All content is the author’s opinion alone, and does not represent the views of this website.

Just before christmas Pope Benedict XVI graced the BBC with his presence after months of negotiation with an appearance on BBC Four’s “Thought of the Week”. The fact that the taxpayer paid for the BBC to haul themselves and their kit over to the Vatican for his personal views on the festive season is laughable. Despite Britain’s commendable foreign aid toll to deprived continents like Africa and South America amounting to seven-times the NHS budget, apparently we’re now paying to publicly broadcast the opinion of a cretinous thief who directly encourages poverty, disease and despair throughout the developing world, contradicting most of the altruistic values this country stands for, and pays for. Indeed, his pathetic apologies for the Church’s involvement in the Holocaust, and its sick role in raping scores of young children hasn’t deterred anybody from his unacceptable, archaic stance on abortion and contraception . Both issues have faced universal religious condemnation, and have sustained poverty with suppression of women and the spread of AIDS for countless years. No wonder last week CAFOD (Catholic Overseas Development Agency) released another television appeal pleading for donor’s hard earned cash in a desperate ploy to rid their dirty consciences of deserved guilt. The Vatican-pumped organisation is a contradiction in terms, and part of the wider problem of Catholic aid resulting in fanatical ignorance and worship throughout the uneducated world.

Benedict XVI’s interview with the BBC shows him in a large room, pompously wearing his camp, white silk dress – despite being homophobic.  It’s actually farcical that the alleged representative of God on earth should be continually glossed with splendour and corruptly sourced extravagance.  The fact that he was an equal reprensentative of another named organisation that wasn’t quite as well intentioned casts any moral adjudication he publicises into total doubt. Yes, he was a member of the Hitler Youth – a sect of the most dehumanising, immoral organisation in the history of the world. So why do over one billion people accept his presidency over an organisation that claims to preach morality? And why does he live an undeserved life of unparalleled grandeur? The values he personally preaches within Catholicism aren’t far off from Nazism anyway. This Pope is part of a disgusting lineage of thieving frauds that have glorified poverty, discouraged abortion and contraception, persecuted Jews, incentivised AIDS and justified religious crusades for centuries.

In his measly broadcast, this frail, lamentable representative of divinity wishes listeners a “peaceful and joyful Christmas.” While BBC’s comparatively well-off listeners may have some chance of this, the 33 million worldwide AIDS sufferers probably won’t – largely due to him and his institution. He adheres to Jesus’s being “born in poverty.. far from the centres of earthly power”. Ironically it is quite the opposite from his point of view – although he probably doesn’t take note of it, or the theft that his church committed to get there. He finishes on a sweet note, “May God bless all of you.”. I certainly don’t want his blessing – and assuming you’re not a fan of HIV, young death, poverty and female dis-empowerment – you probably don’t either.

by Gabriel Pogrund

Lost in London

That’s the theme of a new TV show that has just started on BBC 3. The idea behind Peckham Finishing School for Girls is to set four twenty-somethings from Peckham with four Surrey born, privately educated toffs.

From the onset, although the contrast is emphasised with a hyperbolic commentary from another frightening British voice actress, we get a stunningly different picture. At the start they all remark upon how they’ll get along in the future, either on account of their tendency to laugh, or rave, smoke and drink.

Most of them still start with the wrong view though, expecting benefit scroungers, or single mothers who are feeding off the system. In fact that’s exactly what the programme goes against, one is bi-polar and had their parents separate 11 and as a consequence has lived in 14-15 different places, another is a single mother pitted against someone who hates the very idea of single mothers on benefits, out of the idea that they just choose to have a baby.  There’s plenty of potential to go on a rant here, but this is simply an opportunity to re-iterate that “some people do stuff just to get by” as one man intelligently says on the show. Other sites suggest that we’re bullied by the show, and I happen to agree, but I can’t feel any sympathy for the privileged girls who time and time again pull out well-worn stereotypes, though at times it’s obvious that the documentary team have engineered antipathy between the two groups.

The general feeling of the show is one of realisation that all the reasons they perceived for people being on benefits and the like are not those that we read in the horror stories, but as Nat, a friend of one of the main characters, says “shit can be really hard.”

Everyone is entirely willing to accept that there is a certain element of gang culture and the like around them, but crucially, most of the characters in the show expose a willingness to overcome this, or to understand, but then, there are large moments where they just regress to people who stereotype others, and not grasping the seriousness of the situation.

I won’t spoil the show, though I’m not sure how worth watching it is, as the sad thing about this is that at the end of the day it’s a documentary, but one in which the creators have endeavoured to find posh girls who fulfil all the stereotypes and on the reverse end, girls who fulfil none of the lower class stereotypes. In a way I wish that they were perfect, because it makes for painful viewing when the girls are discussing what will happen if they “get slung at by our Peckham sisters” and the others declare that “they’re not worth fighting, they’re like puppies.” It’s rather interesting as well that they happily go up to people on the street and talk to them, and I think they’ve done well to do so.

The problem here is that the BBC has gone for comedic value rather than documentary integrity.

Verdict : Miss

I’m probably going to be hunted down by MI5′s tame ninja for breaking this news to you, but David Cameron is not the man who runs our country… it’s Andrew Marr. Have you ever noticed how every political interview that anyone, apart from the person being interviewed (is a politician a person?),that is actually paid attention to, is a snippet from his show! Every Sunday night on BBC news there is a section about how some minister muddled his words during his interview on ‘The Andrew Marr show’ that morning. It shows a great deal about the state of our country’s leadership that a BBC interviewer could openly mock our ex-prime minister straight to his face, on national television!

