Subersion. It's Bad.

Charles Moore, triumphant from libelling the Muslim leader Muhammad Bari on a BBC programme, urges David Cameron to get tough with public sector workers. And Biased BBC veteran hippiepooter knows who'll be taken care of first....

"Critical observation Mr Moore," writes hippiepooter.

Seconded. With a 21-gun salute!

Unless Mr Cameron draws up a full battle plan and tackles head on the subersive left...

Submersive? Are the bastards hiding under water these days? No wonder Maggie mistrusted the Wets.

....who have turned BBC 'impartiality' into an abject travesty, he may well win the next election, but in the words of Norman Lamont, the Tories will be "in office, but not in power".

Depends whether he tells the electricity company he's moved in, I suppose. He should remember that messing with electricity when there's dampness around is risky!

I wrote to Mr Cameron recently that BBC bias isn't just meant to rig debate, in the brazen form it often takes against them by the likes of John Humphreys, it is meant to demean them.

That Cameron! He obviously hadn't noticed the demeaning-ness! Good of you to write to him.

Still, when you think he used to be a PR chief at Carlton TV, what would he know about broadcasting?

If the Tories dont take action against it, and publicly call for the dismissal of brazenly biased BBC journalists like Humphreys, Naughtie and Paxman...

Show trials! That's what we want! Do you think Mr Justice Eadey is free?

... (after privately inviting their resignations, of course)...

Word in your ear, Hippie P: Do you really think they'd either be honourable enough - or clever enough - to take the hint and pick up the P45?

... the public might still nonetheless vote them in, but they wont respect them

Depends if they call next morning. But David seems the caring sort.

They'll just be a respite from the sheer awfulness and obscenity of Brown governance.

It is just awful, isn't it?

Mr Cameron, restore integrity to British Institutions - start by rescuing the BBC from the control of the subversive left. Defend Britain!

Sorry, there's a tear in my eye. May I salute you, sir?

The Screwdrivers: Castration for Possession Act, 2009

Biased BBC has been rising to the task of framing new laws to show those Labour softies how to deal with knife crime.

Prolific poster Martin is enthusiastic about castrating knife-carriers, and is not at all fazed by doubts that this would upset carpet-fitters, chefs and countryfolk.

But he's not stopping at daggers alone. Oh no...

Martin writes: Firstly you don't have to carry a knife to stab someone, a screwdriver is just as effective.

Thanks for the tip. But would possession of a screwdriver qualify for castration, then? Perhaps chemical, rather than, eek, physical?

A teensy problem with your law-making on this point might be that, along with all the carpet-fitters, huntsmen and chefs you'll be neutering, you can add engineers, joiners, electricians and an awful lot of DIY enthusiasts. Is part of your intention to reduce the population at the same time?

I don't see many black kids in Hackney needing to carry a knife to cut bailer twine or gut Rabbits, but then again in Hackney who knows?

Who indeed! Presumably you'll be amending your law to allow castration only in Hackney and similar places, thus sparing country sports enthusiasts.

But - hang on a minute - might not the gangsta classes move into those pleasant postcodes currently enjoyed by bailer-cutters and rabbit-gutters? Then what?

So 14 year old black kids are going to move into the Countryside just so they can carry a knife and get away with it?

Not if we can help it!

Would you build some kind of passport system into your knife-crime-castration legislation? Otherwise how do we keep the occasional stabber from drifting into Surrey or The Wirral? It only needs one...

Perhaps some sort of wall around Hackney, Norris Green and similar hang-outs, with uniformed people on the gates making sure that the lenient non-castration regime in leafier districts is not abused?

A bit worried, too, that 14 year old black kids covers all risks to law-abiding types like us. Would we need to extend the age range a bit, perhaps penning all young black males in castration zones?

Do you do drugs as well as rent boys by chance?

Fair point, and the perfect response to my misguided claim elsewhere that you are obsessed by gay men and their activities. You clearly are not.

can you suggest a better way of dealing with scum?

Detergent usually works fine.

Meanwhile, on legal matters, it's usually the detail that lets you down. As I think you are discovering...

As for prisons, trust me the sort of prison I have in mind is very cheap. They grow their own food or starve and they work to pay for their accomodation.

Like the horticulture. Very much.

