CAN we expect to see the BBC prosecuted for racism? Of course not – because their very palpable, institutionalised racism involves only whites.

Jon Holmes, a comedian on Radio Four’s The Now Show for eighteen years has been sacked, not because he’s gone on too long or is not judged to be funny enough but solely because he is white.

He asked: “Should I as a white man, through no fault of my own, be fired just because I am a white man?”

His bosses answered that Jon’s sacking was an act of “positive discrimination” because the BBC needs to employ more from ethnic minorities and more women.

Jon’s is not the only such case.

A woman presenter was given a job but later her appointment was cancelled, “because you’re too white and middle class.”

Another was told: “You’re perfect for the role but we’ve been instructed to cast an Asian.”

What’s “positive” about “positive discrimination”? Why should it be deemed racist to prefer to cast a white man but commendable to cast a black man?

There is no fairness or justice about it.

These decisions are made on the basis of political-correctness – which is nothing but social engineering and naked ideological prejudice.

As Orwell’s Stalinist pig in Animal Farm said: “Four legs, good; two legs, bad.”

So, with the BBC, it’s black/Asian, good; white/British, bad.

And for good measure, male bad; female good – unless the female is middle class, of course, which is also bad. And this is the same BBC which loudly and constantly condemns all racism and sexism.

In fact, while it pretends to be operating with nothing but open-handed fairness to all, it really conducts all its affairs on the basis of an unpleasant political agenda.

I listened last week to Feedback – the show in which listeners get their chance to say what they think about particular programmes.

Someone asked why the BBC does not refer to British soldiers on active service as “our boys”.

The Beeb’s spokesman explained that this was because the Corporation is scrupulous in sticking to its principle of “independence”.

He went on to say that this was why the BBC had rejected calls to refer to British troops fighting in the Falklands as “our boys.”

Why not? The BBC once referred to British troops fighting the Nazis as “our boys”. What else are they except “our boys”?

The irony is that the Beeb is called the British Broadcasting Corporation. As such, it is an institution within this realm of Britain, living in the polity of British laws and enjoying the protection of the British Armed Forces.

But if you’re looking for something so funny you don’t know whether to laugh or cry, you have to hear what that BBC spokesman said next.

He admitted that the BBC does have a bias, but he considered this to be a legitimate bias “in favour of liberal democracy”.

Fair enough, but pray tell me, exactly what sort of liberal democracy was being operated by the Argentinian military dictatorship against which “our boys” had been ordered to fight?

Every time the BBC attempts to defend its motives, it refers to itself as “principled and independent”.

It seizes the high moral ground.

And every time it’s not the Corporation as an example of superior righteousness: it’s sheer hypocrisy.

For this, they must become answerable to the British licence-payers.