Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Is’nt it funny….TAM supports the BBC…now, why would an extremist Muslim support the BBC< unless he licked what he was hearing..... Nuff said..."judge me by the friends I keep".......in that case, the BBC is a Muslim focus point, where they can come and hear positive propaganda.... Hence, thats why Musslims love the BBC......
was he pissed?
TPO | 03.04.07 – 8:33 am
Dunno. He’s an unusual mix of articulate and stoopid.
15 kidnapped sailors – 4,943 comments (and that doesnt include the ones that didnt make it past the censors)
archduke | 02.04.07 – 11:34 pm
Yeah, around 30 000, including the ones they couldn’t post because they are being flooded – according to the BBC’s own blurb at the top of the page:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5882&&edition=2&ttl=20070403082859
Radio 4 this morning was its usual mixtures of bias, omission and mendacity. There’s a program on tonight at 20.00 which is supposed to tell what “really happened” in the military action in Lebanon this year. The BBC announced that hezbollah “captured” two Israeli soldiers which provoked an Israeli attack which “devastated” Lebanon. Omitted was where the Israeli soldiers were “captured” and it appears that the BBC is unaware that the internet provided overwhelming evidence which refutes the use of the word “devastated” to describe lebanon, especially aerial photography of Beirut: only one small area could be described as devastated – the rest was untouched.
The BBC learns absolutely nothing – it’s on a mission and won’t be diverted by facts and truth.
Allan@Aberdeen
I second everything you’ve written – the IBC are drumming in their propaganda through the constant repetition in this trailer that the Hizbollah war started because of the “capture of two Israeli soldiers.” Lying by omission is one of their favourite ploys.
Meanwhile here’s something the IBC won’t report playing on Hamas TV – ‘Hamas recruits children to terror squads via TV programs’
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122026
Allan@Aberdeen | 03.04.07 – 8:52 am
The BBC claiming to be able to tell us what really happened in Lebanon? This is another occasion for mirth. I suppose their version will go something like this:
*Hezbollah freedom fighters capture Israeli occupiers on Lebanese side of border
*Israel responds by devastating Lebanon, aiming specifically at civilians, without warning, in the greatest war crime the Middle East has seen
*Hezbollah responds by firing Katyushas at Israeli military targets, inadvertently killing some civilians and damaging a few houses though warning Israeli civilians before every rocket barrage.
*Hezbollah wins the Second Lebanon War
Still, I’ll keep an open mind about the programme. With difficulty.
” Allan@Aberdeen | 03.04.07 – 8:52 am ”
if anything the dogs of war were held back by the Israeli PM Olmert.
i recall that the original plans were for a full scale invasion of the south, in a classic pincer movement from sea and land. AFAIK Israeli commandoes were to land at sea at the mouth of the Litani in the west, paratroopers to air drop along the Litani, with armoured divisions coming up from the east.
once that Litani river line was secured (and thereby cut off the supply routes of hezbollah), the plan was for a free fire zone in the south , completely eliminating hezbollah under a torrent of bombardment.
further to the above, Olmert overruled his generals, because the original plans would have caused thousands of casualties – if not tens of thousands. fearing a worldwide media backlash, Olmert went for the surgical strike option , with limited armoured incursions to designated hezbollah pockets.
and look how that turned out – israel got demonised anyway, and hez were able (via tunnels) to leave their pockets only to pop up somewhere else.
when hez war part 2 breaks out, i dont think the israelis are going to hold back.
Over at Hot Air Allahpundit fisks the Independent’s claim that the kidnapping of the British sailors was directly linked to a failed American attempt to seize two Iranian “security officials” way back on January 11:
Pretend to break news that’s already been reported, assert a causal connection to another event without a single source to support it, then publish as fact. Good, hard-nosed, hard-left agenda journalganda.
An agenda followed eagerly by Today’s James Naughtie who lapped up the Independent’s report (blame America AND point out they botched an operation – what’s not to like?). It was the first item he mentioned on the 6.45am paper review (he endorsed the story by describing the writer Patrick Cockburn as an “Iraq expert”) and he later tried to get Bridget Kendall to comment on the story; the diplomatic correspondent diplomatically refused to speculate. And, as Allahpundit points out, Cockburn’s conclusions are indeed just speculation. He gives no sources to back his opinion that the hostage crisis is a consequence of the earlier American raid (although one can be sure the Iranians will now add it to their list). With its ever-dwindling pool of reporters the Independent has to rely more and more on this kind of half-baked analysis masquerading as news. The article is aimed at credulous Indie readers who want desperately to blame America for anything and everything. People like James Naughtie.
Having read this, I can’t help but feel sympathy for Iran knowing now that they have “worked very hard”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6507451.stm
We must now begin to reflect upon our actions and clearly more empathy with Iran is desirable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar%27it-Shtula_incident
Zar’it-Shtula incident , 12 july 2006
2 kidnapped, 3 killed in hez incursion into Israel. simultaneously 7 other israeli army posts came under attack. Border villages of Zari’t and Shelomi came under Hez rocket attack.
