Appeasement hits the buffers - yet again

Last month registered yet another disappointment for the Government in its vain quest for a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Downing Street had been promising a "historic breakthrough." Gerry Adams had spoken of "the full and final closure of this conflict," while Blair & Co. had been waiting like eager little dogs for the bone that they fully expected the Republicans to toss their way. Then at the last moment - to the seeming surprise of all (except Adams, no doubt) - a snag occurred! Sinn Fein-IRA would not, after all, give details of weapons to be decommissioned that were satisfactory to the Unionist contingent, and the latter walked out of the talks. Groans of despair all round.

Of course, the whole business was just a charade. Why should Sinn Fein-IRA commit themselves to any peace agreement when for so many years they have been getting almost everything they want, piecemeal, by non-peaceful methods? Their whole strategy right from the start obviously has been to dangle the familiar bone in front of Tony Blair's nose, and then pull it away again.

We have said it so many times that it has become a bore - to us as much as to our readers. There never can be any peace agreement over Northern Ireland that is acceptable to the Adams gang while at the same time acceptable to true Unionists and compatible with the interests and honour of the United Kingdom. All activity to this end is a mere chasing of phantoms. There will only be meaningful and permanent peace in Northern Ireland when the IRA and all similar republican terrorist groups are liquidated once and for all. To quote General MacArthur, there is no substitute for victory.

Behind the hue and cry about football

The nation was horrified last month to hear of the appalling sexual assault case in which a 17-year-old girl was reportedly gang-raped in a London hotel by eight well-known (but hitherto unrevealed) professional footballers. This simply added to the already bad aura that has surrounded our national winter game over recent years, and in the following days there were many heart-searching articles and letters in newspapers asking what football is coming to, and contrasting the overpaid, over-sexed and over-publicised lives of today's star players with those of their gentlemanly counterparts of the 195Os, such as Stanley Matthews, Tom Finney and Billy Wright.

It certainly is true that there is a lot wrong with the modern soccer game, particularly at top level, and this in many ways mirrors what is wrong with this country as a whole. However, this should not prevent us delving into this particular case to see if there is any special circumstance attached to it that could not have been present half a century ago. It fell to Daily Mail columnist Peter McKay to reveal something about the case which we did not hear of in any of the other reports and commentaries that came to our notice. In a piece on October 6th he mentioned one footballer, Nicholas Meikle, who claimed he had slept with the girl consensually. McKay said of the investigations:-

'It's almost possible to feel sorry for the police and Crown Prosecution Service. Whatever the outcome, they'll be found wanting. Mr. Meikle is black. So (for all I know) are the others involved. If so, and they're charged with rape, there will be complaints about racism.'

Now of course, McKay's words here are carefully chosen. He says "for all I know" and "if so." That is not a 100 per cent indicator that the culprits were all black, but it seems doubtful that a mainstream journalist, even a 'right-wing' one like McKay would have ventured even to say as much as he did had he not some positive information through the grapevine that he was close to the truth.

There is a great deal wrong with British football without the factor of black players being brought into it, and even were those, black players to disappear there would still be much cleaning up of the game needed.

But where a disgraceful incident occurs in which black players are responsible, this should be clearly made known and there should be an open and frank public discussion of the matter. Will we get such a discussion in this case? The public should not hold its breath.

1984 is here!

Many expressions of shock and horror followed The Secret Policeman, a TV documentary broadcast by BBC1 on the 2lst October, showing a reporter infiltrating Greater Manchester Police as an undercover probationary in order to winkle out 'racists' in the force. The reporter, Mark Daly, socialised with fellow trainees and deliberately engaged them in conversation on racial issues so as to draw out responses from them liable to land them in big trouble if made known to their superiors - which of course they duly were. For, unbeknown to them, the BBC spy had tiny video and sound recording equipment installed on his person, and his victims' remarks were broadcast uncensored. As a result, five PCs were pressured to resign and three more were instantly suspended pending further investigations. Undoubtedly, Mr. Daly will have been feeling very pleased with himself over this outcome.

But we suspect that much more about the programme has yet to be revealed. There was a flavour of stinking fish about it almost from the beginning. The most blatant 'racist' of the lot, and the one who most quickly resigned, was so 'over the top' in his comments about 'Pakis' (his name for all non-Whites) that he seemed too bad to be true. He, and in large part the remainder of the young cops whose opinions were put on record, expressed their 'racism' in such crude, mindless and inarticulate language, with four-letter expletives inserted into almost every sentence, that their talk would most certainly have been unwelcome at a BNP meeting, and they would have been asked to leave. There was barely a hint from any of them, for instance, of a sensible reason for their opposition to non-Whites being in the country, though such reasons are available in abundance. It was all just hate, hate and yet more hate - usually coupled with generous use of the f-word. The message? Racists are morons.

