The So-Called 'British' Broadcasting Corporation Is A Nest Of British-Hating, 'Globalist', Gaia-Worshipping Fascists
(My apologies to DK for dropping in and out of his blog at perhaps indecent intervals, like an unwelcome dinner guest or a bad smell. Readers who get the impression that this post is not very libertarian should note that its author is NOT The Devil's Kitchen).
On tonight's BBC 'Six O' Clock News', its 'Rural Affairs Correspondent', one 'Jeremy Cooke', reported on the apparent absurdity of how scampi caught off Grimsby is being sent to Thailand for processing by hand before its reimportation to the UK.
So far, so not news; I blogged on the effect this practice was having on the Scottish langoustine industry over a year ago.
However, what really struck me about today's report was the thrust of its focus. Cooke's report was based on the effect this practice is alleged to have on Mother Gaia in terms of the energy spent on hauling molluscs around the globe; not on why seafood processors should actually be doing so.
Perhaps nearer to the mark, it reported that this practice is creating 'hundreds of jobs in Thailand'; as if anyone really cares.
A fat Geordie in big glasses and an ill-fitting suit was wheeled out to mutter some guff about the costs of machine-processing langoustines in the UK being the same or greater than hand-processing them in Thailand; while all the time the thump of breasts being beaten across the Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation at the effect that horrible industry was having on Mother Gaia, raping her, despoiling her so that greedy British bastards like us can enjoy cheap prawn cocktail starters with our Christmas dinners, was so loud I nearly had to put my TV on Mute.
I might have come into the report late; but at no point in that part of the report that I saw did Cooke make any mention of how British people, British factory workers, widely assumed by all sundry to be the scum of the universe, might be losing their jobs because of this. Which they will be doing.
I might be wrong, but The Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation gives every impression that is a nest of elitist anti-British Briton haters, for whom the creation of a job in Thailand is of vastly more importance than the fact that that job is only being capable of being created through the loss of the same job in Lincolnshire.
| 14 blogger comments
| links to this post
14 Blogger Comments:
I think it tells us rather more about Britain's competitiveness than anything else.
Can't see many British workers turning up for sub-minimum wage to stand at a desk all day and skin langoustine by hand. Plenty of semi-slavery immigrant labour maybe - surely it would be cheaper to ship the langoustine down to Morecambe Bay - and safer for the workers down there too.
Really?? Is that what the Biased Broadcasting Corps report was trying to impart? I really wondered about it. I concluded that Youngs probably know more about prawns than the BBC so wondered why they did not mind their own fucking business.
Then I thought --I hope our sodding MPs don't get onto this prawn business and ignore the obscenity of throwing millions of tons of fish --dead--back into the sea But I bet they will.
They might be biased, but they aren't necessarily stupid.
By making the effect of this proccessing system on The Environment the main thrust of the report, the production team can then also say that a byproduct of it will be job creation on the other side of the world. Of course nobody gives a fuck about job creation in Thailand (well, not most people, anyway), which is why, without being explicit about job losses, the BBC can imply that damaging the environment also causes the loss of 'British' jobs.
I did however, pick up on the very last sentence of the report, and it was one that truly surprised me- the reporter said that the fate of scampi that is bought (or something to that effect) is down to the consumer. Hallefuckingluja!
yeah but british workers won't be losing jobs because there were no british workers in the first place. the whole reason for moving production to thailand was because people prefer the shrimp to be hand-peeled as opposed to peeled by machines which was what was happening in the uk.
if you think you're going to find a cheap source of uk labour willing to do nothing with their day but peel shrimp then you're a moron.
The BBC, with the insane, power-mad people who work there, has to be destroyed. My preference would be for a giant, tragic explosion on a working day. Maybe when policy-makers and current affairs makers were in several meetings on how to pervert the course of British history and society.
It's interesting that despite their most intense efforts over the last year or so, the British people still think "man made global warming" is a load of N Sea codswallop. Sheer shock prawn.
Langustines are Crustaceans.
The article of course snuck in the old Carbon footprint bolloques, so that it was "lower" to do it in Thailand than in Scotland.
Erm - does a machine consume more energy than a hangar full of people? Not just the people, but their food, aircon, transport, housing etc etc...and their kids.
Not sure about that myself, but I am certain the talking heads were not sure either. They have not heard of dust-to-dust yet I suspect, but one day we will be al threatened with it via the Carbon Credit Card.
"if you think you're going to find a cheap source of uk labour willing to do nothing with their day but peel shrimp then you're a moron."
but your statement is a valid economic argument Denis. thats not the point of the blogpost, which pointed out that even economic reports on the BBC are being framed in ecogreenery fuckwittery.
Importing tomatoes from Spain, where the sun shines all the time, in a latest generation diesel powered truck, produces less carbon emissions than consuming English toms that have to be grown in a heated greenhouse.
So there!
There must be some advantage to sending dead sea insects to Thailand for processing then sending them back to Blighty.
The fat Geordie in the bad suit might be correct in terms of cash cost, but did anyone mention the hidden costs of excessive regulation? Probably not since most over regulation emenates from Brussels and this was the (anti)BBC reporting.
Will you be doing a post on the latest piece of patrician fuckwittery, DK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7153358.stm
MU- Socialists are a distressing and toxic melding of clinical insanity and a drive to interfere.
Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith. Two of the most excrable people in a foetid government ate going to make a decision on behalf of everyone in Britain regarding paying for sex - which is, by no mad stretch of the most perfervid imagination, any of their business. (And neither fatso need ever worry about an unwelcome approach.)
This government's drive to control private behaviour makes me want to run screaming down the street.
Even from a practical point of view, the notion proves a dire lack of knowledge about human nature. What about men who keep mistresses? What about women who marry for money? What about gay tricks? What about gay boys who live as "companions" for money?
Wouldst that Princess Diana's driver were living at this hour and available to chauffeur Harriet and Jacqui for a drive along the Thames. I would gladly stump up for the pre-drive drinks.
The person who wrote this post seems to be arguing against free trade!?!?!? Out-sourcing does not cause long term unemployment.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home