When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

[longfingernails]

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

'I watch the Beeb to get the weather.'

But what about Michael Fish? That shook me.

'I think the Beeb is very establishment.'

So is the establishment left-wing?

exactly, wasn't it political correctness gorn mad yet again?

'Thats pretty conservative.'

But maybe it isn't? If it was, then why did the Director General of the BBC admit that the BBC had, in the past, been guilty of "massive left-wing bias"?

'A true leftist country would have paraded him around the town square for failing to protect the collective'

no, because the people (the proles) are the enemy of the leftists. They use them just like Stalin did, but lots of the collective find themselves in the people's salt mines in Siberia.

Can we send our football yobs to Siberia?

Yes, that's why the world cup in 2018 will be in Russia.

Not all Animal Rights protestors are loons, but some of our finest loons are Animal Rights protestors.

The World Cup is in Russia because the russian football hooligans greatly admire this countries history of football violence and want to fight are hooligans.

(This is partly true. I know someone who lives in Russia who got talking to someone in the playground who had translated the autobiography of the leader of one of the british Firms into Russian. )

[http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1967/no029/mcgough.htm why patriots are all nuts in the head]

OK doing links on the iPad is not easy.

Rodger McGough

that nasty poem on a Marxist website, published in 'International Socialism' illustrates what I have said. The poem mocks patriotic soldiers who die fighting for their country and who sacrifice their lives for their people. The sneering, self-satisfied, supercilious tone is clear when the poet says

'Lives are good for you.
When you are alive
you can eat and drink a lot
and go out with girls
(sometimes
if you are lucky
you can even go to bed with them)
But you can't do this
if you have your belly shot away
and your seeds spread out over some corner
of a foreign field'

The poem doesn't understand patriotism, it mocks the sacrifice of soldiers who are patriotic, it thinks they are "nuts". Lucky for the poet that the majority are patriotic and will defend their country and sacrifice their lives for people who mock them. It is due to these patriots that the country remains free and that conscientious objectors don't have to sacrifice their lives.

I'm not surprised that 'International Socialism' thought it was a good poem to print. I bet some of the Marxists felt smug as they sneered at the patriots. They don't believe in patriotism or liberty because they are international socialists.

Can we send our football yobs to Siberia?

Yes, that's why the world cup in 2018 will be in Russia.

Claig, I've not agreed with much you've written here, but that was a great response.

That poem is not sneering IMO, Claig. It's mourning a life cut short. It's not very good, again IMO, but I don't read sneering into it.

We should not forget that this same so called poet has advocated the mass murder of school children.

Really funny OP. Needed the laugh it gave me after reading Frank cunting Field's new rubbish. Cheers :)

I love the beeb, informative, unbiased and quality. Keep it state, ffs.

thanks GothAneeGeddes. But do read the other great responses too.

LoremIpsum, the title of the poem is
'Why patriots are a bit nuts in the head", it is not mourning, it is not respectful of soldiers who died, it thinks they are nuts and stupid and wear rose-tinted spectacles, which the poet is too clever to wear. While these soldiers die on a foreign field for the sake of their country and people, the poet thinks of getting his end away. The poet doesn't even have respect for peasants (which doesn't surprise me of 'International Socialism'). The poet says

But you can't do this
if you have your belly shot away
and your seeds spread out over some corner
of a foreign field
to facilitate
in later years
the growing of oats
by some peasant yobbo

The use of the word 'yobbo' is significant. The poet is no peasant yobbo, he is probably am intellectual champagne socialist who has never got his hands dirty or sacrificed himself for a greater cause. He is just a selfish person who wants the pleasure of eating and drinking and getting his end away, while other young soldiers die for a cause greater than themselves and sacrifice themselves unselfishly whilst this sneering, selfish individual calls them nuts as he eats and drinks his heart out.

He doesn't honour their sacrifice or praise their courage. No, he thinks the sacrifice of these "nuts" only facilitates the growing of oats for a peasant yobbo. He doesn't mourn them, he won't say a prayer for them, because, to him, they are just "nuts".

Don't know who the poet is, TCNY. Profoundly ignorant of any subtext or history behind it. On reading it without any knowledge it says, to me, life is good, dying in war is bad. That's not sneery to me.

BBC is great
I see no reason for anyone to "love the monarchy", if they do, good for them and if they don't, why should they act like a bunch of syophantic clowns at a 17th century court? People love the monarchy and that's fine IMO. I don't - which I think in a modern democracy is also fine personally.

That the media should have to "love the monarchy" is frankly bizarre to my ears.

supposed to read" sycophantic" ...