Abolish the BBC Archives -

How the BBC enforces the woke agenda

We’ve seen from our previous post on the BBC and its woke agenda the extent to which it will go to ensure that its output is consistently left wing, with opposing viewpoints either misrepresented or not represented at all.

Woke in, woke out

But there are other ways in which the BBC’s inbuilt left wing bias manifests itself. Before programmes can be broadcast they have to be planned and organised, producers and presenters found, and interviewees or panelists and, where appropriate, audience members, invited.

And it is here, as much as in the content of its programmes, that the BBC ensures that it has a built in bias in favour of all things woke. A glimpse of this was given us early this year, when an internal BBC recruitment policy document came to light. This instructed all managers and recruiters not to hire candidates who are “unsuited to the organisation”, or are “dismissive or derisory of diversity and inclusion and surrounding topics”.

Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and author has referred to these guidelines as showing “just how embedded Diversity, Equality and Inclusion ideology is in the BBC”.

The BBC says that this document had been replaced in January 2023 by a new framework – one that assesses each candidate against “BBC values and behaviours“. Which means, in effect, that nothing has changed when it comes to selecting each new wave of BBC apparatchiks.

BBC staff help convicted Somali sex offenders fight deportation

A specific example of the nature of a typical BBC employee was revealed in February 2024, when The Mail on Sunday reported on Mary Harper, Africa Editor for the BBC World Service. She was paid to give expert evidence on behalf of a convicted Somali gang rapist in his five-year legal battle fo remain in the UK.

Not only that, but she gave (or sold) similar evidence to help a number of other Somali sex offenders, drug dealers, and career criminals in their deportation appeals. In one case she testified that a Somali man who had committed a horrific sexual assault on a profoundly deaf 17-year old girl would be at “severely heightened risk” if he was sent back to Somalia because he had committed a sex crime.

There is more to this one example of highly placed and paid BBC staff being extreme left wing activists, but we shall move on.

Tim Davie facing both ways at once

Being “progressive” (i.e. left wing) is institutionalised at the BBC. From Tim Davie, the Director-General, downwards through the ranks, the stench of left wing ideology assaults the nostrils at every juncture.

In February 2024 Tim Davie told his staff that they should be “proud” to be progressive. But wait a minute. Isn’t this the same Tim Davie who identifies himself as one who is opposed to “the tyranny of a wholly polarised society”? The man who oversaw the hiring of outside “experts” to monitor the BBC’s output for bias?

Is it not true that there are people who identify as “progressive” and other people (almost certainly far more numerous) who identify as being decidedly not progressive?

So how can this man justify his position here? He is saying two different, conflicting, things. He can’t have it both ways. He either has to ensure he has political balance in the BBC’s output, so that left wing views and bias are eliminated, or he should stop trying to fool the rest of us through his ridiculous claims of impartiality.

Again, Robin Aitken sums it up perfectly. “For Tim Davie to say the BBC is proud to be progressive,” he says, “is to take a firm, and controversial, political position. It suggests he has a very poor understanding of what true impartiality looks like.” Mr Aitken also points out, correctly, that such a statement “directly contradicts the BBC’s core mission, which is to accurately reflect all shades of opinion, not merely those of progressives”.

BBC’s lofty ideals versus the reality

By “core mission”, Mr Aitken is referring to the BBC’s object, as set out in clause 4 of the “Incorporation and Objects” section of its Royal Charter (downloadable from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80c6d740f0b6230269570c/57964_CM_9365_Charter_Accessible.pdf). Here you will find just what the BBC’s object is supposed to be. It’s “the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes.”

The BBC’s Mission is set out in clause 5 as “to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.”

Clause 6 defines the Public Purposes of the BBC, the first of which is to “provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.”

As everyone who has followed Anglo-Celtic’s battle to get justice from the BBC and, later, from Ofcom will know, the BBC ignores its obligations under the Royal Charter whenever it likes, just as it ignores complaints from viewers and listeners. It is high time for the whole putrid, “progressive” organisation to be given the fate that it is long overdue to receive – the order of abolition.

The BBC and its woke agenda

Back in October 2021 the then new Director General of the BBC, Tim Davie, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that he was all for “banishing fear from public debate”. He identified himself as one who “believes in the free and open exchange of ideas to push back against the tyranny of a wholly polarised society and make the UK a beacon for free, enlightened, robust and respectful debate”.