During the 15 minutes that make up his main interview, Andrew Marr has more power to change some of our leading politician’s reputation than a bigoted women. Marr has the power to make even Stephen Hawking kick himself for the way he put something. On Sunday, our new Chancellor of the Exchequer somehow managed to say that the Conservative party would handle the economy ‘irresponsibly after 13 years of irresponsibility’, Marr was quick to point out that he must have meant ‘responsibly’. This just shows the level to which the people who rule us are being mocked by incredibly high brow chat show hosts, so high-brow that it’s above his non-existent hair line! Seriously, what would have happened to him in Soviet Russia?

All thoughts of an impaled man with a terrible comb-over aside, he actually holds real power. He is the most senior political interviewer in this country. An interview with him must be the biggest lie-filled event in a politicians calendar. It’s make or break time for them. I doubt that anyone not from Norfolk could count on one hand how many time Gordon Brown was humiliated time and time again on Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning show. Not content with controlling just today’s politics, Marr has branched out into controlling our history as well. with his recently published book, ‘a History of Modern Britain’ he can alter our political and cultural past, bending it to his will and feelings.

To be honest though, I’m personally happy to let him rule our country. Politicians have had their turn to steer Great Britain for the past 300 years and look where that got us. We should give the chat show hosts a turn. I also genuinely like the guy, he lies a lot less than politicians (is it possible to lie when answer questions?). He actually has a persona and human emotions unlike the rest. Sorry gotta go now … a red dot seems to have appeared on my forehead.

Marr's television studio

NEW UPDATE : Latest Predictions say that 12% swing to the Tories would result in an extra 89 seats for the Conservatives, rising to 116 if SNP and LD seats also fall which could result in their share of the vote being anything from 299-326.

The Latest Polls average to 36 % Conservative, 28 % Labour, 27 % Liberal Democrats.  On the current seat predictions the conservatives resulting in 297 seats. But other polls have shown that in Marginal seats there has been a 12% swing to the tories, on the basis of which, an extra 10-15 seats could come his way, not sufficient to allow him to form a majority governments but with the help of Northern Ireland, sufficient to form a government. All hopes of Lib-Lab Coalition would then be ruined, even with the support of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party.

Latest Election Updates :
Nigel Farage’s plane crashes
£40,000,000 bet on outcome
Vote For Carlos Tevez!
BNP candidate kicks Asian Voter

If you want to comment on the election go over to UK Polling Report, or to keep abreast of things as they happen tonight visit the BBC, who as always are offering instant feedback on everything as soon as it happens.

Any comments, breaking gaffes or news from the election, post below!

Last year it was Little Boots. Many of you may well be asking, who? If you ask me, someone who topped the BBC’s Sound of 2009 should be better known. With no number 1s and no top 5 singles in the UK, singing generic songs is a real disappointment from a woman backed by the Beeb.

This year Ellie Goulding tops the list, and yes her music at the moment is very poppy, with “Under The Sheets” and “Wish I Stayed”. However she claims she wants to move in a  folk direction. Although this will please me I’m not confident the general public will be so keen. But will Goulding really move in towards folk? She used to play acoustic music before the influences of Frankmusic. I am doubtful.

Marina...

Marina and the Diamonds makes the list coming in second, no surprise there. If I remember correctly, I wrote a piece about her about half a year ago: you heard it here first.

Delphic are another group who were on the BBC’s shortlist. NME have already been trying to broadcast them to their readers. However Delphic have already managed to get on my nerves. They claim they’re “the antidote to stagnant  indie”, oh please, how pretentious can one band be? Indie although slightly stagnant in places, has some amazing groups, the Indie Alternative group Bombay Bicycle Club are just incredible, look them up.

Does winning the BBCs “Sound of” Award ruin the winner? I think the sudden rush to fame can almost be so concentrated that the artist is pressured to perform so much that they end up under achieving. But let me know your views.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8395789.stm

Ellie Goulding – I Wish I Stayed youtube

It is a victory for the people over money-grabbing corporations who destroy their rivals by smothering or buying them out. It is an example to the Royal Mail case, that privatisation has to be treated with caution or millions of taxpayers could lose out. It is a reprieve for millions of loyal fans across the country.

The way the government has taken the Ashes coverage back from Sky Sports has relevance to many aspects of current affairs. For those who are unaware: after dismal viewing figures for the summer’s cricket series of England vs. Australia, the government wants the programme back on terrestrial television. Four years ago, all cricket test match coverage was bought by Sky Sports, but in the case of the Ashes series, this is to be undone.

Only a very limited audience witnessed the dramatic scenes at the Oval

Less than a third of the numbers that tuned into the climactic match of the historic 2005 series returned to watch the final 2009 match. Millions could, or would, not pay a fortune to Sky Sports just for the single event that they would ever use it for. People were disillusioned that the sport had sold out. Not that it had any choice: in 1998, the government decided that Test match cricket was not worth protecting. This left the England and Wales Cricket Board free to make millions through selling the viewing rights. But the deal with Sky Sports proved to be a mistake. There was an outcry as diehard fans had to fork out a subscription fee or miss out.

Now, the Ashes – but not other home Test matches – will be protected by the government again as a “crown jewel” of British sport, alongside events such as Wimbledon. It is another U-turn by the government, but it has been so long that nobody cares. Cricket lovers will be free to love sport’s greatest grudge match, despite the wails of defiance from the globalist bullies who kept it from them. We should all be grateful for the sport’s precedent, and hope the little people will be able to make themselves heard on other issues in the future.