Deaf to reason

I see that the government has caved in to pressure from various "deaf rights" campaigners, and removed a clause in the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which would have prevented people undergoing IVF treatment from using embryo screening to ensure that they had a deaf child. Deafness was originally included among the "serious medical conditions" which the bill prevents parents from favouring.

Personally, I am astounded to learn that anyone could actually want to have a deaf child, in preference to a hearing child. Deafness places those who suffer from it at a profound disadvantage within society. Since the primary method of interpersonal communication is, always has been, and always will be, verbal, then this disadvantaging of those who cannot engage in verbal communication is inevitable. We can make every effort to minimise the disadvantage, but we can never eliminate it. Because of their inability to communicate verbally, deaf people will always have fewer opportunities, educationally, career-wise, and personally, than those who are able to hear.
Besides which, the ability to hear is good in itself: it can provide those who possess it with a great abundance of positive experiences, which are simply not available to deaf people. To deliberately choose a child that will be deprived of the ability to hear is cruel, to say the least.

Deaf groups, who have evidently understood that the road to success lies through victimhood, have claimed that it is discriminatory to prevent parents from choosing to have a deaf child, while allowing them to choose to have a hearing child. And maybe they're right (although I would point out that deaf people are not actually being prevented from doing anything that a hearing person can do). But discrimination is not, in itself, a bad thing. Whenever we select one option over another we discriminate; indeed, the deaf groups seek to allow parents to discriminate against hearing children in the selection of embryos. And when one option is so clearly preferable to the alternative, as is the case here, then discrimination is perfectly good and reasonable. Of course, one might well have concerns over the "designer baby" scenarios that might come about as a result of allowing IVF patients to select embryos at all, but that is another matter...

Nor does it devalue the lives of deaf people generally to say that we should prevent parents from favouring deaf embryos. There is nothing unreasonable in saying that we can respect people as individuals, while also acknowledging that they have a condition which we would prefer as few people as possible to have.

The desire to select the characteristics of children in the manner proposed is, I think, indicative of a view of children that classifies them as little more than politicised fashion accessories. Consider the following case study, from the Telegraph article linked to above:

Paula Garfield and Tomato Lichy, are at the centre of the debate over the new fertility legislation. Both are deaf – as is their daughter Molly, three.

They would like a second child, but because Paula is in her 40s, she may need IVF treatment.

They want the right to choose to have a deaf child and say it is discriminatory to ban deaf parents from doing this. Mr Lichy said:

"Being deaf is not about being disabled. It's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud of the language we use and the community we live in."

It would seem that Miss Garfield and Mr Lichy's aim in selecting their prospective child would be not so much about giving it the best possible start in life (which would, of course, necessitate the child being able to interact with the majority of those around it), as about justifying their self-perception as members of an oppressed minority. If people do have children, then it is self-evidently preferable that they regard them as ends in themselves, rather than as tools for making political points. This does not appear to be the case with those who wish to inflict deafness upon their offspring.

Like the TARDIS

A WOULD-BE MP is being investigated by police after it emerged 27 people are registered to vote at his house.

And officers are also probing claims a prospective councillor has five people registered at his home who are also listed at other properties in the same town.

Both Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Mohammed Afzal Anwar and Labour Pendle Council candidate Mohammed Tariq have insisted they have done nothing wrong.

Police launched their investigation after separate allegations were made to Pendle Council and Lancashire Constabulary by the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties in Pendle.

Mr Anwar said there was nothing untoward about the number of voters living at his terraced home which is 214 to 216 Manchester Road, Nelson, and consists of two houses knocked into one.

He said that 27 people were registered to vote at the property, but that not all were resident in this country at any one time.

Mr Anwar said no postal or proxy votes would be requested for the property.

He said that he had discussed the situation with election officials at Pendle Council.

Mr Anwar said: "There are different people who are living in different parts of the properties. There are certain people who go abroad from time to time. One or two are students who have been in Poland for example.

"And other people are going (abroad) and coming back. There will be no postal or proxy votes issued from this address."

His election agent, Coun Tony Greaves, said the property was inhabited by Mr Anwar, his father, three brothers, their respective families and "contains 24 bedrooms."

Only two people registered at the addresses, who were currently resident in Pakistan, were not entitled to vote, said Coun Greaves.