Around the same time it was announced, to a fanfare of media publicity, that outside “experts” had been hired to monitor the BBC’s output for bias. They were to review programmes of all types to “ensure impartiality guidelines are being met”.

Did this mean that a new age was about to dawn for the BBC and its viewers and listeners? An age where the BBC would return to being the honoured and respected institution established over many years by its first boss, John Reith? Would it really do what it was supposed to do – allow freedom of expression to all, rather than just the left?

"We don't really care if they complain." - Hugh Greene, Director-General BBC 1960-69.

A relentless output of biased content

We’ve seen from earlier posts in this series that the BBC has, since that time, lamentably failed to promote any kind of genuine “free and open exchange of ideas” that aren’t themselves thoroughly woke and left wing. See our posts about the re-writing of history and the Covid pandemic. It has also failed to stem the relentless output of biased and distorted news items, educational and entertainment programmes. But there’s more.

In particular, any debates over race and gender are heavily biased, with interviewees, panellists and even audiences carefully vetted beforehand to ensure that the opinions they express will be suitably left wing. The evidence for this can be only be circumstantial, but is plentiful all the same. The BBC website is typical of media sites in that it is designed to shock ordinary people into thinking that extreme left wing wokery is the norm. For example, at the present time it has at least one new article a week focusing on the slave trade.

It’s not that we in the British Nationalist camp dislike talking about the slave trade. It’s just that we like to have the whole subject covered fairly, to include the countless examples of non-whites enslaving whites, as well as the other way round. A mention of Britain’s role in the abolition of the slave trade would be a good way of promoting the “free, enlightened, robust and respectful debate” as well.

A one-sided woke agenda

It’s not just news and current events programmes that are woke. The seemingly now defunct “Campaign for Common Sense” published a report in 2023 which studied the output of the BBC in 2022 across 70 episodes of dramatic output, and involved watching over 60 hours of BBC programming. Its conclusion was that many of the programmes surveyed “had a distinct left-wing bias”, but that “there were no dramas reflecting a conservative, pro-Brexit or right-wing bent”.

In fairness, the BBC did, in 2021-22, initiate a new whistle-blowing scheme whereby members of staff are able to report instances of what they believe to be malpractice in the output of news and entertainment.

It seems the rate at which allegations of bias are upheld is on the rise. In 2021-22 just 16 per cent of cases were upheld, rising to 62.5 per cent for the period April to October 2023. One of them, for example, was where a news item gave us the impression that the President of Harvard University, in the US, had resigned because she was a “casualty of campus culture wars”, when in fact she was forced to leave over her response to “anti-semitism” on campus and when it was found that she had, er, plagiarised some of her academic work.

One woke organisation supervising another woke organisation

In early 2024, in a bid to improve “audience confidence” in the BBC (as opposed to elimating bias and returning to a path of honest and straightforward broadcasting), the then Conservative government announced major reforms involving the extension of Ofcom’s remit over the BBC to include its BBC News website.

The BBC’s social media guidelines will also come under such supervision from 2025. This follows a large number of complaints about the left-wing football pundit, Gary Lineker, and his posturings on Twitter/X. Ofcom will have the power to fine the BBC (and other broadcasters) if the rules are breached, and have, apparently, told the BBC to increase independent scrutiny of the way it handles complaints, so as to ensure fairness.

This fails to instill any confidence at all in us at Anglo-Celtic, who have suffered blatant unfairness in the way our complaints have been handled by both the BBC and, later, on appeal to Ofcom. The idea that Ofcom would rein in the woke output of the BBC and take any serious steps to ensure impartiality is laughable. Many of the managers and personnel at Ofcom are former BBC staff.

BBC’s lofty ideals versus the reality

The BBC is supposed to have a “core mission”, as set out in clause 4 of the “Incorporation and Objects” section of its Royal Charter (downloadable from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80c6d740f0b6230269570c/57964_CM_9365_Charter_Accessible.pdf). Here you will find just what the BBC’s object is supposed to be. It’s “the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes.”

In our next post in this series, we’ll examine how the BBC enforces its woke agenda.

