BBC Views Online often seems to report unexplained phenomena – for instance, from the last few days, off the top of my head, we have:
- Inquiry as stolen car kills woman – I presume the car stole itself and ran the woman over, rather than a car thief (or suspected car thief even) being responsible;
- A 15-year-old boy is being prosecuted in connection with the case of a girl who fell pregnant at the age of 11 – did he trip her up then? Girls obviously need to be careful in case they fall over and get up pregnant;
- A woman was killed and several people were injured when a stolen bus went on a five-mile rampage through Dublin – naughty, naughty bus – don’t do that again.
I’m sure readers of Biased BBC can spot many more unexplained phenomena reported by the BBC. Let us know in the comments – and mind how you go – it’s a strange world out there!
John Reith:
You still haven’t answered my questions. Further to my post of 12.37pm on Thursday May 11th I repeat:
QUESTION ONE:
Do you defend the BBC’s failure over the last nine years to report the existence and conclusions of our investigation into the “cash for questions” affair (as outlined on my website http://www.guardianlies.com )? If so, on what grounds, given the enormity of the issues at stake?
QUESTION TWO:
Do you support the BBC director-general Mark Thompson’s decision not to instigate an evaluation of our research to determine the validity of our claims and allegations? If so, on what grounds, given the enormity of the issues at stake?
Jonathan Boyd Hunt,
John Reith cannot be rushed. It’s been at least a month since he promised faithfully to promptly provide a list of the BBC’s allegedly frequent allusions to Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel.
By the time he furnishes us with this list, it’s sure to be a polished gem of perfection.
May I suggest that you stop banging your head against this particular brick wall?
Let the people speak…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4750000/newsid_4754900/4754987.stm
“But every week we are presented with various programmes on all channels, where the same old interviewers invite the same old MPs and journalists to give their view on this or that subject.
Sunday AM with Andrew Marr is one of the worst offenders. It’s like a cosy coffee morning, with all his chums giggling together on the sofa.”
Socialist chums I’d say….
Nah, the BBC will never ‘let the people speak’. They wouldn’t like it. The average opinion of the ‘man in the street’ would be far to right wing for the BBC to stomach.
As can be seen by the Readers Recommend comments on (Don’t) Have your say these days…
Boy those beeboids must hate that feature – bet they drop it or nobble it after a decent interval…
Bryan:
I’m not banging my head against a brick wall. Neither was Jeremy Paxman banging his head against a brick wall in 1997 when he asked the then Home Secretary Michael Howard 14 times whether he had threatened to overrule the head of the prison service, Derek Lewis, over the sacking of a prison governor.
Howard’s failure to answer a simple question went down in TV history. So will the Beeb’s failure to answer mine.
The failure of John Reith and his team of BBC backroom boys to answer my questions demonstrates that they’re unanswerable.
The BBC’s refusal to even assess the merits of our investigation – think about that – will in time be the device by which good people will be able to expose the BBC for what it is: corrupt from top to bottom.
The fact is, the BBC’s staff – from the troops on the ground all the way up to the DG himself – have refused requests by an RTS-shortlisted journalist, no less, to assess evidence that the last Conservative administration was ousted from power with the help of a bogus political scandal that The Guardian invented for that purpose.
Why should I let the bastards off the hook now, when I’ve got them just where I want them?
The BBC has two choices. Either:
a) the BBC undertakes an assessment of our research proving that The Guardian perverted the course of Sir Gordon Downey’s official inquiry into the “Hamilton cash for questions” affair (witnessed, perhaps, by some independent person nominated by BBC Bias Blogspot). Our research is so unarguable, to safeguard its own reputation the BBC will have no choice but to broadcast the hard evidence of The Guardian’s lies and forgeries that make up its conspiracy,
or else
b) The BBC does nothing and continues to condemn itself along with its criminally corrupt mentor The Guardian.
