Wanna see some more biased narrative...? Would you be interested to see how this craze of pushing diversity always
ends-up eating itself due to it's own internal rage?
If we begin with the rational notion that the BBC webpage below is available across the globe -because that's how the
internet works...! -then we have to accept that everyone who lives in that world also knows what 'Center Parcs' is and
who 'Richard Littlejohn' is.
But I think we can assume that the whole world doesn't know who the journalist with right-wing views is and maybe...
maybe many of the population of this planet are unaware that Center Parcs is a Dutch holiday company that provides
village-like facilities in supposed peaceful settings around Europe.
The gist of the tale is that Richard Littlejohn wrote a piece for The Daily Mail commenting that ideal parents -in his view,
should comprise of a male and a female. In the usual emotion-provoking manner that most medias, mainstream and
alternative adhere to these days, the title of his commentary was: 'Please don't pretend two dads is the new normal'
Littlejohn's response was from an article where two gay men announced they were 'going to have a baby' after they
were married nine-months ago. As you may be aware, males cannot at this time produce an offspring without the need
of a womb. Viable wombs tend to... no I apologise, are scientifically-proven to operate better inside the body of a female.
A narrative could be made by feminists to say how vital a woman is to such a natural institution of humans, but this would
possibly butt-hurt the gay community's requirements to keep their 'we-have-marriage-rights-too' narrative maintained.
Littlejohn does parry any possible alternative views with suggesting that the lack of information regarding the surrogate
female -who is to be the natural mother of the child and only a bit-player in this episode, resides in the USA.
And he is correct. The obvious lack of this type of lateral information in the BBC, British newspapers and social media outlets
suggests either poor journalism or a biased narrative to favour social diversity for whatever means.
But back to Saturday's BBC article.
Due to the outrage from one person alligning his opinion-piece with whatever advertising was residing on the same page,
an tweet was fired towards the Center Parcs company that suggested the entire business was supporting homophobia!
With the holiday group following the current political-correctness, Center Parcs pulled their advertising to staunch any bad
publicity that could be conjoured-up by using words.
In itself, it's just another case of social justice stamping it's feet by taking an opposing view of something they disliked.
But since vultures fare better after prey has been tackled and dispatched, the BBC's 'Diversity-Squad' decided to push
their own virtues and give away their illiberality by omitting pertinent information to a potential reader.
It's either written with an emotion that was strong enough to cause the unknown BBC writer to override his/her ethical
disciplines of full disclosure or it's just another example of languorous journalism that's playing on the 'feel-good' ethos
of the avant-garde.
Or just like the vultures I mentioned earlier, picking-over the corpse of second-hand click-bait.
All-in-all, it could be implied that a reader from another part of the world -or outside of the BBC's diversity department,
wouldn't know that actually, these two men were merely obtaining a child, not 'having' one in the assumed natural way
of a male and female relationship through bonding. Maybe in Wakanda, but not here!
P.S Just out of curiosity, I wonder if the tweeting mother of the outraged son flipped on her decision to
boycott Center Parcs and booked a stay in one of their facilities?!
ends-up eating itself due to it's own internal rage?
If we begin with the rational notion that the BBC webpage below is available across the globe -because that's how the
internet works...! -then we have to accept that everyone who lives in that world also knows what 'Center Parcs' is and
who 'Richard Littlejohn' is.
But I think we can assume that the whole world doesn't know who the journalist with right-wing views is and maybe...
maybe many of the population of this planet are unaware that Center Parcs is a Dutch holiday company that provides
village-like facilities in supposed peaceful settings around Europe.
The gist of the tale is that Richard Littlejohn wrote a piece for The Daily Mail commenting that ideal parents -in his view,
should comprise of a male and a female. In the usual emotion-provoking manner that most medias, mainstream and
alternative adhere to these days, the title of his commentary was: 'Please don't pretend two dads is the new normal'
Littlejohn's response was from an article where two gay men announced they were 'going to have a baby' after they
were married nine-months ago. As you may be aware, males cannot at this time produce an offspring without the need
of a womb. Viable wombs tend to... no I apologise, are scientifically-proven to operate better inside the body of a female.