The BBC and “Gender Identity”

In recent years “gender identity” has emerged as one of the Cultural Marxists’ key weapons in their quest to dismantle White civilization. So naturally the BBC is there to promote it and cause confusion amongst our youth. In January 2021 it released a programme aimed at 9 to 12 year olds claiming that there are over 100 different genders.

In a BBC ‘Bitesize’ web page called “What is the difference between sexuality and gender?” you can read all about how there are different types of sexuality and that sex and gender are quite different from each other. This poisonous message to young people is an open attempt to confuse them and doubt their own judgement, so as to weaken their ability to have normal, healthy relationships with other young people of either sex. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/zhvbt39/articles/z6smbdm

What about leading a normal life?

Of course no mention is made of how you can be happy just by being normal, leading a normal life, contributing to national life by marrying someone of the opposite sex and having children, and of loving and looking after those children so they can grow up into mature and responsible adults, loved and capable of loving. Millions of people feel fulfilled by simply doing this. But, of course, that is not what the cultural Marxists at the BBC want.

More recently, in June 2023, in their soap, “Casualty”, a “non-binary” character discussed “top surgery”. This is the kind of surgery, apparently, that is performed on trans-gender men to remove breast tissue. I think I get it.

A man wants to become a woman, or to be of some “non-binary” gender, and has an expensive operation, probably paid for by unassuming healthy and sane taxpayers. He then discovers that he has “breast tissue” as a result.

Imagine his horror! What a ghastly surprise!

Wait a minute, though. Isn’t a woman supposed to have “breast tissue”? So why does he, er, I mean she, want it removed?

No, stop there. I’ve got it wrong.

It’s a woman who wants to become a man, or, at least, become of a male-leaning non-binary gender. And then she discovers she/he/it still has “breast tissue”. So what’s the answer?

Another operation, of course, Silly! Top surgery! Then he/she/it can be sure “they” will look even more weird than in their wildest dreams. Or should that be nightmares?

The BBC helps to create a dystopian world

And all the while, impressionable young children are growing up into confused teenagers and young adults in a world where reality is at conflict with everything they’ve been taught. Eventually they don’t even know which sex they are (yes, there are only two, so it shouldn’t be too difficult), and the chances of any of them actually finding any happiness, let alone a life partner of the opposite sex with which they can raise a family, are more or less zero. If they have any children at all they are likely to be the result of a brief, promiscuous relationship, and such children will be hard put to find any love to receive or, later on, to give. A cruel, dystopian world awaits them.

It’s easy to see through all this sick nonsense, enthusiastically promoted by the BBC at licence-payers’ expense (more fool them). Cultural Marxists everywhere, especially at the BBC, hate the concept of family. Especially White families. For it is the family that is the cornerstone of White civilization. No wonder the family, as a concept, has been under attack for so long from these weirdos.

It used to be generally accepted by young people that the whole purpose of growing up, getting a job or business, and socialising with other young people, was to eventually meet someone of the opposite sex and marry them. The next logical thing, if both parties to the marriage are fertile and healthy, is to have children, so as to guarantee the survival of the next generation, and, on a wider scale, of the race. And to give those children the best start in life with a loving, stable family, preserving their childhood innocence until they are old enough to face the world and all its slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Pure racialism

Yes, this is pure racialism (as opposed to the horrible leftist concept of “racism”). Nothing to do with “hate”. Just a healthy desire to maintain and grow White civilization for the good of all. You only have to look at happy, healthy, White children playing together to feel a sensation of satisfaction and pride. A knowledge that this is how it should be.

And that is something that the sick sociopaths, the cultural Marxists, and the paedophiles at the BBC hate. And that’s why the BBC is promoting “transgenderism” and “gender identity”.

It’s high time that this bloated, sick organisation, no longer fit for purpose, was given its last rites and put out of its misery. Join our campaign to abolish the BBC now.

The BBC and the Covid Pandemic

We all know that the main debate over Covid 19 was whether the Government’s draconian lockdown measures were overkill, or whether they were justified in order to restrict the spread of a killer virus. So which side would the BBC endorse? The answer’s simple: The side that required restrictive measures to be imposed, that would do maximum economic damage to the country, and would cause the highest possible measure of public alarm, so procuring a largely misinformed, frightened and compliant population.

If the BBC were really impartial then it would have refrained from supporting either side, instead opting for as much full and open debate as possible. It would have given air time to expert scientists and doctors from both sides of the argument, in order to try to arrive at the truth.