To walk away now Bryan would be to play into the BBC’s hands and reward them for nine years’ political censorship.
As long as the adjudicators and contributors to this site allow it I will keep asking those two questions until I get an answer. And if I don’t get an answer – well, that merely proves what this site was set up to prove.
For the last nine years – ever since the BBC first censored our report in October 1997 – I’ve been spooling out the rope to the BBC and now I’m going to let them hang themselves with it.
I have the Beeb painted right into a corner and I bloody well like it.
This is rather interesting, from Stuart Hughes’, a BBC producer’s blog:
http://stuarthughes.blogspot.com/2006/05/bbc-has-updated-its-guidelines.html
The BBC has updated its guidelines concerning off-air activities undertaken by editorial staff.
The document “provides additional guidance for those working in news and current affairs areas where the BBC’s reputation for impartiality is crucial and where there are particular sensitivities about off-air activities.”
If you ever find yourself wondering why I don’t blog about certain issues the answer may lie here or here.
Do check out the Word .docs he links to.
I wonder if it applies to the likes of John Reith and his many aliases who comment here…
JBH,
No offence mate but I think your ego is running away with you. The last Conservative government were turfed out of office because they were crap, not because of anything Hamilton may or may not have got up to.
If I can manage to wade through aggrandising I might give your site a read though.
Just for those who don’t scroll down far enough, I’ve added a small update to my post from a couple of days ago.
JBH, stop pluggin your bloody book on this website. You take over every bloody thread with this old story that no-one cares about any more.
Tom
They may or may not care. However matter it most certainly does. If the media could be proved to be corrupt in the way described in the book, it would explain the whole problem better than any one issue. The last Tory goverment was not crap, in fact it makes this one look like…..Pol pots in comparison.
It might explain why DC appears to be acting like a innocent school boy in order to stand a chance of getting elected. Also why the media continues to be desperate to avert a Tory government at all costs, including its national and international reputations. It is easy to believe everything is just OK when the media continualy tells you so. It is to an extent self fullfilling as it gives people the confidence to keep spending and borrowing. However remember the German people thought that Hitler was performing an ECONOMIC MIRICAL for years. Only years latter on was it found to be all based on a terrible murderous lie.
You could say that Adolfs lies that the Poles attacked Germany first,does not matter. Or that the JEWS were rats that had it coming to them. But it mattered to the 14 million people that died in that war, all the same. Like this governments and its medias lies will matter to you one day as well.
If this story of the Hamiltons has any truth in it at all, and I have good reason to think that it is all true. Ask yourselves why no Tory Politician will talk about it? If it is the reason I think it is, which is they are shit scared of upseting the leftist media headed by the BBC. Then it is not a threat to your democracy. Because democracy in Britain already DOES NOT EXSIST.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt | Homepage | 12.05.06 – 5:34 pm
“Neither was Jeremy Paxman banging his head against a brick wall in 1997 when he asked the then Home Secretary Michael Howard 14 times whether he had threatened to overrule the head of the prison service, Derek Lewis, over the sacking of a prison governor.”
We now know what really happened in this “historic” interview.
Altough the great interrogator asked the same question 14 times Michael Howard never wavered in his answer. Defeat 1 for paxo.
In the course of the interview the editor told paxo that some vt was delayed and could he extend the interview. The great interrogator couldn’t think of any other questions. Defeat 2 for paxo.
Of course, in their sycophantic way awards committees gave him prizes but paxo knows he humiliated himself. In my opinion this was why he put on the embarassing hectoring report in the General Election campaign, where he showed himself to be a coward like all bullies.
Cockney
Could you please explain what was crap about the John Magor government that you think is so much better under Tony Blair, and New Labour. In any respect whatsoever, because I cant think of one. Other than I dont have to listen to the BBC implying how evil Tories are anymore. Put up with Trade unions and other Trotskist and communist organisations organising undemocratic violent protests. Also the Labour party and its media lieing all day and all night blaiming the Tory government for everything bad, including the crap English cricket team.
