David Vance SubstackRead More
On the 21st December, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 crashed on to the small town of Lockerbie in southern Scotland. Less than three weeks later, a scheduled flight from London to Belfast crashed on the side of the M1 motorway in Kegworth, Leicestershire, following pilot error after trying to make an emergency landing at East Midlands Airport. Although the circumstances surrounding the causes of the two disasters were very different, the consequences were the same – namely the destruction of two aircraft and multiple losses of life and serious injury in both cases.
Now imagine the news of the time had provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Lockerbie tragedy, but said next to nothing about the incident at Kegworth. After a while, those with more inquisitive minds might have started to wonder why the media was so concerned with saturation coverage of one and not the other. When all is said and done, with two significant events of a similar nature so close together, it seems right and in the interests of journalistic probity that they were afforded comparable amounts of publicity. I guess, back then, the main news channels were more interested in telling the news as it was as opposed to guiding certain narratives pertaining to their own collective ideologies.
If only that were the case today. For the last two weeks my brain has been bombarded with every aspect of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s trials and tribulations. What he did; what he didn’t do; who he associated with; who he fornicated with, etc. I feel every aspect of that man’s life has been laid bare before the British people. I’ve even had to endure the unedifying spectacle of Chris Bryant MP (Captain Underpants himself!) carefully deconstructing what remains of Andrew’s reputation in the House of Commons…..and all this before the man has even been convicted of anything in a court of law!! Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I like this little idea we used to know as ‘judicial process’ to take its course before sending for the proverbial hangmen. If Andrew is found guilty of the crimes he’s been accused of, then is the time to guarantee his permanent removal from the public gaze and issue due punishment. The same applies to Peter Mandelson. I’m no fan of either individual (it was Mandelson who was responsible for enacting the legislation that changed the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, thus guaranteeing him an eternal place on my lengthy list of disliked politicos) at the end of the day. Even so, I still have enough integrity to show a strong disinclination to the phenomena of trail by media – especially when it’s a media as slanted, infiltrated and bent as the one we have now.
Why is the broad mass of the media in the UK today slanted, infiltrated and bent? Because as it lays on thick everything to do with the erstwhile Duke of York, it has had almost nothing to say about the ongoing horrific information being unearthed by Rupert Lowe MP and his commendable inquiry into the scourge of grooming gangs and mass rape (https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-inquiry-rupert-lowe-eid-rapes). There is far more commonality between the Epstein saga and the findings of Lowe’s independent investigation than there was between the events leading up to the Lockerbie and Kegworth air disasters. There, terrorism was responsible for the former; grave pilot error for the latter. Here, the underlying factors are practically the same: Matters of rape and or/sexual abuse on a grand scale, trafficking girls for sex between different countries, and the protection of guilty individuals seen as being beyond the reach of the law for reasons of political convenience. If anything, the sheer number of those afflicted is much greater with respect of grooming gangs than it was with Epstein and his vile activities. So why the tumbleweed? When confronted with a complaint about the lack of coverage by our so-called ‘national broadcaster’, the BBC had this to say (https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/inquirybackedbyrupertlowemp):
‘We have limited resources and it is not possible to report on every story which is of interest to our audiences. We know that not everyone will agree with our choices of what to cover, or the prominence stories are given. Our news editors make these complex decisions based on their editorial merit and the other stories in the news that day. These decisions are made for editorial and practical reasons and should not be taken as indicative of bias.’
My thoughts:
-
The BBC would have enough resources to put together a ‘Panorama’ special on the type of underarm deodorant used by the former Prince Andrew before evensong at Sandringham church, if it so chose. As they make clear, it’s all about “choices”.
-
These are not “complex decisions”, nor are they made on “editorial merit”. They’re very simple choices made on the basis that nothing should be aired that contradicts the corporation’s own indoctrinated thoughts and views on the supposed “benefits” of living in a multicultural society.
If and when the Lowe inquiry reaches its conclusion, the tacky gold leaf so many in the media and politics have been applying to the festering turd of multiculturalism for decades now will begin to peel away at a rate that has never been witnessed hitherto. For them, that is a scenario that must be avoided at all costs. It’s why, I believe, they’ve chosen to go the whole hog on Epstein as a distraction from Rupert Lowe’s sterling determination to expose the truth, and why this particular government will never give their own statutory investigation into Pakistani grooming gangs the scope or the powers necessary to reveal anywhere near the requisite number of skeletons from every cupboard. Why would they, when so many different branches of the Labour Party have been complicit?
They, in tandem with the legacy media, would rather jeopardise the whole institution of the British Monarchy through stories of guilt by association, than do anything to expose their fealty to multiculturalism for the sham it was, and is!