Leading scientists cancelled

But truth and the BBC are uneasy companions, as we at Anglo-Celtic know only too well. The BBC management oversaw a totally one-sided discussion of the issue. They refused air time to several eminent scientists who, before Covid, had frequently been sought out for their opinions. One such was Professor Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University. He was often interviewed on BBC radio and television in the early days of the pandemic. But as soon as he began questioning government policy he was blocked. He says, “For the whole of 2021 I was virtually ghosted by the BBC. I was sometimes booked to go on programmes but then it would be cancelled or I would be told I wasn’t needed”.

People with no medical qualifications but who supported the Government’s stance on Covid 19 and the lockdowns, however, were given plenty of air time. One example is Devi Sridhar, Professor of Public Health at the University of Edinburgh,counter-disinformation policy forum. It was she who, when the Pfizer vaccine was approved for use in children aged 12 to 15 in June 2021, told the children’s current affairs programme, Newsround, that the vaccine was “100 per cent safe for children”. Some journalists who were aware that no medical expert would ever claim that a vaccine is 100 per cent safe, raised the alarm with their managers. It turned out that Sridhar is not a virologist, immunologist, or expert on vaccination, and so is not qualified at all to pronounce on the safety or otherwise of any vaccine.

Toeing the line

It’s evident that during the Covid 19 lockdowns, the BBC reduced itself to being a mouthpiece for the Government. It even instructed its reporters not to use the word “lockdown”. Instead, they were to talk about curbs and restrictions. This was in line with Government policy.

Even worse, the BBC sent a representative to meetings of the “Counter-Disinformation Policy Forum”, set up by the Government to stifle dissent on the methods used to counter Covid 19. Jessica Cecil, founder of their “Trusted News Initiative” (set up in 2019, ostensibly to uncover “fake news” and warn media partners of such) was seconded to attend its meetings. No unredacted minutes of its meetings have ever been published.

The “Counter-Disinformation Policy Forum” (December 2020-June 2021) was chaired alternately by a Minister of State and a senior Civil Servant. It is not to be confused with the equally secretive “Counter Disinformation Unit”, also set up by the Government at about the same time. It’s clear that the attitude of these government bodies towards anyone who questioned the myths surrounding Covid and the lockdowns was hostile in the extreme. For example, they openly referred to their mission to “address the serious risk of harm posed by….anti-vaccination mis/disinformation”. Just look it up on any search engine.

The BBC partakes in a “conspiracy against public debate”

Robin Aitken, a former BBC journalist, has described it as “alarming” to discover that the BBC took part in this “forum”, and suggested it was a “conspiracy against public debate”. He went on to say that the BBC’s action shows that “when it chooses to, it toes the line and does the job the Government wants it to do.” And the job the Government wanted it to do was to argue the case that any information indicating that vaccines were anything other than totally safe and effective was untrue.

We’ve heard more and more lately about “disinformation” and “misinformation” from the mass media, led by the BBC. Robin Aitken sums this up perfectly by saying, “This whole idea of disinformation is a method of enforcing an orthodoxy on the public debate”. In other words, to stifle freedom of speech and expression (in defiance of its 2016 Charter).

The BBC implements a “climate of fear”

It’s just an excuse for blatant censorship. The BBC also implemented what current and former BBC journalists have called a “climate of fear”. Any journalist or manager who questioned this tyranny was “openly mocked”. And as for reporting on anti-lockdown marches then taking place in London, some of which attracted many thousands of protesters, they were “not on the agenda”. That’s “Cancel Culture” for you. Yet if any of this was put to senior management at the BBC, as it often was by a minority of more independent thinking journalists, they simply denied it. No explanation. No point-by-point refutation. Just denial. This sounds familiar to us at Anglo-Celtic. It’s what we had to contend with when we filed a 93-point series of complaints with the BBC and, later, with Ofcom, all backed up with documentary evidence. No attempt to answer even one of our complaints. Just denial.

"We don't really care if they complain." - Hugh Greene, Director-General BBC 1960-69.

