Gary Lineker and the Licence Fee.

The recent furore over Gary Lineker likening the Tory Government's language over migrants has highlighted the impossibility of the licence fee.

The BBC has an impartiality clause in contracts because it has to be seen to be above politics, to be impartial. That way, it is (in part) seen to be for everyone, and not favouring one person or another or one ideology or another.

The reason for that is everyone, regardless of political viewpoint, race or religion has to contribute towards the BBC in the form of the licence fee. 

I mean, if they stopped making programmes for a certain demographic, or started espousing political viewpoints against a certain demographic, then that demographic would quite rightly feel a bit hard done by to put it mildly. (I'm talking about old white working class men here of course).

They might wonder why they are contributing to an organisation that doesn't cater for them in the first instance and even worse, actively opposes them on screen. 

In that instance that demographic might wonder why the hell are they paying money to the BBC to be abused? I mean, some of us might be phycological masochists, but the majority aren't.

So impartiality has to be the bedrock of the BBC, in output, in opinion on and off the screen. 

If Gary Lineker likens the people paying his wages (The government following public opinion and therefore the public) to Nazis, then maybe he should rethink taking money from the public if they offend him so much? Or is it just the people that offend his virtuous sensibilities but he's quite happy to keep taking their money?

In that case, hypocrisy is very much at the fore.

It seems to me that either BBC presenters stay ideologically neutral in their public opinions, or we scrap the licence fee and then you can decide if you want to fund their opinion if it conflicts with yours.

The Migrant Crisis and ID Cards.

I knew this was coming a decade ago when Blair last tried to get ID cards in the UK.

The UK is one of the last bastions in the West holding out against the idea of mandatory ID cards and having to produce papers to show ID. 

But the Idea is creeping back now, creepy being the ideal adjective to describe Blair and his unwillingness to disappear from the World stage, only to pop up to back the latest authoritarian proposal. The previous time was on the side of Bill Gates and the issue of vaccinations. And we all know how well vaccinations have gone now, don't we? Basically Blair is always on the wrong side of history. 

I'm guessing 2023 will be the year of ID cards. There's now a proposal about to go before Parliament to make sure that illegal migrants if deported never allowed back in the country.

A good idea, if you actually deported any migrants. Currently the acceptance rate is something like 90%.

You could argue that this proposal will tackle those illegals that disappeared from the migrant hotels, or arrived on the beaches and evaded the authorities.

But how do you identify and illegal immigrant, as opposed to a legal one? Targeting "migrant looking people" will be out as that will be classed as racist, so the only option will be ID cards. 

Then everyone gets asked to "produce ze papers", avoiding the racist issue.

Also, this push to voter ID I'm sure, will be another nudge towards ID cards. 

But this is yet another nail in the coffin for personal freedom. Makes you wonder if the migrant crisis is a manufactured crisis. A crisis of such massive proportions, the only way to sort it out will be a reduction in personal freedom. 

When actually we should be free as a nation to reject everyone crossing our border without permission rather than reducing freedom within our border..

How Can the World Health Organisation Be Trusted with The Pandemic Treaty?

 Ah, I love it when quite obvious points come about from related items, that are then totally unreported by the Mainstream Media. 

Let's take two examples. 

A couple of days ago, Parliament debated the "Pandemic Treaty" proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that would compel governments that sign the treaty to be subservient to the WHO on all aspects of health in the event of a new pandemic.

Also a couple of days ago the FBI finally came out and said the Covid-19 pandemic did come out of a lab leak in Wuhan.

Now the two points above wouldn't be controversial if they were unrelated. But we are talking about the World Health Organisation. An organisation that fell in line with Chinese propaganda relating to the Covid-19 pandemic hook, line and sinker. 

So much so, that the WHO proposed exactly the same measures around the world that had been implemented by the Chinese. The WHO which for so long, bought Chinese propaganda that there wasn't a major viral outbreak in Wuhan until it was abundantly clear that there was a huge outbreak in China, China couldn't cope and the virus spread across the globe in weeks. 

We now know that the Covid-19 virus was in Italy around the end of August 2019, well before the WHO announced the pandemic and way too late to save hundreds of thousands of Italians. 

Had the WHO been on the ball, there would have been a global shutdown of travel, they would have advised on the quarantining o China from the rest of the world until they got the virus under control.

But the WHO are completely compromised by the Chinese government and are apparently corrupted by them. It came to light that several senior individuals in the WHO were in cahoots with the Chinese government and also the Western backers of the research in Wuhan.

So, when it comes to making Western governments subservient to the WHO when it comes to global pandemics, do you really trust the WHO to do the right thing? Do you really think they are a wholly scientific organisation who have the health of the globe at the core of their being, or are they a politically corrupt organisation? 

I know what my opinions are. 

Do you think they are fit to advise governments on health policy let alone compel government action? 

I know what my opinions are on that as well. 

Globalism and globalist control need to be resisted. At best they become sclerotic and prevent the quick response to threats and other aspects of life.

The WHO were slow to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic, gave bad advice on how to deal with it. How will the advice they give any good or any better during the next one? Will it again be tainted by politics rather than science? Will the investigation into the source of the next pandemic be obfuscated to the same degree as the Covid-19 one?

We cannot and must not put government policy, government responses and national resources in the hands of an unelected, politically corrupt and morally bankrupt organisation. 

The failure of the WHO to adequately manage the Covid-19 pandemic has shown they are unfit to take control of sovereign nation states under the pandemic treaty. We must not sign it and be bound by any of it's requirements.

An independent nation can work more quickly, with more focus that any supranational global organisations. We shouldn't need to be told to close our borders. We should be able to close them independently of anyone else. We should also have the ability to protect those borders robustly in the event of another global pandemic.