shown behaving badly by the BBC!
Gosh. That'll make a change.
is swapping bustles for Bridget Jones as period drama gives way to a host of
female-centred series ... A BBC spokesman said: “... Women tend to be the
largest consumers of dramas and these are contemporary series, which sometimes
aren’t afraid to show women behaving badly.” The Times
But what bad things, exactly, will women be
shown to be doing, one wonders?
Sweeping some of the dust under the carpet?
Not stopping the car properly before putting
it into reverse?
Picking their toe-nails?
no. Too weak. The BBC wants to attract female viewers to its 'drama', and, in
the BBC's case, this basically means programmes filled with plenty of 'abuse'.
And women might be seen
behaving badly all right - but it will be pointed out somewhere within the
context of it all that this bad behaviour derives from the FAULT of some MAN;
either one from the present, or from somewhere in the past.
are never responsible for their own bad behaviours according to the
political correctoids working at the Beeb..
of course, the men will still be portrayed as being much worse than the women.
I am reminded of the time that the BBC's
Newsnight team actually cut out certain economic statistics which would have shown men in
a favourable light. It was Newsnight’s pre-budget analysis (1999). The
programme brought in a family of FIVE to see which of the family members,
throughout their lives, would be paying most into the state in the form of
taxes, and which members would actually receive an overall benefit from the
Well, the details of Newsnight’s analysis
are not that important. However, they firstly compared the various LIFETIME
taxes and benefits of the three MALE members (young son, father and grandfather)
and found, basically, that they mostly all lost out financially.
In other words,
they contributed far more to the state than they got out of it.
But guess what they found with regard to the
two FEMALE members of the family? How did the females fare when it came to
lifetime benefits and taxes?
Well, we never found out!
ended the investigation with what seemed to be some considerable embarrassment,
and then moved very hastily on to other matters - leaving the invited
statistical expert somewhat stunned.
It was a complete FIASCO.
There was no analysis, no comment, and no
discussion concerning the way that the two females fared. The two women were
completely ignored. They just sat there like plum puddings.
It could not have been more
The BBC producer in charge
of the piece was clearly told that under no circumstances were they going
to let the viewers know that women benefited most handsomely from the
state at the expense of men.
The piece had to be cut.
You see, the Newsnight team simply could not
bring itself to admit to the viewers that, in general, women paid very little in
taxes across a lifetime compared to the huge benefits that they received from
The truth is that through the tax and benefit
system, men provide enormous support for women.
For example, the simple fact
that women live for years longer than men means that they require vast resources
in terms of pension and hospital care. This is mostly paid for by men, who
actually have to earn this money during a much shorter lifetime.
The cost of single
mothers and their children is also mostly paid for by men. Indeed, the cost to
the state of supporting women and children is mostly paid for by men.
Now, I am not saying that men
should not mostly pay for these things. This is not my complaint. My complaint is that
the BBC’s Newsnight team is so controlled by feminist ideology and the
political correctness that supports it, that it is not even allowed to
mention the fact that, when it comes to lifetime taxes and benefits, men lose
out enormously while women benefit considerably.
As is typical for the BBC, when it comes to looking at
gender, men are very supportive of women, and at considerable cost to
themselves, but the BBC simply cannot show men in a favourable light.
employees just cannot do it!
The BBC is a complete FRAUD. It masquerades as
an impartial news-gathering and news-delivery service but it puts as much
deceitful spin on the items as, typically, do the tabloids.
As such, the UK taxpayer - and
particularly the men - should not be having
to fund it!