Labour party officials asked Pendle police to launch a probe amid claims that not all residents living there should be entitled to vote.

The claims followed Liberal Democrat allegations over Labour candidate Mohammed Tariq, who is standing in Whitefield ward in next month's Pendle Council elections.

He is accused of having five people registered at his Portland Street home who are also registered at other properties elsewhere in Nelson.

Pendle Labour group leader Mohammed Iqbal is Mr Tariq's election agent and said the prospective councillor had done nothing wrong.

He said: "I have looked into Lord Greaves's allegations concerning Mr Tariq. They seem to centre round two members of our candidate's family."

Police confirmed that they were investigating allegations of electoral fraud in Pendle.

And, of course, there really is very little to be said, pending the result of the police investigation(s). Except that they must be pretty impressive terraced houses that Mr Anwar has, to be capable of yielding twelve bedrooms each. Should the allegations against him prove to be without foundation, we can only hope that those in authority will utilise his evident talents, and task him with solving the nation's housing shortage!

Hat-tip: The Green Arrow

Postscript: Meanwhile, former Slough Tory councillor Eshaq Khan has been charged with conspiracy to defraud, as have four of his campaign workers, all of whom have also been charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983. Last month, an election court found Khan guilty of vote-rigging, in the closely contested election for the town's Central Ward.

Showing his true colours?

I see that Boris Johnson was jeered by members of the audience at a London mayoral hustings held at the Methodist Central Hall earlier in the week. Apparently the audience, which, the Evening Standard tells us, "was packed with black church groups and student and trade unions who are the natural constituency of Labour rival Ken Livingstone", was initially unreceptive to Johnson's charms, and booed and heckled as he attempted to speak, until one of the event organisers had to ask them to be quiet. Well, it's fairly typical of the left, isn't it, to try to silence their political opponents in this manner, rather than engaging them in debate.

Except that there's very little to suggest that Boris Johnson is the political opponent of these leftists. Of course, he and they are members of rival political tribes, but there's little in the way of substantive political or ideological disagreement between them. The Standard informs us that "by the end of the two-hour event...the jeers had turned to cheers as he won round much of the audience". Huzzah! But it is interesting to see how this apparent transformation was brought about; essentially, he won round the leftist-dominated audience by expressing views which they shared.

First, he treated them to a tasty morsel of welfare state socialism:

The audience began to warm to Mr Johnson after he agreed to fund the "London living wage" of £7.20 per hour for the poorest workers if elected.

Then, he added a liberal endorsement of lawbreaking:

He won over even more people when he talked about housing and agreed to a one-off amnesty for all illegal immigrants living in the capital.

Mr Johnson spoke of his own family's immigrant roots and said his Muslim great-grandfather, who fled to Britain from Turkey, would be "very proud" he was standing for Mayor of London.

The candidate said: "If an immigrant has been here for a long time and there is no realistic prospect of returning them, then I do think that person's condition should be regularised so that they can pay taxes and join the rest of society."

He even accused the present government, which has presided over the highest levels of immigration this country has ever seen, of being just too harsh towards those poor illegals:

Mr Livingstone added it was a "tragic miscalculation" by the Labour government not to have an "immediate amnesty for everybody" when it came to power in 1997.

He wobbled a bit...

However, the Tory faced jeers when he said it was not within his powers to stop the Met staging controversial dawn raids of migrant families. "I've given you as many yeses as I can, my friends," he implored his audience.

...but hit back strongly by implying that he would grant preferential treatment to people who have no right to be in the country at all:

He added that he would "look at" London Citizens' proposal to subsidise transport for failed asylum seekers in London, while Green Sian Berry and Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick backed the idea.

Taxpayer-subsidised transport for failed "asylum seekers" looks set to become a reality whoever wins. Ken Livingstone has pledged that they shall travel for free, telling the audience the heart-rending tale of how "many end up walking for miles across the capital because they are unable to afford the Tube or train fare". Yes, having to walk is indeed a terrible hardship, which no one should have to endure.