BBC says
Call register
New US surveillance allegation could spell trouble for Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/default.stm
The BBC article sees rumblings from Congress, but only has this to say about the people
The broader question, though, is how Americans generally will react to the idea of Uncle Sam spying on their phone records and whether they are willing to sacrifice a degree of privacy in the name of security.
Well, no doubt disappointingly for the BBC (& probably ABC who polled the data) –
Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.
Lending support to the administration’s defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1953464
MI5 has been doing this for years in this country (and still can’t do their job properly), with not a whisker of protest from the Beeb. I wonder why?
Perhaps Britain is (gasp!) less free than America.
There is actually a debate about this in America, meanwhile in Britain the media tells us that the Muslim terrorists, the Home Office and MI5 are blameless for 7/7, and it’s actually all the chimp’s fault.
Jonathan Boyd Hunt,
Relax, man. The particular brick wall I was talking about was limited to John Reith’s ignoring of important issues that he simply doesn’t want to deal with.
I wouldn’t have the cheek to suggest that you drop an issue you regard as vital, and which you’ve evidently spent a good deal of time and energy pursuing.
Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.
OT: does B-BBC realise that blogger.com (where this site is hosted) offer a comments system. The current one we are using is hosted by Haloscan.com
this allows you to view the comments underneath the topic posting ,which isnt the case now:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2006/05/time-for-new-open-thread-to-improve.html
will
The BBC is missing the real story, as usual. People have been leaking from inside the CIA, and the White House is now fighting back. The issue is becoming – do you want security and protection – or do you want the US liberal media to reveal all sorts of secrets about phone surveillance between known Al Qaeda contacts and people inaide the US.
This will run through to the November elections for the House and Senate – and it will not be Bush who is on the back foot, it will be the Dems and their allies in the press, for looking soft on terrorism.
A re-run of the 2004 election. Yes, Bush’s ratings are down. But so are the ratings for both sides in Congress. Of course if you simply follow the BBC you will never know the true issues in the US, the true state of play in the polls, the truth about the booming economy.
The BBC got it completely wrong in 2004, shilling for Kerry and misjudging the polls. They look well able to get it all wrong in 2006. Because they view everything through a Democrat/liberal prism, they don’t pay attention to what is happening on the other side or at the grassroots.
This was on the PM news tonight, apropos the report on the 7/7 bombings.
Newsreader was Caroline someone.
“… the process of radicalisation of our young, err, people.”
So we now know that the bombers were radicalised young, err, people. At least they were not all plumbers.
Last week’s gem was on Friday morning – Today prog – and a lady newsreader was describing the BNP results and introducing Nick Griffin, BNP leader. She sounded like she was sucking a lemon. It was like someone had asked her some really taboo personal question – like what kind of tampons she uses and how many.
Griffo himself did not come over too well. He sounded very surprised at the BNP results and equally surprised at being interviewed on the BBC.
This is what I cannot understand about the BBC – why not just let these nutters appear, and make fools of themselves ? Why do they need to “shield” us from these odd views ?
OT, but i just had to point this out to fellow B-BBCers
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/05/police-charge-new-labour-minister-over.html
a labour minister. operation ore.
hasnt made it into the media – yet.
Gary Powell, I can answer this one. There are several kinds of crap. This government is crap because it’s made up from the most authoritarian, overbearing, nannying, lakcsidasical, corrupt, power-mad, obsessive set of ninnies this side of world war 2. The Major government was just khack-handed, crippled at the top by an ineffective and duplicitous leader, and crippled from beneath by a minority parliament and demoralised membership.
Truly there’s no comparison between then and now in terms of sheer stink, but the Major government was certainly crap compared to its predecessors. With the possible exception of Heath…
why was Major “crap”?
by 1997 the economy was starting to boom, and Ken Clarke was doing a reasonable job as chancellor.
the reason Major was topplied wasnt the economy – it was “sleaze” – or rather the “sleaze” campaign orchestrated by Alistair Campbell.