5 more israelis killed when they pursued the Hez kidnappers into southern lebanon.
Hez attacked because they wanted this very peaceful, wouldnt hurt a fly Islamic “militant” released:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar
“After taking the hostages, Kuntar’s group took Danny and Einat down to the beach, where a shootout with Israeli policemen and soldiers erupted. Samir Kuntar shot the father, Danny, at close range in front of his daughter in the back and drowned him in the sea to ensure he was dead. Next, he smashed the four year old girl’s head, Einat, on beach rocks and crushed her skull with the butt of his rifle.”
read it all…
TAM,
Do you believe in paying zakat on gross or net income?
Does the islamic bank really have methods of buying a house that are legal re usury?
The internet and television carry images and mohammed (pbuh) carried the message to us that there should be no images, should they be banned under sharia law?
Which is the correct time to begin ramadan?
Which is more correct niqab or just the hijab?
Which is the greater satan America or Israel?
I rely on your wealth of practical experience, expertise and knowledge of islam to answer these questions.
This site must be becoming a real threat…..just look at how they flock here ………
Employees of the BBC come here as do their masters, Radical Islam and Extreme Leftists…..they come here to support each other and tell you how honest they are….yet……would a gathering of Radical Muslims, Communists, Gays and BBC reporters really be considered the middle ground?….no, of course not.
THATS why the BBCs popularity is in freefall, thats why millions are tuning out……..the BBC represents (as can be seen by who defends it) only a tiny extremist element in UK society……the fringe….
Let us not forget that during the Gulf War, all Royal Navy ships turned off BBC news, and used Sky only…so angered were they by the traitors at the BBC…….
The only people that love the BBC are extrmeists and leftists……….thats why they will never crack America..and why millions are turning away in the UK…..
Bye Bye BBC….lol.
” BaggieJonathan | 03.04.07 – 10:09 am ”
as they say on other forums
please dont feed the troll…
” Anonymous | 03.04.07 – 10:16 am ”
that “looking for middle england” docu last night was an eye opener.
i happily live in a middle england area myself, but i’d be damned if i’d ever let a beeboid know about it.
theres some interesting developments happening across the pond ( and it could have implications with the move towards federalism in the European Union…)
Vermont secession?
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=17266
The once and future republic of Vermont
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002076_pf.html
“Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire”
Second Vermont Republic
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/
Free Vermont
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/article.html
quote:
Although SVR members range from hippie greens to gun owners—and among the virtues of Vermont is that the twain do sometimes meet—Naylor describes his group’s ideological coloration as “leftish libertarian with an anarchist streak.”
interesting… makes a nice chance from the dour ,stale, technocratic authoritarian politics of Westminister and Brussels
Good Morning again!
Dumbing down?
No-lets fuel the class war instead!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6519057.stm
“The BBC has denied reports it plans to “dumb down” its shows after discovering lower-income families aren’t tuning in.”
Now what do they mean by “lower-income families” and which
Now I smell blood in the water:
“Following its initial findings, which have not been made public, the BBC has commissioned a larger piece of research to be carried out over the next few weeks.”
Now wouldn’t it be interesting to find out what that report says?
“It has also been reported that 50-year-old BBC One controller Peter Fincham told programme-makers he did not want his channel to be watched by people of his age, and that any show that attracted audiences of less than two million would be disappointing.”
The BBC said it had “no idea why these quotes appeared”.
Time to ask Fincham what he means?
This could be a big coupe for B-BBC…..
No wonder the trolls are taking an interest.
sorry-correction
Now what do they mean by “lower-income families” and which socio-economic group do they mean?
There is a whole raft of bias regarding this issue of “Is the BBC worth it”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6274061.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5345132.stm
Yet there main critics-which I regard ourselves in that group they fail to engage with time and again-apart from the childish trolling that is.
But they have plenty of “knowledge” about us according to guest SMERSH agent Martin Belem.
“This is one of series of seven posts looking at the Biased BBC blog. It includes a look at why I visit the Biased BBC site, some small measures of success the site has had in influencing BBC output, and looks at some of the accusations the site has made against the BBC which I find unconvincing.”
“The series then goes on to look at two areas where the Biased BBC blog does, in my view, highlight some issues with BBC coverage. These are global warming, and online content about conflict in the Middle East. The sixth part looks at a serious moderation failure on the BBC’s Editor’s blog which was highlighted by Biased BBC, and the last part looks at my own experience of striving to keep output and software impartial, and at the future of BBC impartiality in the internet age. ”
Nothing like Cheka tactics huh?
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b.php
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b.php#success
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b_1.php
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b_3.php
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b_5.php
And this quote in the side bar PLEASE
“Whilst most of the people there politely disagree with anything I publish in the comments section, I generally find the community on there to be a collection of intelligent people, well-versed in current affairs, well-read, and with a passionate viewpoint. Albeit one I mostly disagree with.”