Returning to Boris Johnson: he actually concluded with a halfway decent idea:

Mr Johnson was then applauded when he repeated his pledge to scrap the Mayor's newspaper, The Londoner, and plant trees with the money saved.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Londoner is a complete waste of money, and that planting trees would certainly be a better use of the money (although tax cuts would be a still bigger improvement), I see very little reason, reviewing Johnson's comments, to support him, even against Ken Livingstone, in the mayoral election. After all, aside from their differences on the vexed Routemaster v. bendy buses question, they seem to be in perfect agreement on pretty much everything. Certainly, on the basis of his statements at the hustings, Johnson's views are firmly entrenched on the left of the political spectrum, reflecting the widespread ideological surrender of the Tory Party to the liberal-left. Either that, or he is constantly changing his message to suit his audience - hardly an admirable or desirable trait in a politician, albeit a common one.

Getting to know Islam

This story is a few days old now, but it is still worthy of notice:

A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs.

Developing an understanding of other cultures, and being called a dog, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs.

Muslims have quite a wide range of such dehumanising insults to throw at the infidels. For example, London's King Fahd Academy teaches children that Christians are pigs, and Jews apes.

In a letter to the children's parents, the school expresses its regret at the incident: "We are shocked that during the guided tour, the mosque's chairman told the children and chaperoning parents that non believers were dogs. We consider this statement as unacceptable since we allow our children to partake in this project to develop respect for freedom of religious choice".

In the meantime, the school's management has addressed the mosque on the undesirable behaviour of the chairman. Both parties will say nothing further on the matter. "We will resolve the matter amongst ourselves and I have no inclination whatsoever to discuss the matter with the media", as newspaper De Telegraaf quoted the school's spokesperson Mariet ten Berge. "We have been to the mosque before and it always went well".

I can't imagine quite how the school is going to broach the matter to the mosque authorities! "Could you please maintain a veneer of respectability, and keep your more bigoted views to yourself next time; we don't want the children getting the right idea about Islam", perhaps? Or maybe the grovelling "We're deeply sorry that some of the children took your honoured chairman's remarks out of context - it won't happen again", will be more to the taste of the school's management?

Angry parents had sent the letter on to De Telegraaf but were reportedly rapped on the knuckles by the school's management. "The school wishes to play this down. That is precisely the problem", as one mother commented.

In this story, and the school's response to it, you have a microcosm of the general attitude of the authorities to Islam, and those who expose the wrongdoing of its followers. A Muslim does something wrong, and every effort is made to hush it up, "resolving the matter amongst ourselves". Meanwhile, those who do no more than publicise the misdeeds of the Muslim are themselves denounced, or at least "rapped on the knuckles", for having the nerve to criticise the Poor Oppressed Victims. I'm rather surprised that the parents in question have not, as yet, been accused of "Islamophobia"!

I wonder whether the school is planning to continue sending children to visit this mosque? Certainly, this report contains nothing approaching an indication to the contrary, and the school's desire to deal with the matter privately, and to downplay any criticism of the mosque authorities, suggests that they hope for rapprochement, and the continuance of this mutually beneficial relationship.

Oh well, at least the children got a more balanced look at Islam than they would have done from simply listening to some dhimmi schoolmistress repeating platitudes about "Religions of Peace".

Postscript: A comment at Dhimmi Watch, where I first saw this story, quotes the following news report (I have no idea what the source was, since no link is given), in which the mosque chairman seeks to explain his statement:

According to a press release by Mohamed Guennoun, chairman of the El Mouhahidine [sic] mosque, the report above is based on erroneous information. He had never called unbelievers dogs and he rejects such statements.

[…]

When one 12 year old asked if Muslims are obligated to go to the mosque he had answered: No that is not obligatory. But there are those among us - those who think extremely - who think that if you as a Muslim don't go to the mosque five times a day to pray then you're really an unbeliever and not more than a dog.

Guennoun stresses that he was speaking of the extremists. He doesn't belong to that group and he rejects their way of thinking.

All the children, however, seem to have got the impression that he was calling them dogs. Bloody Islamophobes!

So proud, so very proud

Addressing the Pakistan National Council of the Arts, on a visit to the country, our beloved Home Secretary Jacqui Smith favoured her auditors with the following remarks:

After Christianity, Islam is the largest faith community in the UK. 1.6million declared themselves Muslims in the 2001 census, and that figure may now be as high as 2million. Islam is one of many faiths which are practised in UK communities. We are proud to live in such a diverse country.