Major was weak. He should have been much more ruthless in firing people. He should have threatened a General Election instead of resigning the leadership. He should have fired Lamont after Black Wednesday.
The fact is he did not prune the roses and they reverted to briar
Cockney and Tom:
I’m glad I’m getting under your skin. Your BBC friends must be getting pretty pissed off too and I’m lovin’ it.
But where’s your old mate John Reith when you need him? As he doesn’t seem willing to answer two simple questions, perhaps you can on his behalf:
Question:
Do you defend the BBC’s failure over the last nine years to report the existence and conclusions of our investigation into the “cash for questions” affair (as outlined on my website http://www.guardianlies.com )? If so, on what grounds, given the enormity of the issues at stake?
QUESTION TWO:
Do you support the BBC director-general Mark Thompson’s decision not to instigate an evaluation of our research to determine the validity of our claims and allegations? If so, on what grounds, given the enormity of the issues at stake?
Bryan:
I’m grateful to you for your clarification and I apologise for misreading you. You obviously have the capacity to imagine what it might be like to be in my position.
Gary Powell:
Thanks for your support.
Gordon-Bennett:
I stand corrected on the Howard – Paxman interview. You’re quite right in your analysis. Thanks for your previous support.
Everyone else who supports BBC Bias Blogspot:
I hope that you’re enjoying the spectacle of seeing the BBC manoeuvred into a corner with no prospect of escape.
JBH – if the BBC are in a corner they show little sign of being trapped….or caring.
Can we move on now?
yet more coverage of the U.S. Marines in combat in Ramadi, Iraq on CBS News tonight (its on sky)
this time , they walk into an ambush, one marine gets shot in the leg. Machine guns pop, firefight, camera crew caught up in it.
now this is the second time this week that CBS has broadcast “from the frontline”.
why arent we seeing this on the BBC? why arent we seeing what the British troops are up to, regularly?
Dave t:
“Moving on” from the best chance of proving the BBC’s inherent corruption would merely play into the Beeb’s hands.
The fact that the BBC shows little sign of being trapped or caring doesn’t mean that the BBC aren’t having real problems behind the scenes discussing just how they will explain their nine years’ censorship when this story eventually explodes into the MainStreamMedia, possibly via some press conference in the States where the incestuous “Westminster village” doesn’t extend.
My recent friendly links with the U.S. organisation Accuracy in Media can’t be helping the Beeboids either. They know I’m not going away and unless they’re all totally brain dead they must be considering the possibility that one day I’ll succeed in forcing this story of Guardian corruption and BBC censorship out into the open.
Nevertheless I think I’ve said enough for the time being and I’ve decided to withdraw from these pages for a while.
To the adjudicators of this site I am thankful to you for the platform you’ve afforded me.
To those contributors who have taken an interest in our work I am also very grateful to you.
May I humbly suggest that whenever John Reith pops up on this blog while I’m away, the one sure way to spike his guns would be to ask him the two killer questions above that I’ve asked him several times now.
jbh -> you focus on hamilton.
but there’s al fayed – who’s also linked to Jonathan Aitken.
al fayed is also linked to Iran-Contra via Adnan Khashoggi – he’s married to his sister, and he worked for Khashnoggi as well. And then on TOP of all that, there’s Princess Di.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Fayed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Khashoggi
given that sort of murkiness – its probably no wonder that no major media outlet wants to touch it with a bargepole.
and even more on top of that – Aitken had a daughter with Khashoggi’s ex-wife.
god only knows where the Hamilton story would lead to. i think you’re scratching the surface on this one. best of luck.
and watch yourself mate.
JBH:
If you want to fade down the fraud story for a while that’s up to you but I’m sure you can help this blog out on many issues if you have the time so to do.
