Gaslighting and the Tale of the "BBC Presenter"
So the world finally knows the name of the BBC Presenter suspended after allegations about his private life were published last Friday, July 7th, by The Sun newspaper.
Having been put into the public domain by his wife, Vicky Flind, the name Huw Edwards can now be uttered by our peerlessly fearless ‘free Press’, without the threat of litigation - thus bringing to an end a farcical few days when most of the UK public, and the entirety of the ‘elite’, knew who was involved but had to pretend they didn’t.
In the hours since Flind’s statement, the fake “be kind” brigade have circled the wagons ever more closely, imploring us all to respect the privacy of Edwards and his family, while he recovers from what we are told is some kind of mental health breakdown. In short, we are being told to “Move on, because there is and never was anything really to see here. We all have our vulnerabilities and we are all entitled to a private life.”
Is anyone likely to be fooled by this latest example of blatant gaslighting by the Woke elitist subversives who have infiltrated every aspect of life in the UK? Sadly, many of the “useful idiots” are indeed very likely to swallow the outrageous gibberish emanating from the mouths of Jon Sopel and many others.
There are a number of salient points to consider here, as follows.
The BBC is not a ‘normal’ commercial employer.
The BBC is funded almost exclusively by the license fee - apart from some commercial income from subsidiaries, and highly questionable ‘grants’ from the likes of Bill Gates.
The association between UK license payers and the BBC is not that of a normal supplier-customer relationship. Listeners and viewers cannot unsubscribe from the BBC if they have no interest in what the BBC offers. They are effectively just as much shareholders as customers, so their legitimate right to know about, and to criticise, the behaviour of the BBC and it’s “star talent” is not simply a question of public interest - it is one of captive customer / shareholder interest.
In 2023 the BBC is more of an activist party than a News or entertainment organisation.
Over the last ten or twenty years, the British mainstream media, led by the BBC, has increasingly engaged in activist propaganda rather than impartial news reporting. This has been encouraged by 24-hour ‘news’ channels, where any distinction between social commentary and genuine news has all but disappeared, and has accelerated dramatically throughout the Covid years.
On Brexit, Climate, Covid, immigration, “trans rights”, BLM and many other topics, the BBC pushes a partisan, globalist ‘Woke’ agenda. They are at the front line of the ‘Culture War’ which has, until very recently, been fought exclusively by one side - the Woke social justice and eco warriors - against ordinary British people.
On the topic of climate change, for example, the BBC falsely claim a total consensus of “settled science” among “experts”. The domestic terrorists of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil are sympathetically referred to as ‘protestors’ by their BBC friends.
The role of the BBC in influencing UK and global public opinion about Donald Trump - by insinuating Russian influence in Trump’s victory in 2016 and then in frequently (but subliminally) questioning Trump’s integrity in the run-up to the 2020 election - has gone largely unremarked by most commentators ever since.
More recently, a BBC reporter weighed into the issue of Nigel Farage’s “de-banking” with an outrageously biased interpretation of events on Twitter.
The “Trusted News Initiative”, and the role of “BBC Verify” are transparently globalist, left-wing mechanisms for the BBC to further indoctrinate via complete control of the narrative.
I could go on - but the evidence for the BBC’s globalist ‘Woke’ bias is overwhelming.
The personnel cannot be separated from the agenda.
High profile BBC personnel, including Huw Edwards, are knowingly and enthusiastically signed up to the BBC’s agenda when it comes to Woke activism and narrative setting - it is they, after all, who actually feed the never-ending stream of disingenuous guff to a gullible captive audience.
I have previously discussed the BBC’s outrageous Climate activism, based entirely on the subversive behaviour of individual employees - namely Justin Rowlatt (Climate Editor) and Danielle Mulder (Group Sustainability Director) - in league with mostly non-British agitators.
Contrast too the use of the terms far right and far left on Twitter by Marianna Spring (Disinformation & Social Media Correspondent) - and tell yourself that Spring is not 100% engaged in a culture war in pursuit of an ideological neo-Marxist agenda.
If you work in a front-line role for the BBC, you are part and parcel of the constant opinion-shaping (aka indoctrination) of the British public.
The BBC, and their apologists, brazenly deny the obvious truth of the above. In raising the ‘duty of care’ which the BBC allegedly owes to Edwards, its highest paid news anchor by some distance, they deliberately deflect - as the disingenuous left always does - from the real issue.
Hugh Edwards has been an integral part of the BBC propaganda machine for many years. The license payers have a right to know the truth around his motivations - potentially a gay or bi-sexual man who has remained in the closet his whole career, reportedly fighting mental health demons throughout.
If Edwards was genuinely a “straightforward, impartial News Anchor”, on a modest salary, his personal life should indeed be off-limits in terms of the public’s right to know. But that is not what he is; he is a front man for the activist political narrative of the BBC and, as such, his personal views and lifestyle are of legitimate public interest.
Many proven sexual predators of recent years and decades have groomed youngsters, abused power and money in relationships, and betrayed the confidence of trusting audiences - aided and abetted by conspiracies of silence in organisations like the BBC and, for example, the Hollywood film industry. Edwards may or may not be one of them but, given the allegations made by The Sun, it is perfectly legitimate for the public to seek assurances either way.
People are entitled to make their own judgments about people in the public domain - especially those whose salaries they are mandated to pay - irrespective of whether or not criminal acts have been alleged or proven. Do not let them tell you otherwise.
Resist this outrageous gaslighting.