Three points:

1. It's interesting to note that Jacqui Smith does not refer to the 'community', but to "UK communities". An inadvertent admission, perhaps, of the extent to which mass immigration and multiculturalism are turning the UK into little more than a patchwork of disparate groups, having nothing in common beyond the fact that they inhabit the same patch of land.

2. The fact that the Muslim population of Britain has increased by 25% in just seven years demonstrates quite how rapidly Islam is spreading within our country. True, their numbers may still be comparatively insignificant, at just 3.3% of the total population, but, on the basis of present trends, they will not remain so for long. Considering how much influence they already wield, and the extent to which they are already in receipt of preferential treatment, one wonders how far the craven politicians and media will go in their efforts to appease the Muslims in the future.

3. Who, I wonder, is this "we", who "are proud to live in such a diverse country"? Is it the public at large? Well, since 53% of us say that Islam poses a threat to the West, I rather think not. The British public have never been consulted on whether they wanted to live in "such a diverse country"; they have simply had it imposed upon them, together with the mantra that failure to show sufficient appreciation for "diversity" is to mark oneself out as an evil bigot of the worst kind.

I'm certainly not proud to live in a country with an ever-increasing Islamic population. I am, however, deeply worried. After all, the increase in the size of the Islamic population probably means that the number of people in the UK who want to impose Sharia law has, since the start of the millennium, risen from 640,000 to at least 800,000, not to mention a parallel increase in the numbers who want to engage in such wholesome activities as killing apostates. Hardly an occasion for pride, I would have thought.

Jacqui Smith's comments demonstrate, once again, quite how out of touch she, and the rest of the buffoons running the country, are. At a time when the public is increasingly concerned about the impact that Islam is having upon our society, Smith proclaims, on behalf of all of us, her pride in the presence of millions of Muslims in Britain. The only hope for this country is to kick these cretins out at the next election; thankfully, as Jacqui Smith has a majority of less than 3,000 in her Redditch constituency, she at least should be gone pretty soon.

Will you tell the liberals, or shall I? Part two

One of the statistics mentioned in my previous post was that 66% of Britons believe that immigrants undercut British workers and take their jobs. This particular belief is the one most frequently mocked by advocates of unlimited immigration, who like to depict it, usually harnessed in tandem with the straw man argument that "they take our women", as a claim made by the stereotypical crude, ignorant "white van men", who, many liberals like to believe, are the only source of opposition to immigration (aside, that is, from taxi drivers, and "racists"). As is so often the case, however, the mere fact that liberals don't want to believe it does not make it any less true (indeed, one might almost say that the probability of a statement being correct increases in direct proportion to the vociferousness of liberals in disputing it). As the Sunday Telegraph reports:

Mass immigration has been accompanied by a fall in the number of Britons with jobs, official figures show.

Since 2004, when citizens of eight central and eastern European countries were given the right to work in Britain, the number of UK-born people working here has fallen by 500,000, from 24.4 million to 23.9 million.

Over the period, the number of migrants in work, including people born abroad but now naturalised as British citizens, rose by 1.1 million - to 3.3 million. They now make up one in eight of the workforce.

The figures, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), provide the strongest evidence yet that Britons have lost their jobs to immigrants, says a leading expert on immigration.

Robert Rowthorn, a Cambridge University professor who uncovered the findings, said: "It seems hard to deny that immigration from the new EU member states has had a negative impact on the employment of UK natives."

The good professor should be careful what he says. If any lefty student groups at Cambridge should get wind of it, they might try and get him sacked!

Attitudes to immigration

A poll for Channel 4 has revealed that the public is not exactly ecstatic about the unprecedented levels of immigration that this country has been experiencing over the past ten years or so. 83% of Britons told pollsters that the country faces a "population crisis", a view shared by 58% of "settled migrants". Fifteen percent of respondents were in favour of halting immigration altogether, and fully 84% wanted to reduce it.

Why do the public feel this way? Well, it seems that many of us are not quite so enthusiastic about the myriad benefits of diversity as the liberal-left might wish. While a quarter of people believe the leftist canard that "immigration has led to a rich and varied culture in Britain", 58% say that British culture has been "damaged and diluted" by immigration. Multiculturalism seems to have been convincingly rejected too: 69% of people say that it isn't working, a view shared by 45% of settled migrants, and even 41% of recently-arrived migrants. 66% of Britons also believe that migrant workers undercut British workers and take their jobs.