Yet it gets more sinister. Anna Brees was a BBC news presenter who left the Corporation before the Covid pandemic. She was contacted by a like-minded BBC senior editor when she tweeted her opinions about the lockdowns. The editor emailed her with an assurance that he supported her in her concerns, and asked her to let him have the names of any other people in the BBC News department who shared “their” views. But if this was a genuine attempt to resist the tyranny at the BBC then it failed because of the fear that it may be a trap to identify dissenters, who would then be open to losing their jobs, and possibly their careers as well.

Ofcom as well

It wasn’t just the BBC. It was Ofcom as well. Ofcom, as well as the BBC, had a seat on the secretive “Counter Disinformation Policy Forum”, and on the day the first lockdown was announced by the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson it issued “guidance” (i.e. a diktat) on “broadcast standards during the coronavirus pandemic”. If this was designed to coerce any remaining independently minded journalists into toeing the line then it succeeded. The “climate of fear” was fully implemented. Proper national debate on the virus, the lockdowns, and public policy changes to accommodate them, was stifled.

The BBC failed totally in its duty to provide clear and independent coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and the effect of all this on public health, the economy, and the nation as a whole.

It’s high time this corrupt, treacherous organisation was abolished. Find out more about our Campaign to Abolish the BBC by clicking here.

The BBC and the rewriting of history

The re-writing of history is another sinister development that has been growing in recent years. This is not limited to the BBC, of course, but naturally it is in the vanguard. The main focal point of this is to make the British people ashamed of being White and instil in them a huge guilt complex. Then, so the liberal elite believe, White British people will be ready to commit racial suicide en masse and very quickly on the alter of “diversity” and “inclusivity”.

Dramas

Historical dramas, which even recently the BBC were renowned for in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity, are now a joke. For example, the forthcoming series of ‘Wolf Hall’, about the relationship between King Henry VIII and his senior minister, Thomas Cromwell, would have us believe that many courtiers in the Royal Court were black. As anyone even vaguely familiar with that period of English history knows, the number of black people in the whole of Britain at that time could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand.

History

Broadcasts that are supposed to present true history (as opposed to historical drama) are now little more than diatribes of leftist hate against White people in general and Britain in particular. Any evidence that doesn’t fit in with the left’s narrative is simply ignored.

We’ve seen this in the infamous BBC Radio broadcasts of 2020-21, ‘The Battle of Lewisham’ (in the ‘Witness to History’ series, where just one person gives their views on a historical event), and the three-part ‘Britain’s Fascist Thread’. A major feature of these programmes was the National Front march through Lewisham that took place on August 13th 1977. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000skcb.

Dozens of witnesses were interviewed and allowed to give their own particular distorted accounts of what happened that day. All of them without exception were left wing or extreme left wing. No-one from the National Front was interviewed – not even the National Activities Organiser, Martin Webster, who organised the whole event.

Ninety Three Lies and Distortions – in just three broadcasts

No less than ninety three cases of lies, distortions, and bias in those broadcasts were complained about by us at Anglo-Celtic. The BBC Executive Complaints Unit and, later, Ofcom, refused to investigate any of them.

The next step, if we had the funds, would be to apply for a court order that would force the BBC to consider our complaints properly, as required by their Charter. The BBC is cynically relying on our inability to come up with the thousands of pounds that such an action would cost.

"We don't really care if they complain." - Hugh Greene, Director-General BBC 1960-69.

The BBC’s Complaints System is a Fraud

There’s one very interesting aspect about complaining to the BBC that everyone should know about. The Corporation elevates itself to such a high status that it feels completely justified in imposing strict limits on the number of words any given complaint can contain. There are also strict time limits within which complaints have to be lodged. Making a complaint is treated as a concession and not a right.

What other organisation, public or private, purports to impose such restrictions on the public’s right to complain about it? This is all the more pertinent when the people making the complaints are invariably licence fee payers who collectively fund the BBC. The audacity of the BBC in imposing rules about how people can complain about it, the maximum length of written complaints, and the time limits within which such complaints must be received, is staggering.

At last a backlash is occurring. More and more people are refusing to pay the BBC’s exorbitant licence fee. So much so that the BBC is now facing a serious shortage of money. It is even having to reduce expenditure on the salaries of overpaid presenters, such as the infamous left wing soccer pundit, Gary Lineker, and their pension contributions.

Let’s hope the licence fee crisis blossoms into a full scale collapse of this rotten, corrupt and parasitic institution so that its outpouring of marxist poison day after day can be throttled once and for all.