While it was acknowledged that Daly himself was employed by the BBC for the exercise, the question has to be asked: was he the only one? Might the worst 'racists' in his rogues' gallery also have been part of the spoof. Perhaps further revelations will cast light on this.

And that's not all. Were all of these young probationary officers really so thick that they could not see from the questions asked by Daly that they were being set up? If they genuinely couldn't, and they are typical, it does not bode well for future crime-fighting in Britain.

Meanwhile, a further message was clearly sent out. It told all police officers throughout the land that it would be perilous in the future to express their innermost opinions on racial issues to anyone - in whatever informal and off-duty situations. The thought police clearly have a hired fly on every wall! This BBC operation was one of which the late and unlamented Joseph Stalin would have been truly proud.

The sequel was degrading beyond belief. On TV news the next day, senior cops were seen almost foaming at the mouth in their efforts to demonstrate their cringing apologies to the black and Asian communities. No doubt we can expect this story to drag out into a saga of ethnic grovelling equal to that which followed the murder of Stephen Lawrence - no doubt with a new Macpherson coming forward to write his name across the contemptible annals of the British 'race' industry.

Sir Ludovic sees the light!

Sir Ludovic Kennedy, veteran writer and broadcaster, has spent a long lifetime in faithful service to the liberal establishment. Even for him, however, there are some things that are just too much.

Late in September, Sir Ludovic caused palpitations throughout the world of political correctness by saying something that all with eyes to see know to be true but few will dare to mention. Ethnic-minority representation on television has reached such flood levels that it is far out of proportion to the actual ethnic balance in the population.

Kennedy's heresy appeared in an article in The Oldie magazine, and immediately and predictably it drew fire. The CRE commented that it was sad to see such a well-known author "so misunderstand the realities of modern multi-racial Britain."

Realities? It is indeed reality that is so out of step with racial castings shown by TV broadcasters. Take the police series The Bill, for instance. Now it seems that about half of the officers and staff of the fictitious Inner London station known as Sun Hill are black, Asian or Jewish. Is this a real portrayal of police personnel in the Met, which is continually being upbraided by the 'race' industry for recruiting too few black and Asian officers?

EastEnders is also chock full of 'ethnics', and here the BBC replied to Kennedy by saying that this only reflects the 30 per cent ethnic mix of the area. But what about another soap, ITV's Emmerdale, set in a fictitious village in the Yorkshire Dales? Blacks and Asiatics, as well as 'gays' and lesbians, seem to appear in profusion in this series. Does this really reflect life in rural West Yorkshire? Not if our own experiences of that delightful part of the country are anything to go by!

Interestingly, TV interviewer John Humphrys was sympathetic to Kennedy's view, but for all the wrong reasons. In his opinion, political correctness should not be pushed so fast and so blatantly that it might provoke an angry reaction; it should be more subtle. Writing in The Sunday Times of the 5th October, he made a revealing admission of the purpose of people in his profession. He acknowledged the role of television in the 'liberalising' process and expressed pride in it. But, he warned, an excess of it "could threaten the progress that has been made in dealing with prejudice." He went on to speak of the shift in public attitudes over things like race and homosexuality; and just listen to this:-

'That is partly down to television. It has been in the vanguard of social change. Much of what we take to be reality comes from the box. The norms of what is acceptable on television become the norms of what is acceptable in society at large. In this way is prejudice challenged.

'I say 'challenged', not ended. It has not gone away entirely. It still sticks in the craw of many to see black and gay people treated on television as ordinary human beings with equal rights. But their prejudice is rendered less effective if they see the rest of us going with the flow...'

In other words, the purpose of TV is not to portray reality, as the CRE would like to pretend it does; it is to create a new 'virtual reality' that blueprints the Brave New World as broadcasters would like to see it unfold; but this must be done at a speed with which public feelings can keep up. It all reminds one of the story about killing the frog by dropping it in water which is slowly brought to the boil - so slowly in fact that when the frog realises what is happening to it, it is too late to jump out. Mr. Humphrys has been unusually frank in his admissions of this policy, and for that at least we should be grateful.

In such ways are nations destroyed much more decisively and permanently than if they are defeated in battle.

Foreign-owned TV

We seem to be giving a lot of space to matters connected with television this month, but in view of the immense power wielded by this medium that is often justified. The announcement of plans for a merger between the Carlton and Grenada TV empires was a big talking point last month, and to date the deal has not yet been finalised.

One rationale for the marriage put forward by media-watchers was that the two need to join forces to be able to resist a foreign (American) take-over. That is rather rich! In the sense that neither company is owned by folk of Anglo-Celtic stock, it could be argued that an 'American' (i.e. Jewish) take-over couldn't make things more foreign than they already are.