There's not a lot here that's new, to be honest. The proof that the public was strongly opposed to both immigration and multiculturalism was already pretty overwhelming - this is just another shot in the cannonade of evidence. The important issue is not so much whether people have concerns and objections, as whether any government will take heed of these concerns, and act accordingly. Personally, I doubt that they will.
Responding to the Channel 4 poll, Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch said:

This is stunning confirmation that the public want to see firm and effective action to reduce the scale of immigration. It is a view shared by two-thirds of previous immigrants. The Government cannot remain in denial much longer.

Well, the first two sentences may be correct, but, alas, I fear that he underestimates the capacity of the present government to ignore any fact that does not fit their worldview. They allowed, and continue to allow, unlimited mass immigration against the wishes and without the consent of the public. I expect that they will "remain in denial" up to and beyond the next election. We can't expect any action from Labour. Meanwhile, the Tories have at least called for a limit to be imposed on immigration, but, as we all know, what they say and what they might do should they come into power may prove to be two very different things...

Great excuses of our time

A SPEEDING driver has avoided a ban after his lawyer argued that he needed his licence to visit both his wives.

Mohammed Anwar, 51, was caught driving at more than twice the speed limit on his way home from work in Falkirk.

The restaurant owner, who has two wives under Islamic law, was clocked driving at 64mph in a 30mph zone on the Cumbernauld Road, Muirhead, Glasgow, on 21 August, 2007.

Yesterday at Airdrie Sheriff Court, Anwar, of Clouston Street, Glasgow, pleaded guilty to speeding, but his lawyer, Paul Nicolson, said: "He realises his licence is at risk, but this is an unusual case and he is very anxious to keep his driving licence as he has two wives.

"Under his religion he is allowed a maximum of four," said Mr Nicolson.

"He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next.

"Without his driving licence he would be unable to be able to do this on a regular basis. He is also a restaurant owner and has a restaurant in Falkirk, which he has had for the past 30 years."

Sheriff John C Morris, QC, allowed Anwar to keep his licence, fining him £200 and imposing six penalty points on his driving licence.

While it is sort of illegal, bigamy brings other advantages in today's Britain. For example, should Mr Anwar's business ever fail, then, as was reported back in February, he will be able to claim additional benefits in respect of his additional wife. Not a bad deal, really.

Meanwhile, I wonder how far an infidel would get claiming that he needed the car in order to commute between his wife and his mistress? About as far as the bus queue, after his licence was withdrawn, I'd guess (and quite right too!).

An imam walks into a bar...

I read that the left-wing "comedian" Ben Elton has made the astounding suggestion that the BBC is too scared to allow jokes about Islam to be broadcast. Speaking to the Christian cultural magazine, Third Way, Elton, who is apparently a churchgoing atheist (presumably that fits with the hypocrisy of a supposed radical leftist who fawns over the Royal Family, and writes kitsch musicals with Andrew Lloyd Webber), said that:

I believe that part of it is due to the genuine fear that the authorities and the communities have about provoking the radical elements of Islam. There is no doubt about it, the BBC will let vicar gags pass but they would not let imam gags pass...I wanted to use the phrase 'Mohammed came to the mountain' and everybody said, 'Oh, just don't! Just don't! Don't go there!' It was nothing to do with Islam, I was merely referring to the old proverb, 'If the mountain won't come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain.' And people just said, 'Let's not!' It's incredible.

Now, I would personally be happy with anything that keeps Ben Elton off the airwaves. I simply don't find the man remotely funny. Indeed, not only do I not find him even vaguely amusing, but I also find him deeply cringeworthy - a kind of real-life David Brent. No doubt his censored joke, whatever it was, was as dreadful as all his other ones.

But in this case, he is absolutely correct. It is abundantly evident that the mainstream media, and not just the BBC, does voluntarily censor itself to avoid offending Muslims, in a manner that it would never feel the need to do with any other religion. One need only consider the fact that, in the whole of the UK, the only newspaper that reprinted the infamous Danish Motoons was the student newspaper at Cardiff University. And when the university's students' union, who publish the newspaper - ironically titled Gair Rhydd (Welsh for "Free Word") - realised what they'd done, they issued a grovelling apology, recalled all the copies, and suspended the editor. Would the same thing have happened had the cartoons been anti-Christian?