Join our Campaign to Abolish the BBC by clicking here.

THE CONSENSUS IS GROWING – THE BBC IS NO LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE

It should be obvious to anyone who reads this blog that the BBC is heavily biased in favour of everything that is destructive of our values, our culture, our nation and our race. Not only that, but that it has been so biased since at least the early 1960s, when the obnoxious Hugh Greene was appointed as Director-General.

"We don't really care if they complain." - Hugh Greene, Director-General BBC 1960-69.

Greene was reputed to have said in private, at the time of his appointment, “We are going to use this organisation to change the way the rest of the country thinks. We want them to see stuff they don’t like. We don’t really care if they complain” (italics added). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Greene. It was he who made the presumptuous statement in 1968 that “we are all Marxists now”.

To understand what has been going on, we must remember that, like all national institutions that have been captured by the Left, the BBC has to continually engage in a policy of deception, so that its nefarious activities can remain hidden from the public.

What they tell us….

For example, the BBC regularly assures everyone that it maintains the highest standards of impartial news reporting and analysis. It tells us that its drama and other entertainment programmes reflect life in modern Britain. It would have us believe that its treatment of contemporary history is objective and untainted by any bias for or against any particular point of view or political affiliation. And they protest that in matters that are controversial, all sides are represented in debates, discussions, and interviews.

If any listener or viewer feels that any programme or presenter has contravened this high standard then a complaints procedure is in place, including the right of appeal. Now we have Ofcom too, as an extra layer of protection, supposedly.

The BBC’s 2016 Charter commits the Corporation to “provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world”. The same Charter also commits the Corporation to “championing freedom of expression” (ha,ha).

… and what they do

The reality is quite different. The BBC routinely ignores its Charter. Whilst hiding behind a veneer of respectability, the Corporation spews out heavily biased news and views, the re-writing of history, woke poison, and misinformation designed to confuse its viewers and listeners, especially vulnerable young people.

Even establishment figures are seeing through it all

Lately there’s been a development that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Some establishment politicians and former BBC employees are accusing the Corporation of being heavily biased in favour of allowing a never-ending stream of foreign migrants into Britain.

That such a policy is turning into a disastrous large-scale catastrophe for Britain hardly needs saying here. People like us have been saying that since at least the 1960s. Recent migrant riots in France, where cities like Paris have had large areas reduced to smoking rubble, and anarchy reigns, only underline the insanity of “open door” immigration policies.

Now we have Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative Party leader, saying that the BBC’s ingrained political bias has led to an “instinctive cultural sneer” when covering news about immigration. According to him, the BBC is now a branch of the “liberal Left”, completely out of tune with the public that it is supposed to serve. For such a long-standing and senior member of the Conservative Party to say that, things must be extremely bad.

An “institutional liberal bias”

And who would have imagined, even just a few years ago, that John Humphrys, the leading BBC newsreader and presenter of the odious Today Programme for many years, would now be accusing his former employers of having an “institutional liberal bias” and, again, of being out of touch with public opinion. Needless to say, he made these sack-worthy accusations on his retirement from the BBC.

Helen Boaden worked for the BBC for over 30 years as a news director at BBC Radio and BBC News, and Controller of BBC 7 and BBC Radio 4. She said as far back as 2013 that the BBC had a “deep liberal bias”, and did not take seriously the views of organisations that were opposed to mass migration into Britain (such as Migration Watch).

A glance at our Campaign to Abolish the BBC will show that the corporation

1. has abandoned all pretence at being impartial,

2. is engaged in a serious and sustained attempt to rewrite history from an extreme left wing viewpoint, and

3. has a so-called complaints procedure that is nothing but a sick joke.

In view of all this, we at Anglo-Celtic are running a series of posts, of which this is the first, to enlarge on what we say in our Campaign to Abolish the BBC.

The Front View with Martin Webster – ‘Lewisham, August 1977’

This bombshell interview lifts the lid off the extreme left wing control of the mainstream media.

Martin Webster carries out a complete demolition of the leftist establishment lies about what happened at Lewisham, London, on August 13th, 1977.

Share with everyone you know who wants proof about leftist lies and deceptions in the mainstream media, and register your interest in helping our Campaign to Abolish the BBC by clicking here.

