Thursday, 24 April 2008

UAF lies regarding Party Political Broadcasts

By johnofgwent

Recent posts by Sarah, Maid of Albion pointed out the BBC's apparent lack of adherence to its charter, and its definite lack of adherence to its word, by failing to place the BNP video on the website along with all the others broadcast under their obligations towards parties fielding candidates in the London Mayoral and wider Local Elections.

I thought I'd pop over to see how the opposition was rejoicing. And I came up with a few choice links. Let's start with "Urinate Against Freedom"'s attempt to deny the BNP the 'oxygen of publicity' shall we. Pop over to this page on Urinate's site and you will see they were so terrified that people might listen to the voice of reason that they actually mounted a protest outside Auntie Beeb's offices hoping to get the broadcast cancelled.

Really ? I can't say I noticed any such protest and it clearly achieved its aims of stopping transmission, didn't it. Well, I bet "Urinate" will claim so in a year or two. But what set me thinking was their statement on the page linked above.

They start off by saying "We believe the BNP should not be handed free broadcast opportunities to spread their message of hate.". Well we must accept with open arms and joy in our hearts that they are entitled to their beliefs. If we do not, we are no better than their supporters in the cult of mohammedanism who strive at every opportunity to ensure we are NOT entitled to ours. And let us be honest, Daytime TV is so BORING these days we NEED some of these left-leaning organisations to brighten up our day. Well the broadcast that came after the BNP one had ME rolling on the floor.

But then they go on "There is no legal obligation on the television and radio companies to broadcast the views of any political party simply on the grounds it is fielding a certain number of candidates"

Really ? That set me thinking, and then sent me hunting for answers. This link to the Westminster Parliamentary web site lists the judgement in the house of lords which became the last word on the Pro-Life Alliance complaint against the non-transmission of their Party Election Broadcast (PEB) for the 1997 election. (The one with the pictures of the aborted foetuses which were ruled to breach the taste and decency requirements)

But this rather detailed study of Party Political Broadcasting in the '97 election is definitely worth a read.

As for "Urinate"'s claim, well, I will leave it to Auntie Beeb herself, or at least her cousin north of Hadrian's wall, to tell the truth. Read it here.

Why are there Party Political Broadcasts?
To achieve comprehensive coverage during an election campaign, UK broadcasters must ensure that political parties currently represented at Westminster and all parties contesting more than 50 seats are allowed at least one Party Election Broadcast on television and radio. The BBC has no editorial control over the content of Party Election Broadcasts. However, we are responsible in so far as that we act as a publisher - broadcasts must observe the law and must follow the accepted standards on matters such as taste and decency. The BBC and independent television companies have outlined proposals for changes to the arrangements of broadcasting Party Political Broadcasts. To assist with the review they set in place a consultation paper, designed to invite feedback from viewers, listeners and the political parties.


Anonymous said...

When a party reaches a certain amount of votes i was told by the BBC would give airtime.
This was approx two years ago when i had complained about the no coverage given to the BNP when we pay our licence fee like the lablibtors.


James said...

Surely if voters actually saw the BNP's 'message of hate' for themselves then they'd be less likely to vote BNP?

Useful-idiots Against Freedom aren't just violating the BNP's right to show their election broadcast - they're denying every voter their right to hear all points of view before election day. UAF have no confidence in the democratic process and no confidence in their fellow voters to make an informed decision.

Anonymous said...

I Was just reading this from Allan in the USA it made me think of the UAF. it seems somehow very fitting their fascist hatred that they spew out is just so self defeating they come across as really vicious nasty types that were they to sit next to me on a train journey i'd move.
When their rant went on about the BNP hating disabled folk was it not the UAF in Barnsley that attacked a guy with just one arm when all he was doing was selling voice of freedom?
The UAF are kinda the drug pusher dealer types the big boys above just use to spread their poison!!

“Common Purpose”

Common Purpose is best described as a modern day neo Fascism where government and business function as a unit. Common Purpose leaders understand communist propaganda and how to munipulate and infiltrate organizations using vague yet positive wordist titles such as, “Common Purpose”. Here in the United States it is called, “Political Correctness” and like Common Purpose, PC strives to destroy the country’s culture. Both groups promote
distructive, anti social adjendas and constantly push words over and over again, one example is the famous slogan, “Diversity”. To make a long story short, Common Purpose like PC is a weapon of mass distruction armed with a long fuse, total control over the individual through social engineering is their aim. Common Purpose is commie bullshit with a Fascist adgenda.

Democracy the UAF and Common purpose are complete strangers!!


ivan said...

arrow what makes me laugh about URINATE AGAINST the FENCE is DENISE has lived too long down under in the bush ? KETLAN goboffoswki does not know which side he bats for and turns up more than a man who is 150th on the bench of a dominoes team.GERRY GABLE just S/hits at the table and WEYMAN BENNET was last seen signing on with lord lucan. and has for the gone missing MR FISTER i heard he was being used as a ball by a load of whales in the south atlantic playing volley ball

Bert Rustle said...

I am surprised that Richard Barnbrook did not make it into the BBC Radio London studio this Thursday evening, for two reasons. Firstly that the BNP complain about a lack of media access which was granted and secondly that the BNP complain of bias and the presenters are in my opinion fair and reasonable. Any idea why Richard Barnbrook did not take the opportunity?

Apparently Richard Barnbrook is the third candidate not to show up for the program, which is perhaps indicative of wider issues with BBC Radio London.