Top 5 BBC Royal Grovels

Barely a day goes by, with out some bum-clenching toadying nonsense about the royal family broadcast on the BBC. It’s relentless and it’s brain rot for the vulnerable.

Lets see what the BBC thinks we really need to know…

Woman Closes Door –  The BBC reported that a Woman closed a car door. Alert the Pulitzer committee.Screen Shot 2018-09-26 at 20.31.43.png

Boring Posh Couple Get on Tube – The BBC fawned at the very idea that Chaz n Dazed stepped out of their Bentley and deigned to slum it..

BBC Presenter Gleefully excuses Queen’s racism  – here, the BBC suddenly have an interesting royal story so…they quickly sweep it under the carpet. A grovelling guest recounts the time where the Queen met a foreign ambassador and declares   ‘I thought I was talking to a gorilla’. BBC Presenter, gives nervous hoot and describes such blatent xenophobia as  ‘cheeky’.  Will I Am doesn’t look too impressed.

If a working class person had said speaking to a foreign ambassador was like ‘talking to a gorilla’ on BBC1, can you imagine the outrage?

 

The Queen Lobbied The Home Secretary to Have A Man She Didn’t Like Deported – Wow – an actual news story. – not many  Abu Hanza fans about – but still the queen shouldn’t be interfering in justice like some Daily Mail gammon should she ?

WAIT….the BBC reached for it’s forelock & quickly APOLOGISED to the queen for daring to report an interesting insight.  Scoops 0  Sycophancy 1

Child Grows Up – Prince George is 1. Prince George Is 2. Prince George is 3. Prince George is 4. Prince George is 5.  – don’t bother clicking the links – I can assure you it’s a dull read. And, y’know, it’s sort of creepy – this child presented to us as if it’s the new Blue Peter dog.  Child Deprived of Normal Upbringing to Serve As Cute Mascot for Feudalism is a not a story I can find anywhere on the BBC.

The point is….it’s RELENTLESS.

And psychologically, it seeps in – the point is Everything That Posh Rich People Do is Very Important.

It’s not.

They’re not.

And this world of royal fetishists is right wing Jacob Rees Mogg culture, drip fed to the masses.

What can you do ? Share this article on Facebook & Twitter and print it off and slide it under the cubicle if you see Nicholas Witchell going for a royal poo.

nicholas-witchell-large

masticating for the royals

( update: I am going to add a list of unbelievably trivial royal stories as the bbc continue to publish them)

 

23rd  October – Prince harry drank something  People seemed pleased.

22nd October – a few people with red hair like Prince Harry. THANK YOU PUBLIC SERVICE BROADCASTERS MY LICENSE FEE HAS BEEN WELL INVESTED

18th October – Royal tour Non-Events.  They saw some things, she looked pretty. Lap it up proles.

17th October – In this truely moronic and dire report, some oul’ Aussie who won’t even go to see the royals, mouths some banal platitudes about the royals. This is utterly utterly dire. Why even publish this?

17th October – Boy rubs beard. 4th headline

14th November Prince CHarles likes posh food

Christmas Day – dull family go to church as usual

16th January – posh woman says some shit about pizzas

26 January – Queen plays game.

 27th February – woman speaks a bit differently

The Royal Family – above the law…

Some otherwise reasonable and savvy people, are are Mushy  Monarchists.

They talk the talk politically, but reserve the right to flop on the couch and wallow in a  a tedious documentary about the Queen’s best pals all being horses.

The Mushy Monarchists  justification runs thus…’oh come on it’s harmless pageantry and flags & good ol’ British tradition’. Such nonsense lets the upper classes sentimentalise inequality  & repackage unpleasant snobbishness as charming character traits.

But this whimsical narrative is shattered when members of the royal family are revealed to be above the law, meddling  and arrogant.

6476410131_6d93dc6eef_b

I’ll be the Judge

The laws don’t apply to the Windsors. Under UK law, the Sovereign cannot be prosecuted. Or even questioned apparently.