‘Ridley Road’, BBC lies and the re-writing of history

Bill Baillie, the editor of Nation Revisited, has had his web site sabotaged by the likes of Google. He has asked that Anglo-Celtic.org re-publish the material that Google has objected to, and in the interests of freedom of expression we are pleased to do so. The following article relates to a BBC Television history-rewriting exercise in the form of a highly ficticious, extreme left-wing slanted drama called "Ridley Road", broadcast in the autumn of 2021.

I posted Martin Webster's article on my blog European Outlook but it was taken down by Google for violating their Community Guidelines. I thank Anglo-Celtic for defending free speech.

Bill Baillie

The information you mention from Mike Whine, a one-time ‘Defence Director’ of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to the effect that the creation of the Jewish terrorist ’62 Group’ was prompted by the National Socialist Movement’s violent attacks on sundry Jewish and Israeli organisations in the UK is utter tosh.

This invention was surely provided to cover for gratuitous Jewish violence, indeed terrorism, by the 62 Group gang who were inspired by the Zionist terrorist group the Irgun and mobilised, among others, by Soho club owner and gangster Harry Bidney.

I have never heard of the Jewish/Israeli organisation which Whine specified – and I have been taking the Jewish Chronicle for most of my adult life. I certainly never heard those names mentioned in the (very small) membership circles of the NSM – let alone where their HQs were, let alone plans to attack them.

During my time in the NSM (mid-1962 to late-1963) the NSM was too preoccupied staging publicity stunts such as:

The “Free Britain from Jewish Control” rally in Trafalgar Square in July 1962. No more than 15 NSM members were present at this, confronted by about 2,000 Jews! My attendance got me expelled from the League of Empire Loyalists and so I migrated to the NSM.

Later that month smuggling the American Nazi Party leader Lincoln Rockwell into the UK contrary to a government banning order.

Ending that month, the ‘Camp in the Cotswolds’, attended by no more than 20 NSM members, along with two or three Germans, the strange Anglo-Greek , Hinduism convert, “NS philosopher” Savitri Devi – and Lincoln Rockwell.

These stunts infuriated the government – to say nothing of Jewry! – so the NSM was still rewarded with a Police raid on its Notting Hill, West London, HQ. The prosecution of the movement’s leadership (Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, Ian Roland Kerr-Ritchie and Denis Pirie) followed soon after on Public Order Act charges to do with running a private army. They were found not guilty of doing this, but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that they were! They were sentenced, variously, to between three and nine months in jail.

During this period the membership of the NSM, such as it was, melted away. The movement’s HQ, now my habitation, was left in my charge (a 19 year old!) Nocturnal attacks on the building were frequent. Only two or three supporters ever called by – one of whom, decades later – was identified at his funeral by a retired Police officer as a former salaried agent of MI6!

The reason why I give this brief 1962/1963 history of the NSM is to illustrate that the leadership was too swept up by events to contemplate, let alone organise, the kind of terrorism alleged by Mike Whine, and that the membership was so vanishingly small and so quickly scattered to the winds, that there were no ‘soldiers’ available to carry out such attacks – which, to the best of my recollection, were not reported by the media at that time.

John Tyndal, Denis Pirie and I quit the NSM in late 1963 in order to set up the Greater Britain Movement. We left the NSM in the hands of Colin Jordan and his newly-married French wife Francoise Dior. Thereafter, Jordan tended to spend his time in the North Yorkshire moors, while she took charge of the London HQ.

Under her influence (so it was claimed in court) a couple of silly teenage lads attempted in 1964 to burn down two synagogues. They failed and along with Mrs Jordan, they were jailed. That is the nearest the NSM ever came to acts of terrorism. Nothing remotely of the order alleged by Mike Whine and – NB! – more than two years after the 62 Group was deploying its cosh, razor and fire-bomb activities.

Mike Whine’s pretext for the formation and vicious gangster activities of the 62 Group does not bear scrutiny. That, of course, will not have deterred the BBC from basing a TV series on such mendacity. You, Philip Gegan and I have discovered the enormity of the BBC’s appetite for lies when we came to complain about a BBC Radio 4/BBC Sounds series ‘about’ the National Front – in particular, the August 1977 “Battle of Lewisham”.

More of than anon.

Best wishes to all patriots,

Martin