You don't think starving prisoners to death, though, might lead us into some unfortunate comparisons?

Just asking....

Look On The Bright Side. You'll Be Able To Sing Higher

While inadequate Home Secretaries fail us year after year, Biased BBC has all the answers. David Vance, a no-nonsense Ulsterman distressed at UK knife crime, promises results.


He writes: "There are plenty of us who believe that knife crime COULD be dealt with much more vigorously if there was the will."

This is thrilling! How might we solve it?

Over to:

Martin: "knife crime could be wiped out by having mandatory castration for young males caught with a knife or using a knife."

Gulp! Any more?

Heads On Poles: "Simple - national service, 18 months of being made a responsible person where there is always somebody bigger and nastier than them."

Yes, thuggish, irrational violence. That would put them off, um, thuggish irrational violence. For real.

Whose heads are on the poles, by the way?

Oh, look, here's Martin again. Bit over the top last time, perhaps?

"We use chemical castration for some sex offenders but physical castration would be the biggest deterrent of all. We castrate aggressive dogs, why not aggressive violent males?"

Knives, not chemicals, then. You don't think that this interest in castration is somehow linked to your obsessive interest in the activities of gay men? But there's more:

"If you want to go down the prison route then we need long sentences (I'm talking 15-20 years for carrying a knife) without parole and a hard prison regime."

Certainly an excellent way of cutting public spending. Which we're all in favour of.

Look, here's Atlas Shrugged: "A perfect answer to the problem of illegal parking would be to make the crime punishable by a death sentence or life imprisonment."

Jeez! How long have you spent in Saudia Arabia?

"However I hope no one would seriously hope for this solution to be enacted."

Phew! Anything else?

"there is method, and secret agendas, in the establishments madness, as there always is.

"This involves the usual state intimidation, and the removal of any ability for the ordinary citizen to defend themselves, their loved ones, or their property."

Never mind, Atlas. They may take away your machine-guns.

But they'll leave you the turrets...

The Law is a kind of donkey

Biased BBC is very upset that the Beeb has settled a libel case against Question Time, brought by the Muslim leader Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari. Dr Bari was accused by a Question Time panellist, the former editor of the Telegraph, Charles Moore, of encouraging Muslims to kill and kidnap British soldiers. Dr Bari had actually spoken out against the killing of British soldiers in 2007. Undaunted, Biased BBC readers are quick to interpret Defamation Law in fascinating new ways:

Biased BBC's legal eagle Ed T asks: "what about laying down the reasonable expectations a Briton should have of (Dr Bari's) Muslim Council of Britain and then see if the actions of its leadership correspond to the level of support for British troops that could be expected? I don't think they do."

Perhaps this could be enshrined as the Ed T defence in future law books.

Defamation is boringly described in the existing law libraries as words lowering the reputation of an individual.

Ed T's is so much better - in future courts will "lay down the reasonable expectations a Briton should have of" the claimant... and then presumably tell them to bugger off because Charles Moore thinks they should behave as he sees fit.

A few bugs need ironing out, but it's a runner.

Dave s is after a career as a QC: "I thought English law was specific in that to libel you had to specifically name someone and that your statement was untrue."

Too true. Libel law should be what we think it is.

And not the variety actually judged in the courts where the concept of Group Defamation is well established, meaning that you can sue if the libel applies to a specific group of people, one of which is you.

The BBC should have applied our version of the truth, which is to shout loudly that Bari must be guilty of encouraging attacks on British troops, even though he'd actually condemned such attacks.

Frankos feels the BBC over-looked the obvious way out: "If the BBC (and our pocket) is take personal responsibility for every contentious comment or opinion voiced on these programmes we might as well end all free speech."

Blimey! Why didn't al-Beeb's lawyers think of that one? Of course... libel claims go away if only you say you're exercising free speech!

"The BBC should have stayed out of this entirely to avoid any controversy."

Genius! When Carter-Ruck's writ arrived pointing out that as the BBC had published Moore's remarks, they were guilty of libel, all the BBC had do to was say: "We're staying out of this one..."

Carter-Ruck would have gone away. Tail between legs. Whimpering all the way back to EC4. Last we'd have heard about it.

If we ever do end up being sued for libel, make sure we call frankos first!