Why Ed Stourton had to go

I wasn't surprised at all to hear that Ed Stourton had been sacked from the Today programme on BBC Radio 4. Ed is from the old school of news presenters, those who just delivered the news as it should be delivered, and without putting any spin on it.

Nowadays, news presenters have to tell the public what to think about the news they are informing them of. They have no intention of letting the listeners make up their own mind. The appalling James Naughtie, from the same Today programme, is a specialist at this. When he is presenting an item, he makes sure that his, and his editors', slant on the story is incorporated into the way it is presented. When it's a report about Africa, immigration into Britain, asylum seekers or migrant workers, you can hear his voice wavering as he struggles to get the words out. You can imagine him dabbing his eyes with his hankie in the studio as he shoulders the burden himself of the injustices put upon these unfortunate people, and he and his BBC editors are hoping that the listeners are doing the same, and will end up carrying that burden of guilt too.

And talking about Africa there was an interesting report from the Central African Republic in this morning's Today programme. It was interesting because of the BBC's choice of 'voice-over' translators for the African women interviewed in one tribal village. Now at a time when the BBC has more and more reporters and presenters from the ethnic minorities I find it bizarre that the "voice-overs" of African women should be delivered by those who appear to be 'highly articulate English roses', and not just one, but three different ones. Surely this would have been the ideal opportunity to use an ethnic minority, particularly an African, voice so it's strange that the BBC didn't do so. I know why this was deliberately done . . . and I expect you do too.

Enough ranting about the BBC, it only puts me in a bad mood for the Monday morning of what will be a very busy week, and that mood wasn't helped yesterday after I had a frank exchange of views with one of our members (shouldn't have answered the office phone on a Sunday). He wanted to tell me about some already well publicised anti-White racist attacks and demanded that a report about it must go into Freedom. I tried to explain to him that Freedom concentrates on more positive 'news', such as the growth of the BNP, but I'm afraid he wouldn't have that and said that this wasn't news. The call finished somewhat abruptly and I don't think I fully convinced him of my viewpoint which is disappointing.

Freedom is a newspaper, make no mistake about that, but it is a newspaper like no other because it carries positive stories about the British National Party. That's what makes it unique and that's why the public will be interested in what it has to say. Of course I could fill the paper with horror stories of the multi-racial nightmare that has been inflicted upon our country by corrupt politicians, but that would just make the reader even more depressed. The good news stories in Freedom give our people hope and that is the main purpose of the newspaper.

The production of Freedom has to be to the fore now if I want some time off over Christmas, so I'm clearing the decks to concentrate on it. Make sure you keep up-to-date with a fascinating Cumbria County Council by-election taking place in Whitehaven on Thursday, by visiting Clive Jefferson's blog here.