Prince Charles has long hung out with some dubious characters. Despite some desperate spinning by royal PR, Prince Charles’s  long friendship with Jimmy Savile is undeniable, his life guru Laurens Van Der Post impregnated a 14 year old girl ( lets not forget that Savile-and-Charles-660x553Van Der Post is Prince William’s godfather ). Recently, Charles sympathised with abusive bishop Peter Bell, lamenting the ‘monstrous wrongs that have been done to you’. He  gave the Abusive Bishop money, and then a house “not too far from here so you can come over more easily”. Aww. That’s nice.

Of course none of this association implies Prince Charles himself is guilty of anything so sinister – I am politically opposed to The Windsors, but no-one should be accused of anything so toxic unless there’s compelling evidence. So to be clear, I am not amongst the wilder fringes of the net insinuating against Charles.

But clearly, the legal process does not hold them to account.

Here we have a man who  no-one can question, but he readily admits he was deceived. A man who’s always ready to lecture us on ‘duty’, but REFUSED to give a legal statement to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse.

Think about that for a second. An inquiry who’s stated aim is to ensure that children get ‘the care and protection from sexual abuse they need and deserve, now and in the future.’

Charles and legal staff REFUSE. A statement implies swearing an oath – and Charles lawyers shrugged, and said the court couldn’t compel him to release a statement. Why are they so concerned ?

Instead, they send a long letter, full of equivocation and ‘can’t remembers’ which was read out to everyones dissatisfaction.

One of the many things Charles couldn’t remember was who he was referring to in his letters when he told the Bishop he would  ‘see off this horrid man if he tries anything again’. How convenient.

After Savile, wasn’t there a collective moment when a shocked UK resolved that in the future, no stone would be left unturned, no matter who it upset ? Apparently not.

Before I bang the cyber gavel, , here’s a list of royal incidents where the current crop got away with it…

Prince Andrew rams gates to avoid 1 mile detour ( completely fine ).

Prince Harry out shooting, rare birds of prey shot in area…( nothing to see)

Prince Andrew goes to small house in London to meet with 17 year old girl who was trafficked across the Atlantic by a convicted paedophile ( seems legit )

_38495201_sketch150In fact the only court case where a member of Royal Family was held to account was when Princess Anne’s dog attacked a 7 year old and 12 year old, biting them on the collarbone and leg. Penalties for this crime could be a £5000 fine, 6 months in jail, and having the dog put down. Anne was told to pay £250 to each of the traumatised kids ( there’s no mention of an apology anywhere). The child biting bull terrier went home to eat steak. But a ended up eating one of the Queen’s corgis.

If you’re wanna be in the cool gang with the cool kids, please share this post on the Information Super Highway.

They never interfere with democracy. Until they do.

Of all the laughable falsehoods about The Windsors, the idea that they are apolitical is the most mendacious.

Apolitical ? In a Land Owning-Fox-Hunting-Posh Worshipping-Class-Structure-Entrenching-Public School Promoting-Army-Lovin-Aristocrat-justifying-Red-white-and-blue-patriotism type way? Apolitical in the way that reinforces the idea of a class system where those at the top deserve their status because they DO RIGHT? Remind you of any political outlook?

Their very existence is a deterrent to progressive social change, they are a mascot for the 1%, always have been, always will be, no matter how many faux matey Harry’s Just One o’ The Lads type photo-bullshit they do in The Sun.

So, they’re a massive icon of traditional right wing establishment thinking, seeding the idea that Things Cannot Be Any Other Way.  That is bad enough….

But the dim Windsor family ( go on, count those A-levels… ) interfere politically behind close doors, and occasionally, in the open.

Screen Shot 2015-03-19 at 20.33.10Prince Charles, of course, famously interferes, championing a whole host of -mostly moronic -causes. Even when he’s on the right track, he has no right to interfere. That’s the deal. So whilst I agree with Chazza about the environment, as a Windsor he has no right to voice an opinion. More on the Republican’s Great Hope another time.

Instead, lets look at Betty Windsor’s meddling in  last years Scottish Independence Referendum – an absolute straight down the line abuse of power. It’s an outrage, but of course, the sycophantic scribblers just cheered louder.

With the polls tight, and 4 days to go in the most exciting democratic event in UK politics, which could enable radical change….Betty went to church in Aberdeenshire.

PAY-Queen-and-the-Duke-of-Edinburgh

For the first time in 12 years, the press are invited – fancy that ! Betty comes out – and highly unusually –  fancy that ! she goes for a walkabout outside the church. The Police then “invited press to observe exchanges” ( this is almost completely verboten – fancy that ! ),  and queeny “warns” an onlooker – who prefers not to be named  ( fancy that ! )- that Scots should “think very carefully about the future”.