Even if you dont want to contribute I hope that you will continue to read the blog.
jbh-> get your website sorted out. it took me ages to get to the real meat
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/page2.html
to get to that you have to go to:
http://www.guardianlies.com/
then
http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html
then..oooh where… hmm i’ll try those red arrow links…
section 1 maybe. errr no.
ok , section 2
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/indexa.html
i end up here
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/index.html
oh ok.. where do i go.. ah yes – the first red arrow on the left.
i end up here:
http://www.guardianlies.com/Section%202/page2.html
the meat.
bit of an effort dont you think?
Thanks Archduke.
Don’t worry about me. I’ve already made quite sure that if I ever should have an intimely demise a whole shitload of stuff will be made available to the many friends I’ve made over the last decade.
If anyone wants to correspond they can write to me at:
Flat 3,
82 Seymour Grove
Firswood
Manchester M16 0LW
Telephone:
0161 872 7871
or
07973 676 355
e-mail address:
jon@viewpoint.demon.co.uk
good example here of why JBH is considered “mad” by certain Guardian journalists.
http://www.guardianlies.com/TBOADS/page11.html
there are no links whatsoever to any corroborating evidence. if he has the evidence, scan it and hyperlink to the scanned image of the document.
if he has PDFs, or websites to back up the claims, hyperlink to them
as it stands – we just have to take his word for it. in the modern world of blogs, cross-linking and fact checking, that just isnt good enough.
sorry JBH.
you need to seriously change your site, and bump it up with 3rd party evidence. otherwise, i think i’ll discount it for now, interesting though it is.
JBH -> please dont take my words as saying that i think you are wrong , per se – i just want to see evidence. in fact , everyone wants to see evidence. scans, newspaper clippings, links to websites, PDF documents.
its just not enough to present plain text nowadays – interesting as it is. thats old style journalism.
the web requires a lot more – that is the nature of the medium. otherwise you’ll just get categorised into the UFO, tinfoil hat , conspiracy theory brigade. they all do that – reams and reams of diatribes, comment and articles – and bugger all to back it up.
Ooops
BBC falls for ‘expert’ cabbie’s banter
The driver was interviewed on TV after being mistaken for a specialist on music downloading
IT WAS not until midway through the live television interview that the BBC interviewer started to grow suspicious. The man whom she believed to be an expert on internet music downloads seemed to know precious little about his subject.
It later emerged that the driver had been waiting for a client at the BBC Television Centre in West London, when a studio manager mistook him for the expert.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2178097,00.html
JBH -> you need to also condense your arguments and evidence on the website. people have short attention spaces – condense it right down to the basics. provide evidence to back it up.
think of your site as a court of law – we, the audience, are the judge.
if i walked into a court of law, and said “archduke has bribed Tony Blair” , the first thing the Judge will say is – “wheres the evidence”?
that evidence is documents, video, audio, whatever. think of it that way – you have a site, and you have to make your case within 30 seconds of somebody visiting it. otherwise,folks just browse onto another site.
get the real meat of your evidence out. condense what you have – spin doctor it. make it digestible to somebody who just stumbles across your site.
then you’ll get somewhere.
will -> so , if i lose my job, i just turn up at the BBC?
handy tip. thanks.
Pass the buck -> the lack of coverage of British troops in action in Iraq reminds me of the USSR. The average Russian didnt have a clue what was going on in Afghanistan.
then on CBS , i see regular reports from the U.S Marines the past few nights.
i think we already have Soviet style media in the UK , without even realising it.
“Blair lied about the 45 minute warning regarding Saddam Husseins WMD and his Cabinet remained silent. Therefore, by English Law they are complicitous in the lie and equally guilty.”
he didnt lie – he told an “untruth” based on the “available intelligence”, which he cant reveal because its locked up for the next 50 odd years.
crazy shite. he would have been better off just telling the truth.
Gordon-Bennett:
Thanks for your best wishes.