This kind of double standard applies not only in the case of direct references to Muslims, or Mohammed. Today also brought the news that a set of books aimed at promoting homosexuality to schoolchildren aged five and upwards have been withdrawn from primary schools in Bristol, after Muslim parents complained en masse. Of course, it is quite reasonable to oppose the left-wing brainwashing of very young children, which was the evident purpose of these books, and complaints were also made by some Christian organisations, such as the Christian Institute. But a comparison of the responses to Christian and Muslim complaints is instructive. Last May, Sunderland University's Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, who is responsible for the production of the books, was scathingly dismissive of Christian concerns, saying that "we knew when we started this that the Christian groups wouldn't like it because they don't like homosexuals. It wasn't surprising." Yet as soon as Muslims complained, the books were swiftly removed, in order to, as Bristol City Council put it, allow schools to "operate safely".

Muslims constantly complain that they are the victims of discrimination, and many on the left are more than happy to give credence to their claims - indeed, Ben Elton's comments have already been recorded as an example of "secular, liberal Islamophobia" at Islamophobia Watch. But the fact is, that, by virtue of a unique combination of whining about how unbelievably oppressed they are, and expressly or impliedly threatening violence against anyone who challenges them (a tactic most recently observed in the actions that led to the temporary removal of Fitna from Liveleak's servers), they have achieved a privileged status in this country, and, indeed, across the entirety of Western Europe. As Ben Elton's comments show, this is something that is recognised by increasing numbers of people, including some on the left. The next challenge, of course, is to actually do something about it...

"The destruction of the BBC"?

We can only hope:

David Cameron was last night accused of paving the way for the destruction of the BBC after he threatened to hand £250million of its money to other broadcasters.

"Its money" = our money.

The Tories plan to force the Corporation to give away part of its licence fee funds to create new competition in public service broadcasting.

The move will break the BBC's "monopoly" over programmes and guarantee more quality output in areas such as children's television, the Tories claim.

"We must ensure there is plurality of provision of quality broadcasting content," says the party's new blueprint for public service broadcasting, to be unveiled tomorrow.

The move will be coupled with a plan to scrap the governing BBC Trust - itself only set up last year - and replace it with a more independent "public service broadcasting commission".

But the plans prompted an angry backlash from the BBC - which claimed it would mark the beginning of the end of the Corporation.

"Once you take away part of the licence fee you break the trust between the BBC and the licence-fee payer," said a senior BBC executive.

"The viewer won't know who on earth their money is going to and will say, 'why on earth should I pay this any more?'

Actually, some of us are already asking that very question. We would be happier to pay the licence fee, if less of it went to fund an institutionally liberal organisation, which pumps out a solid stream of left-wing propaganda, regardless of who the money went to instead. Abolishing the licence fee altogether might well be better still...

The Tories are now proposing to "top-slice" the licence fee income and put some of it into a new fund available to outside bidders - including the Corporation's commercial rivals.

The BBC could bid for a share of the money but "it would probably be preferable for these funds to go to new organisations or new channels where it has been shown there is a gap in the market," says the Conservative document.

Privately, the Tories have earmarked £250million for the fund to come out of money currently being allocated for the switch-over from analogue to digital broadcasting which is due to be completed by 2012.

This proposal is reminiscent of one made by the former BBC reporter Robin Aitken, in his (very readable) book, Can We Trust the BBC?. Aitken suggested that as little as 2% of the BBC's total income could be redirected to funding a rival, more conservative, public service broadcaster. Of course, Aitken's book focuses primarily on the Beeb's left-wing political bias, rather than its monopoly status. But there seems to be little reason why the principal of competition within public service broadcasting should not be extended to cover non-political areas, such as children's programming.

Personally, I would be quite happy to see the Tories (or anyone else) go further, and really destroy the BBC. But, regrettably, there are still a great many people in this country for whom any attack on dear old "Auntie Beeb" would be an act of secular sacrilege akin to bludgeoning the Queen Mother to death. As such, we are unlikely to see the BBC openly attacked by any major politician any time soon. But efforts to remove the BBC's monopoly are always to be welcomed, and, for once, I am actually moderately impressed with David Cameron's suggestion.