A narrative could be made by feminists to say how vital a woman is to such a natural institution of humans, but this would
possibly butt-hurt the gay community's requirements to keep their 'we-have-marriage-rights-too' narrative maintained.
Littlejohn does parry any possible alternative views with suggesting that the lack of information regarding the surrogate
female -who is to be the natural mother of the child and only a bit-player in this episode, resides in the USA.
Quote:'...it is still illegal in Britain to pay surrogate mothers other than modest expenses...'The Daily Mail:
And he is correct. The obvious lack of this type of lateral information in the BBC, British newspapers and social media outlets
suggests either poor journalism or a biased narrative to favour social diversity for whatever means.
But back to Saturday's BBC article.
Due to the outrage from one person alligning his opinion-piece with whatever advertising was residing on the same page,
an tweet was fired towards the Center Parcs company that suggested the entire business was supporting homophobia!
With the holiday group following the current political-correctness, Center Parcs pulled their advertising to staunch any bad
publicity that could be conjoured-up by using words.
In itself, it's just another case of social justice stamping it's feet by taking an opposing view of something they disliked.
But since vultures fare better after prey has been tackled and dispatched, the BBC's 'Diversity-Squad' decided to push
their own virtues and give away their illiberality by omitting pertinent information to a potential reader.
It's either written with an emotion that was strong enough to cause the unknown BBC writer to override his/her ethical
disciplines of full disclosure or it's just another example of languorous journalism that's playing on the 'feel-good' ethos
of the avant-garde.
Or just like the vultures I mentioned earlier, picking-over the corpse of second-hand click-bait.
All-in-all, it could be implied that a reader from another part of the world -or outside of the BBC's diversity department,
wouldn't know that actually, these two men were merely obtaining a child, not 'having' one in the assumed natural way
of a male and female relationship through bonding. Maybe in Wakanda, but not here!
Quote:Center Parcs pulls Daily Mail ads over Tom Daley article.The BBC:
'It took the decision after its advert appeared in an online article by columnist Richard Littlejohn that criticised diver
Tom Daley and his husband Dustin Lance Black, who are expecting a child.
Littlejohn claimed children "benefit most from being raised by a man and a woman".
Center Parcs said the placement of the advert was "completely unacceptable".
It was responding to a complaint from a person who tweeted: "My son so wants me to book at your parks, but how can
I do that if you support homophobia?"
Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black.
The holiday resort firm responded to the tweet: "We take where we advertise very seriously and have a number of steps
to prevent our advertising from appearing alongside inappropriate content.
"We felt this placement was completely unacceptable and therefore ceased advertising with the Daily Mail with immediate
effect. "We apologise for any offence this may have caused."
In his article, Littlejohn said he supported civil partnerships, and would prefer a child to be fostered by "loving gay couples"
rather than be "condemned to rot" in state-run institutions.
He added: "That said, and despite the fact that countless single parents do a fantastic job, I still cling to the belief that children
benefit most from being brought up by a man and a woman."
London's Southbank Centre earlier announced it would no longer be advertising in the newspaper because of Littlejohn's article.
The move comes after the pressure group Stop Funding Hate posted a tweet naming the brands who advertised in the paper.
A campaign by the same group in November 2017 led stationery chain Paperchase to stop running promotions in the Daily Mail,
as did Lego in 2016.
Virgin Trains also announced it would stop selling the Daily Mail on its West Coast services.
However, it reversed the decision days later.
Virgin Group boss Sir Richard Branson said he instructed the firm to restock the paper while a review takes place.
In response, the Daily Mail said it welcomed the "support for freedom of speech"...'
P.S Just out of curiosity, I wonder if the tweeting mother of the outraged son flipped on her decision to
boycott Center Parcs and booked a stay in one of their facilities?!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.