Archduke:
You’re absolutely right, that is, about the seeming initial difficult navigability of my website.
Had I constructed http://www.guardianlies.com today about the issues of today I would have done so in the style of The Daily Ablution, with every contention supported by hyperlinked identifiable fact.
However I constructed my site back in 2000 – when blogs were rare – and it refers back to events of the 1980s and 1990s when nothing appeared on the web.
Had I continued refining my site to bring it up to date I simply wouldn’t have had the time to continue my research into the Guardian’s conspiracy – and the stuff I’ve amassed since the publication of my book “Trial by Conspiracy” is so strong I’m confident that the Metropolitan Police will not now be able to resist prosecuting a complaint of criminal conspiracy against Mohamed Fayed and The Guardian.
As you might imagine, doing all this on my own has been something of a bit of a burden. Given the issues at stake, and Fayed’s documented vengefulness and billions, it has also reminded me of my own vulnerability.
Hence my decision to bring my work to a wider audience via outlets such as Biased BBC Blogspot. So if I should disappear for an inordinate length of time I hope someone will start asking questions.
pass the buck -> i was using House of Parliament-speak. i was being sarcastic.
compared to the Aitken, Archer, Hamilton stuff , it is amazing what they get away with.
“JBH -> you need to also condense your arguments and evidence on the website. people have short attention spaces – condense it right down to the basics. provide evidence to back it up.”
I agree. I was initially intrigued with this, although it has to be said that Neil Hamilton is not the most effective spiritual head of a crusade. If Alan Clark or somebody with an ounce of charm had been similarly wronged it might be easier for me to care, but I do not care for Neil Hamilton. Is he aware of Guardianlies.com? I imagine he wants to forget about the 1990s entirely. Wasn’t he on Have I Got News For You – a BBC programme – a few years after the 1997 election?
But the website looks like something that might be profiled on Skepdic.com, and mention of a summary of evidence that is nonetheless 22,000 words wounds my heart with a monotonous languor.
In fact whenever I read a piece of text in which someone aggressively uses the word “facts” and “prove” and “case” I become suspicious, for a shrewd person would not want to give the impression of having to prove a theory. A shrewd person would give the impression of already having proved the theory. He would try not to use legal language, because that smacks of TV-educated Americans. He would then lay the theory out, using wit and charm, and at the end he would try to win support.
I am reminded of the film of “All the President’s Men”. It had an extremely complex plot about a cover-up. It is not the kind of film I would pop into my DVD player on a bored afternoon. Unlike for example “Where Eagles Dare”, I have to be in the right frame of mind to watch “All the President’s Men”. But it is well-presented and it quickly persuades me to share two hours of my life with a pair of journalists who talk on the telephone, attend meetings, and very occasionally one of them meets Hal Holbrook in a parking garage. And there is an action sequence involving a recalcitrant secretary.
With the wrong presentation “All the President’s Men” could have either been hyper-accurate but thoroughly tedious, or it could have been an entertaining but laughable travesty of the truth.
After a cursory glance of Guardianlies, the impression I get of your case is that Mohammed Fayed (an untrustworthy man) was angry with the Conservative Party and perhaps lied to the Guardian (a newspaper that does like the Conservative Party), and that the Guardian made a big issue of the story because it did not like the Conservative Party. Neil Hamilton subsequently and spectacularly failed to do anything about this because he was a weak, chinless wonder who was dominated by his wife and eventually broken by Martin Bell, a wounded man. I would not want Neil Hamilton as my MP. I cannot see Neil Hamilton playing hardball with Robert Mugabe.
So, perhaps Mohammed Fayed made up a story, and the Guardian printed it and it cost the Conservative Party the 1997 election, which they lost in a huge landslide and from which they have not recovered and will not for a few years. And there is a BBC dimension, but most of us here accept that that the BBC and the Guardian have performed unprotected and consensual anal sex on each other for quite some time now. If all of this is the case and it is significant and it can be proved and proved again, it needs to be formulated in such a way that it makes the man in the street angry. I imagine that most people, when confronted by Guardianlies, will reply that the Tories deserved whatever they got and that it was good that Neil Hamilton’s constituents voted for Martin Bell, a wounded man (as I have already said).
