and to do so by identifying exactly what are the sources of the disparities in outcomes that get labelled as racist by the baying mob of power hungry politicians on the left?

Could it be that cultural attitudes among communities regarding education, entrepreneurship, risk-taking, esteem, individualism, violence, the value of tight safe secure family structures, saving and aspiration are really what matters?

Minister willing to pay for contract killing

So let's imagine that a low ranking Cabinet Minister in the UK, or Australia, or Germany, or Japan, or a Secretary of the US Administration said he would pay a fortune to murder a civilian national of another country - even though that national had not committed a crime in his own country, nor had done anything other than to offend that Minister.

You see, the Pakistani Railways Minister can do it.   Although the Pakistani government has made it clear that he doesn't speak for the government, that doesn't mean a blind eye should be turned.  

The response to that should be clear and unequivocal, especially from those countries that use their taxpayers' money to spend on aid in this misogynist hate filled cauldron of vileness and sadness.

Ghulam Ahmad Bilour should be fired.  If he isn't aid will cease.  Regardless, this man should now be banned from entry into the United States, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.  Politicians as much as anyone should not feel free to commission contract killings.

However, I fully expect there to be plenty of hand wringing because removing Bilour would risk collapse of the Pakistani coalition government because he belongs to the small Awami National Party, which is a socialist party with no strong Islamist credentials and only 2% of the votes at the last election meaning it is a small partner in a shaky coalition.

Pakistan officials will no doubt say that firing a Minister for such a comment will risk an Islamist backlash that could see the government folding and a new election resulting in an Islamist government being elected - a risk that isn't particularly likely given Pakistani politics are relatively Islamist as it is, and there is no strong Islamist party in the country (the largest coalition of such parties only gained 2.2% of the vote in 2008.

Still, it is surely an opportunity for the Obama Administration to make it clear that these sorts of threats will not be taken without consequences.