Sowing the seed of discontent

WHY is everyone still screaming that Britain needs more diversity? The UK is now recognised as one of the most diverse nations on the planet. Instead of wasting energy by constantly complaining, why don’t those affected welcome this situation with open arms and start acting with some positivity?

As Shakespeare observed; ‘Methinks thou doth protest too much’. I can’t help becoming even more convinced that those who continue to condemn British society actually thrive on animosity, refusing to accept the truth in case they are deprived of something to vent their hatred on! Let’s just have a brief look at these ‘lack of UK diversity’ accusations.

To date, with very few exceptions, almost every family based commercial on British TV depicts a mixed marriage. Practically all the ads that use a number of actors, portray an (often ludicrous) cross section of casts with ethnic backgrounds. Neither of these situations is a true re­ flection of life across the UK and is therefore either a minority appeaser, or some form of majority brainwashing ­ and is also by its very definition blatantly racist! A large number of major league football teams are partially, or in some cases predominately ethnic.

Athletes, particularly runners, are almost all from immigrant heritage and any accusation of racism (predominately aimed at the indigenous population) is dropped on by the law like a ton of bricks. The long suffering British population has bent over backwards to accept and encourage diversity into a country which, after recovering from two World Wars, became open and ready to accept many from other less fortunate cultures. But to see its generosity and welcome rewarded by ‘no go areas’, terrorism, religious fanaticism, culture attack and nothing but insults and ingratitude ­ is quite understandably getting large numbers of them the terrible hump!

The ‘far right’ was initially blamed as instigators of this UK dissent, and was quite rightly chastised for it. Unfortunately, with the blatant, unchecked reversed racism of so called ‘comedians’, plus some of the disgraceful racist material of

Shaggy Dog Story Our View

Rapper culture, exponents of the not­so far right are actually beginning to think those a bit ‘further over’ may have had a point. Almost every award presentation is criticised for not including enough diversity among the winners. Well, possibly there weren’t enough who were worthy of awards!

We cannot fall into the trap of favouring people simply because of their ethnic heritage or gender. If we do, we will not only lower our standards, but also be in real danger of provoking even further disquiet by denying recognition of those who may be far more deserving.

This whole diversity and ‘woke driven’ human rights situation is sowing seeds of discontent that, if unchecked, will continue to grow and flourish into a full scale civil conflict that could leave large sections of the UK’s major cities resembling Beirut. An example of which actually landed in London’s Oxford Street this week!

Exactly the warning I wrote in this column 20 years ago, originally considered ‘another Leapy rant’. Oh really!

MANY Spanish laws which seem a good idea in principle seem to fall at the first hurdle as they are often impossible to enforce except individually.

The latest is the pioneering Animal Welfare Law which comes into force in September and has two major and possibly contentious obligations for dog owners.

Firstly, every owner will be required to obtain third party insurance valid for the lifetime of their pet and the intention is that should their dog be responsible for any injury to another animal or person, there will be an insurance policy in place which will ensure that the victim doesn’t lose out financially. Certain parts of Spain including Madrid already require owners to have such an insurance which also covers the owner against claims alleging their culpability for misbehaviour by their pooch and cost is currently from around €25 to €100 per annum depending on value of cover purchased.

Introducing such a law and enforcing it are two different things and it seems hardly likely that police officers will stop owners walking their dogs and demand to see proof of insurance.

Even if they did, then lack of insurance basically results in a ticking off and only in the most blatant of offences where a third party is injured is there any likelihood of a fine.

Animal shelters are overflowing with abandoned dogs and now that the new law also requires new owners to pass a ‘dog ownership’ test it hardly seems likely that the number finding forever homes can do anything else but drop.

Many lonely elderly people find companionship thanks to a dog but this is just another cost to add to the ever spiralling expense of ownership.

Letters

LAST week we discussed the latest figures surrounding the issue of 2.8 million television viewers who believe that they should not be required to pay the £159 annual charge for a TV licence as they no longer watch BBC channels or any kind of live television.

The rise of streaming services such as Netflix, Disney Plus and Paramount Plus have been giving traditional channels like BBC and ITV a run for their money over the past few years, with the above figure showing an increase of more than 360,000 people in the previous 12 months.

There’s been a significant uplift in the amount of people who watch live television through social media channels such as

Comments

Pay per view would sort out this antiquated policy, and then the BBC will see the exact figures willing to tune in to the channel.

I object to the BBC using the licence fee as their own bank account paying obscene wages such as £1.3 million to Gary Linaker for hosting a programme for one hour a week, and paying one of their news readers £350,000 for three days work and a total of 12 hours on radio which I never listen to.

William Hughes

Where have you seen these shows already? The licence is free for over 75s in receipt of Pension Credit. You’re on £52k a year so probably too rich to get pensions credit though.

Jase

The BBC has now become a game show channel and a repeat channel with nothing too exciting in the middle.

Les

The BBC send letters to intimidate people who don’t own a licence.

Anonymous

The BBC is a self serving and obsolete service. Yes, they have a few series that are good, but with over three billion from stealth enforcement of li ­

YouTube. According to TV Licensing.co.uk, even if you’re watching live TV through YouTube indirectly, you are still required to have TV licence coverage to be compliant with the law.

Toby Young, the Founder and Director of the Free Speech Union told the Daily Mail: “These figures show that the TV licence fee is not a viable funding model for the BBC going forward.”

He added: “The obvious alternative is to become a subscription­based service like Netflix and Amazon Prime.” cence paying they should have! Why it still exists is beyond me and paying 44p is far to much for a generally mediocre service, that unless you want to be hounded by Television Licensing as if you were a criminal, you will pay under duress!

Perhaps, times are changing and preferences are evolving. Will streaming services eventually render traditional live television as irrelevant and outdated?

Rob

Why do we have to pay the BBC to watch all the other channels who pay their own way. Shocking.

John

Do away with the TV licence. We live in the 21st century, not the 20th century when BBC was created.

Stephen Nield

It’s disgraceful that the BBC charge pensioners £159 for a TV licence. Shame on you.

John

Repeats and more of them. Then there are the quiz / game shows giving obscene amounts in prize money, that and the astronomical salaries paid to some of their presenters. My husband is over 80, I am in my 70s, the only reason we watch BBC is no adverts, we are not into streaming, so watch more DVDs than TV these days, but still we have to pay the licence fee. We have just over the limit in pension between us not to be able to get pension credits.

Jacqueline Drew