My memory of the Major administration is of John Major and Norman Lamont admitting that they had wasted billions on something called the ERM, to no avail. You might say that Gordon Brown has also wasted billions. Perhaps he has. It is not the waste that destroys a government. It is being in a position whereby the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have to go on television and admit having wasted billions that destroys a government. It implies that the government is not in control. When I think of John Major and his government I think of a government that was not in control. Perhaps the government is never in control. The art of government is therefore to not have to admit being powerless, and Labour has been very good at that.
“it has also reminded me of my own vulnerability.”
dont go posting your personal details so.
in case you havent noticed – we’re all anonymous. and for a good reason.
Gary Powell writes:
“…including the crap English cricket team.”
Meanwhile, back on Earth, we find:
England 1st Innings
551 for 6 (143.0 overs)
Sri Lanka 1st Innings
91 for 6 (30.0 overs)
ashley -> that is a tour de force.
ptb -> who the hell are you talking to?
most of us are conservative/libertarian on here.
and ptb – theres a simpler explanation.
the silly fuckers who believe in “global warming” and “african poverty”, were the ones that diverted police attention.
thereby causing the 7/7 bombings.
it wasnt a conspiracy. it was just a lot of very stupid people wasting police and MI5 time.
Asjley Pomeroy writes:
“It is not the waste that destroys a government. It is being in a position whereby the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have to go on television and admit having wasted billions that destroys a government. ”
And if the BBC was doing its job (a job which it is mandated to do by the very terms under which it exists), that is precisely what Brown and Bliar would be doing tonight, as gold prices soar to over $700 an ounce.
That is gold… the precious metal the UK once had rather a lot of. Until ZaNuLabour’s wonder-chancellor sold most of it at a knock-down price.
Amazing how quiet the BBC seems on this subject, isn’t it?
On a tangent, there was a news story on the BBC’s website throughout most of today, quite near the top:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4766189.stm
“Gordon Brown’s Schooldays”. There’s a big smiling portrait of the man at the top of the article. It was trailed on the BBC’s website with some blurb about a schoolboy prank whereby he and some of his friends sent an undertaker around to the house of their head history teacher. He sounds like a hilarious party-hearty. I have a mental image of a dour-looking man in a dark suit, standing in the rain… and I also have a mental image of an undertaker. That’s a joke.
“The chancellor was on a visit to his old school in Kirkcaldy where he was asked a series of questions by pupils.”
The article doesn’t tell us anything about his old school in Kirkcaldy, perhaps in case terrorists decide to hold the pupils hostage in exchange for Gordon Brown’s radiant smiling head. What is the school called? Is it a primary school, a college, or what? The article implies but does not state that it is a primary school. What kind of school is it? Where is Kirkcaldy? When did Gordon Brown attend?
The article seems to exist purely to puff up Gordon Brown as a functioning human being rather than as an reanimated corpse. Beneath the fold, the article’s use of quotes and editorial comment becomes unclear, and it’s not sure how or why the dialogue about his academic prowess came out, or to whom it was directed – the kids, or the reporter, and if the former how did they know to ask him that question?
It ends with:
“In response to another question” – presumably from a schoolchild – “Mr Brown said among the biggest challenges he faced was ensuring people’s hard earned cash was properly prioritised when he made spending decisions.”
He sounds like a fascinating chap, a real vote-winner. I envisage him winning the next election just as John Major won his election. But I do not envisage him winning the election after that.
ptb-> you’ve lost me. i just post , if something catches my eye and its got bugger all to do with the thread , i just post it.
folks might pick up on it – then again it might die a death. such is internet discussion.