The New 'Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name'...

...and believe it or not, it's 'Pride'. The BBC, it's the unique way it's funded, clearly!

The 'dear old Beeb' is seemingly determined to lose its reputation for impartiality as it surges ever forward into pushing the woke agenda:

A BBC spokesman said: 'It appears that the photograph used as part of this graphic has been altered, which, although there is no intention to mislead, should not have happened and is not acceptable BBC practice. We will be reminding our staff of this.'

If there was no intention to mislead, why was it altered? And why would you need to remind staff? 

H/T: @RiPNutmeg via Twitter

I'm Not Very Good At Sums...

...but even I can spot that these things never add up:

Children need nourishing school dinners more than ever before, as many families struggle with the cost of living, a leading expert has warned. BBC News has been speaking to families and schools as they try to tackle the problem.

The Raza family​...

*rolls eyes* 

... - dad Ali, mum Simran and their eight-year-old daughter, Alishah - live in one of Bradford's back-to-back, two-up-two-down terraced houses. The heating is off upstairs to help manage rising bills and Ali tells me: "We're just managing, and not very well."

So, what do you do for a living, Ali? 

Ali is a self-employed wholesaler. He mainly buys fruit and vegetables in bulk before selling them on - but there is a limit to what small local shops are prepared to pay, so as costs rise his profits decrease.

And have you considered that if this Del Boy of the Cabbages lifestyle won't support your family, you could maybe get a better paying job? 

It means they can only afford to buy school lunch for Alishah once, or sometimes twice, a week. Each meal at her school, Dixons Marchbank Primary, costs £2.10.

Weekly child benefit is £21.80 per week. Where's the rest going? 

As Simran prepares pasta and a salad for Alishah's evening meal, she says she wishes they could afford more frequent school lunches, as sometimes Alishah does not eat her packed lunch of cold leftovers.

She's not hungry then, is she? 

You Know What To Do Next Time...

Ashitha Nagesh has taken to Twitter to talk about how the accident caused a broken humerus (upper arm), which left her needing surgery.

Initially, a passer-by called 999, but left the reference number with the cyclist who hit Ashitha.

After the passer-by left the scene in Walthamstow, Ashitha was told to get in an Uber by the cyclist and went away to hospital without getting the cyclist's full details as she "wasn't thinking straight" and "wanted to get to A&E" as soon as possible.

Nobody called an ambulance because, well, they don't turn up any more... 

Ashitha is now appealing to the public for help after the Met Police has allegedly told her that they won't investigate the incident as "no one called the police at the scene".

However, they have apparently told Ashitha they will investigate if they get enough information about the cyclist from her.

At this stage, I'm only surprised A&E didn't ask her to splint her own broken arm. Does any emergency service do their job any more? 

The BBC News correspondent wrote on Twitter: "So this is a plea, on the off-chance anyone on here saw what happened or knows the guy who hit me last Thursday (Markhouse Road, E17, about 10.20), or saw him in the Co-op there, to please DM me!

"I asked the cyclists for their details and unfortunately all they told me was that their names were Joe and Sam. Don’t know if these are their real names but both are blonde, and the guy who hit me had a short beard. He also smelled [very] strongly of alcohol."

See, if you're a news correspondent, you should be well aware that to get the police on the case, what you should have done was claim the cyclist sexually abused you. Or racially abused you. Or if you wanted black marias and helicopters, misgendered you! 

"You Stand Accused Of Heresy. How Do You Plead?"

'Guilty'.

The BBC has removed an educational page laying out the “benefits” of climate change after a furious online reaction.

BBC Bitesize, its website for schoolchildren, claimed warmer temperatures “could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles” and that a benefit of climate change could mean easier access to oil in Alaska and Siberia.

And...isn't that a possibility? Should we ignore it. 

Other apparent benefits highlighted by the BBC included the ability to one day grow more crops in Siberia, new shipping routes created by melting ice, and more tourist destinations.

Also true. But we can't, apparently, handle the truth. Says who? 

After a backlash from climate experts and campaigners, including the Guardian writer George Monbiot, the page, aimed at year 10 students, was amended to only include the negative impacts of climate change.

Ah. The usual suspects. 

The exam board Eduqas said the information was not taken from its curriculum, adding: “Within our GCSE geography specifications, we examine the consequences of climate change and its respective impact on our planet.

“As part of our courses, we also ask students to explore opposing attitudes to climate change. However, we do not advocate a positive viewpoint on this topic.”

What are you doing advocating any viewpoint? Why not just lay out the facts and let people think for themselves? 

Scotland’s exam board recently came under fire from the Scottish Green party for teaching the “positives” of climate change.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority geography course gave benefits of climate change such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”.

The political party said it was “deeply inappropriate” for the SQA to specify the pros and cons should be given equal consideration.

Clearly, across the border, they are made of sterner stuff: 

The SQA responded: “Analysing and evaluating a variety of views is essential to critical thinking.”

Which we must discourage, lest people indulge in wrongthink.