Of course, it wasn’t a spontaneous remark ( the fact that there’s wriggle room suggests it’s been written with spin doctors ) but with the BBC & tabs in full British Unionist Cry she didn’t need to spell it out.

So there you have it. Regardless what you think of the referendum, the queen deliberately and consciously interfered. She tried to sway the most important vote in UK politics for years. The establishment was threatened, and she intervened on the side of the establishment.

There as almost no criticism. No journalists was bold enough to ask her if she’d interfered.

Most of the people who voted No, were older, and richer.

David Cameron phoned her with the result, and she “purred” down the line.

Boak.

Boak Boak Boak Boak Boak.

They don’t interfere in politics. Except when they do.

Reporting on the Royals…

The first problem with royal reports being dribble-jizzed all over our papers and telly is that it exists at all. That it’s seen as Vitally Important That You Pay Attention To These Rich Dullards.

But lets park that, and not linger on the pacifying effects on the national psyche.

What kind of journalism is royal reporting ?  Because, essentially, what the royals do is deadly dull. A typical ‘appointment’ sees a Windsor arrives, a Windsor inspects some non-controversial thing, A Windsor nods, A Windsor leaves in a fast car ( about 45 minutes later). They usually say nothing, or if they do, it’s excruciatingly tedious. Surely journalists stare at one another after with ghastly realisation that they have to confect some guff around…THAT ?

And if they do say something that can be used as a feeble quote – “my brother would never let me live it down” the press present this cold turd  to us as if Oscar Wilde and Martin Luther King had been brainstorming over a bottle of buckfast.

And there’s never any context, let alone criticism- when opening an NHS hospital none of the reporters ever say – “this is the only time the Windsor family are in an NHS hospital because despite the hugely positive message royal endorsment of NHS would send would send… they landrover off to the clutches of expensive private care when they need treatment…”

STHKwpa_9126

Who are you ? Whats the NHS ? And When can one leave?

Weirdly, it’s not only me who is appalled by the press –  but the Windsor family themselves clearly treat them with contempt. So not only do royal-hacks have to write 2000 words of fawning copy based around Prince Harry having a ball-achingly boring look at some red squirrels – they have to do it knowing that the very people they’re sooking up to, can’t bear the sight of them. I mean, imagine for a second, you’re life’s work is devoted to praising dull toffs who won’t deign to speak to you because they despise you. Bloody Awful – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4397667.stm.

It would not surprise me, if many of the hacks are much more cynical about Das Feudal Circus than their deferential copy suggests, but they need to pay the mortgage, and they get nice trips around the world at license-payer / Daily Mail’s expense. At least, I hope that’s the case, it’d be much more shocking if they were actually in a sycophantic thrall to The Firm.

Enough sympathy for the red-faced boozy royal hack pack…it’s us – the viewer, the reader, the citizen – that our sympathies lie. I mean, those BBC reports are insulting to our intelligence.

Consider today’s bilge..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31856606

The royal says not a thing. It’s entirely choreographed. It’s completely unenlightening. Nicholas Witchell ( who scabbed during the 1989 BBC strike, and who Prince Chaz described as ‘an awful man’ )  tells us she’ll really remember it ( without a shred of evidence). It’s not news !

The point is, Nicholas Witchell pre-chews everything here, he brightly beams about how brilliant it was that a posh women had a short visit to a set, and then tells us it’s memorable.

It’s not important to us at all. And it pushes other stories from the news agenda. Not only that, after reports about the fucked up world, this sugary baby food gently suggests that despite the rest of the news – EVERYTHING IS FINE, because The Posh People Find that Things Are As They Should Be When They Are Presented For Inspection. Be good serfs. Don’t question those above. They’re nice and you should fawn to them

How can this be news ? How can these people consider themselves journalists ?

What I’m saying is, I can’t bear Nicholas Witchell masticating with the royals.

Masticating with Kate.

Masticating with The Queen

Masticating with Prince Harry

Masticating with Prince Chaz

Masticating, dear viewer, over you.

masticating for the royals

masticating for the royals