Sunday, 22 November 2009

A Christmas Cavil

Barely a month to Christmas, and already the traditional stories are being brought down from their shelves and given an airing. Here's an updated version of that seasonal classic, Scrooge, as told by Biased BBC's David Vance:

Here's how I like to do my charitable givings - privately and in my own way.

Glad to hear it, Mr Generosity.

I seek nothing back and see it as my duty.

Why would anyone seek anything back?

Yesterday in the UK saw the annual BBC driven "Children in Need" charity event.

£20 million for charity. Sunshine in the rainy season, without a doubt.

I can't stand it.

Never mind. You so enjoy the rest of the BBC output.

The laudable aims of providing money for disadvantaged children are, to my mind, compromised by media stars prancing around, in primetime, exercising their already bloated egos.

Damn these egotists. Unlike this retiring chap, whose desire to be seen, despite a lack of presentational skills, camera technique or even a coherent script, mysteriously surfaced on the web.

The BBC newsreader girls are an example of this. It's not that I have on objection to the likes of Fiona Bruce shaking her booty, but I just think it cheapens the charitable process.

A sense of fun sometimes does. Fun bad.

I also got caught up in a very extensive traffic jam in Belfast yesterday.

Sorry to hear it. But need we care?

I presumed the cause was an accident but when I eventually reached the junction it turned out to be "Children in Need" folks dressed up in wacky costumes trying to get every driver to contribute to their buckets.

All in a good cause then...

I didn't and resent the emotional blackmail.

But you're dealing with it. Selflessly. With a good, public whinge.

How do you feel about these kind of in-your-face charity events?

Personally, I'd have fewer boy-bands, soap stars and chatty personalities, but I'm not sure my preference - someone torturing an electric guitar - would raise quite so much.

I believe it behoves us all to give to charitable causes but I am very uncomfortable with the forced style of media driven glitzy charity.

And absolutely not uncomfortable with the fact that it's a feel-good event which reflects well on the BBC?

God Bless Us, Every One.


  1. Just to cheer us all up, he headlines his piece Hanging Pudsey. Lovely.

  2. Bet if Costello was on he'd soon change his tune.

  3. And by a quite remarkable coincidence so odd as to almost spooky, Traditional Unionist Voice considers that the fact that it receives fewer PPBs than parties who are actually represented in the Northern Ireland assembly, is evidence of bias on the part of the BBC -

    Do you think David Vance knows this?

  4. Luckly he didn't stick his arse out the window and put something else into their buckets, a little turd for martin and some puke for his sick Irish site.

  5. You know what, I could not watch ten fucking minutes of David Vance talking into a fucking camera. At least if I were to read his fucking blogs I can skip the paragraph, but on video there's no way to skim him.

  6. Erm, no offence and sorry to crash in at short notice. But what the fuck is the point of this blog?

  7. Something about Hitler and numerology, right?

    I see you have All Seeing Eye and Rab C. Copyrightheft on your bloglist. Well done. Only choose the best of the best.

    Best part: noticing that All Seeing Eye has "anal" in his blog URL.

  8. This isn't specific to this post, but....

    Biased BBC inhabits an odd world.

    One where down is up, left is right, and black is white.

    Where one amateur can write a blog about climate change being a myth and be accepted, and yet every scientist who has produced evidence for it, is either on the take or part of some vast conspiracy.

    Where every news item mentioning Gordon Brown is fawning, or a puff piece, or favourable in some way - yet every article about Dave Cameron is somehow sneering, has negative undertones, or just reminds us of how bad the Tories are.

    Where 'bias' is not using a certain one in a news headline, even if the word in question is then referenced several times in the actual report.

    Where Fox News is a balanced source of news, but the BBC is biased rubbish.

    Where Sarah Palin is considered a person worthy of praise and respect, whereas Barack Obama is deemed untrustworthy and stupid.

    Where anyone who doesn't believe every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting is a terrorist sympathiser/denier themselves.

    Where anyone who debates the merits of capitalism is an obvious socialist.

    Where anyone who doesn't think Gordon Brown is a complete twat is a Labour supporter.

    Where racism is a tool that the left use to act as victims, except when it concerns the oppressed minorities of White Christians or Jews.

  9. And where 10 years with a semblance of sanity in Northern Ireland after 30 years of bloody mayhem is both a tragedy and treason writ large...

  10. And don't forget:

    Where people who spend their life being described, at best, as pub bores and at worst, a danger to themselves, the people around them and soft furnishings (the third one may just be in Martin's case) are suddenly hailed as genuises.

    I think David Vance should be thoroughly applauded for redefining "unemployment" as the more serious business of "Saving Our Nation from the threat of the BBC, muslims, commies and The Great Satan (aka Barak Obama)"

  11. Fat face

    "Where every news item mentioning Gordon Brown is fawning, or a puff piece, or favourable in some way"

    you forgot that if it is negative then they have jumped ship, the cowards!!