STV PROMISE TOTAL PARTY POLITICAL CENSORSHIP DURING THE ELECTION

 

Brian Monteith's pro-UKIP article is up on the ChangeScotland website and I have put up as a comment the letter to the Scotsman that didn't get published. I am referring to it here because it is the unedited article. 2 parts were left out. First the introduction

THE SNP NOW APPEARS to have confirmed its lead in final weeks of the Holyrood elections, the only remaining questions being can it govern as a minority administration again, and if not, who might form a coalition with Alex Salmond?
....not because I have any animus towards Alex Salmond or his party – the election of the SNP was a breath of fresh air to the stale and predictable Scottish political scene – but

and more interesting in my opinion this

Unfortunately UKIP is being blanked by the broadcasters in Scotland and is thus denied the opportunity given to the four old parties and the Greens to have its message heard. With more than 80% of the Scottish public obtaining their information from the BBC alone that is an affront to democracy that must be addressed.

This correlates with something from UKIP Scotland's site.

Viscount Christopher Monckton revealed on the Alex Jones TV Show {US}today, that he has been camped out in an Edinburgh flat for 14 days, and has been blatently ignored by Scotland’s major TV News organisations. Monckton disclosed that in a conversation with the STV political correspondant, who eventually came on the line and he said, “Look, we have mentioned the UK Independence Party once, before the campaign began. We are not going to mention it, at all for the rest of the campaign, whatever happens.” (during the Scottish Holyrood Election). This is an apalling disgrace and a blight upon true journalism.

I would go further. Democracy is only meaningful where /everybody gets an equal, or at the very least equal to their known popularity, opportunity to put their case. If the people are prevented from hearing the case ny government controlled media they obviously cannot correctly judge it. The "democracy" then is merely a rubber stamp for what is otherwise a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism.
OK we less have a single dictator, more joint leadership by a dictatorial political class and while aggressively nationalist enough to engage in a remarkable array of senseless wars, some involving promoting racial genocide, child sexual slavery and the dissection of living people, they are not nationalist enough to support British interests against Brussels bureaucracy. The definition given above is a dictionary one of Fascism which therefore is what we are seeing, albeit a less flashy, far less ambitous, less openly violent but overwhelmingly more bureaucratic version.
Where what we have now differs in a destructive way from the original Mussolini's fascism (and indeed Stalin's totalitarianism) in that while they both consiously aimed towards progress what we have is consciously aimed at preventing progress. All 5 of the officially approved parties are unanimous in wishing to destroy most of our economyin the eco-fascist cause of "fighting catastrophic global warming" though the SNP and Greens are a lot more eager. That, to my mind, makes it worse than either Mussolini or Stalin because it destroys not just life but the human spirit of curiosity and inventiveness - the thing that separates us from the beasts. It is also the case that over time it kills more people because lives lost from natural causes almost always greatly exceed those lost from human action and human progress has cut the number of lives lost by disease, famine and natural disaters by many orders of magnitude.
The Scotsman's deletion of Monteith's criticism of the BBC, which parallels experience I have had with letters, shows how much unofficial power the state broadcasting authority has. STV have more excuse since they are government "regulated" by Ofcom. Ofcom exist, not to ensure balance but to ensure anything the state dislikes is slated, even though it means reversing the way they "interpret" their code to do so. Basically the entire media is, unofficially, run according to rules set by the dominant BBC state broadcaster. Which in turn functions to propagandise and indeed lie to promote the civil servise line. The Precautionary Principle was, not under that name, a guiding value of the civil service bureaucracy long before the eco-fascist movement had heard of it.
I have previously discussed how the BBC fascists refuse to allow true debate to be broadcast. We are now in the closing days of an election in which, though the Greens have received some, supportive, coverage, UKIP, which gets 4 times their vote at national elections and is the 2nd UK party in PR elections to the EU, has been virtually entirely censored. When US TV is giving nore coverage to the only real opposition party in a Scottisj election than our own broadcasters, the term "fascism" is not overstating. For fairness I should also point out that the BNP received twice as many notes as the Greens and are, if anything , more rigorously censored and poitical censorship is fascist in principle and must be opposed by all liberal minded people in all cases.
-----------------------
And on a lighter note BBC's Newsnight Scotland allowed a few minutes of discussion of the looming blackouts and the refusal of the officially approved parties to discuss it. Sir Donald Miller argued, respectfully, that not having electricity would be a bad idea. David Maxwell whose company makes them, argued that windmills were now the same cost as gas (without calling for the end of subsidies which are required only because he was lying); that the SNP policy was not actually to end all cobventional power (Salmond has been quite clear that it is); on replacing 100% of our traditional power with windmills "If you achieve 80%, fair enough" which leaves a permanent 20% blackout. Newsnight then moved on, in the last week of an election, to a library piece about the decline of the town (now village) of New Cumnock, followed by a "debate" between 2 governmental types arguing how to revitalise it - either pumping money in to produce government non-jobs or pumping money in to produce government non-jobs. The fact that the town was built on free enterprise and could thus be rebuilt on it, was not even allowed into the discussion.

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/04/stv-promise-total-party-political.html