That famous balance.

The fantasy of objectivity that the BBC cherishes is exposed again and again as a farce. The Rottweiler Puppy gives notes and comments on an example of where the BBC reports an issue so obviously part of a liberal agenda that it barely needs saying (about on a par, on the opposite coast so to speak, with the wilder shores of Nick Griffin’s mind), yet gives an illusion of objectivity by at least offering a glimpse of the immensely cogent case against this agenda of liberals and charlatans.

Who on earth could make a serious argument that it was sensible to give criminals the vote (Come on. I’m waiting.)? I mean, without wishing to digress from talking about BBC bias, picture the slogans used electioneering the prisons: ‘vote for me, I’ll release you’, or (if you’re a ‘conservative’): ‘vote for me, and a free DVD player to every prisoner’s room will follow’ (please do add some more in any comments offered; could be fun!). I understand from the Beeb’s spouting of the ‘reformers’ ‘arguments’ that the changes of law they want would bring us into line with seven other unnamed European countries, which leaves quite a lot more unmentioned ones (unmentioned by the Beeb, that is) who don’t let crims vote

So, given this senselessnes, why the need to be giving these moonbats (admittedly moonbats with an establishment history and more than a cat in hell’s chance of changing the oh so old and fusty law) the airtime (which of course increases the chances of getting the desired bandwagon a’ changin’ things) and covering the shameful farce of it with a figleaf called Anne Widdecombe? (Via House of Dumb). I wonder what proportion of the chums who want to water down the porridge are (/were, in the context of the rubber stamp of the Beeb’s charter) also supporters of the television tax which keeps the BBC afloat?