LOVE IT!!
somehow i cant imagine Tony Blair or Gordon Brown ever doing something like this…
“I had lunch with the leader of the free world”
http://thegidcumbs.com/dblog/archives/000345.php
of course, this goes against the Beeboid BushHitler meme, so of course you probably wont see it mentioned anywhere on Al-Beeb
iid -> thanks for the links. There is one telling point he makes here
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b.php
**********************************
quote:
Well, for one reason, however diverse the BBC might claim their employment policy to be, and Jonathan Ross recently had a few words to say about that, there was one minority group I never encountered when I worked at the BBC.
I worked with Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists. I worked with people I knew to be Labour voters, Liberal Democrat voters and Conservative voters. I worked with men and women, tall people and short people, gay people and straight people, and people I got on with and people who annoyed the hell out of me. And I worked with people of all sorts of ethnic mixes.
But I never, to my knowledge, ever worked with anyone at the BBC who thought that it should be abolished.
For that reason alone, I always thought it was important to visit sites like Biased BBC, as they represented a viewpoint and collective ‘groupthink’ that was different to any possible BBC ‘groupthink’.
**********************************
interesting!
he then has a reasonable stab at categorising the very commentators on B-BBC into various sub groups.
being of an anarcho-capitalist libertarian persuasion, i’m in two on them:
“People who think the BBC is a stealth propaganda arm for militant Islam in the UK.”
“People who think the BBC should be abolished on free market principles, regardless of any perceived bias.”
” Even when people disagree on the site, out-and-out flame wars and trolling are very rare.”
very true. i’ve been on here for well over a year. i think was slapped down a few times by the moderators during the height of the Mo cartoons (and things were getting pretty heated on here over that…)
but beyond that. we pretty much self police ourselves. which kind of proves in a roundabout way that libertarian self-regulation can actually work.
calling for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on Tehran would, i would guess, be pretty much frowned upon on here. yet in the hyper-regulated HYS you do come across such views regularly. primarily because on HYS its not the HYS users policing themselves – and thus having to justify their “nuke tehran” comments to other HYS users…
say that on here and you’ll end up with 4 or 5 other commentators asking for justification, and also pointing out the folly of such a gung-ho “kill them all” approach. in other words – the original argument would be completely demolished and discredited.
self policed in other words.
sorry. the lack of flame wars quote is from here:
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b_1.php
Tim Hames talks some welcome sense about Iran in the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/tim_hames/article1599616.ece
“calling for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on Tehran would, i would guess, be pretty much frowned upon on here. yet in the hyper-regulated HYS you do come across such views regularly.”
It’s also worth bearing in mind that the IBC use this as a tactic to discredit what they caricature as being ‘right wing’ attitudes and to make pious claims about ‘balance’. The useful idiots that revel in the idea of ‘nuking the enemy’ – they found one for this week’s Any Answers – are exactly what the IBC want.
Now here is an interesting “insight” into IBC group-think.
“The stereotypes go both ways, and I think a lot of people at the BBC would dismiss the crowd at Biased BBC as a bunch of right-wing cranks, fantasists, and conspiracy theorists who believe that there is an organised cabal within Broadcasting House plotting to use the airwaves to bring about a socialist and/or Islamic utopia.”
I’m in the “gang” that’s-
“People who think that the BBC used to be a good idea, but since it is now full of lefties, and they can’t see it getting any better, don’t think people should be forced to pay for it anymore.”
“People who think the BBC should be abolished on principle. And also that once it is abolished, the ex-staff should be beaten with sharp sticks. And that this should probably be broadcast on ITV, with some sort of premium rate phone-call determining whether Jonathan Ross or Anne Robinson should be jabbed the hardest.”
But very very “clever”-
This has all the trappings of drawing us in to fight on Al Beebs turf. This “smells” like an internal report posted on the web to goad us.
I actually think it’s rather flattering. All that blogging.
But if Mr Reynolds wants to know what we think then come on down.
Unless of course your starting to get “internal difficulties” and I’m a man who believes in “reaching out” to the “voices” are in “authoritarian” situations….
I do so love my trawls through the “library”
I also think one or two of us come in for very close scrutiny….;)
I think the only “weakness” on this blog is there is no “private” facility because I think we have some good ideas….that I would rather remain private from trollers.
The BBC have finally woken up that there is a story in the Ball/Brown lies. However on Jeremy Vine the discussion is already skewed. Lined up on one side is Jeff Randall and on the other is the oddly bizarre Evan Davis, BBC economics whatever, and Michael White of the Guardian who has spent the last 24 hours clawing his way into any studio that would have him to gloss up Brown.
Jeff won hands down. White exposed through his waffling for what he is, a NuLab apologist.
Oh those evil American’s how they brain-wash us Clive James:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6510593.stm
Of course and we all know Spooks are based on the real adventures of MI5.
It’s the joooooooooos you know…
” IiD | 03.04.07 – 12:39 pm ”
i think i might have said this already – look at any James Bond film, going back to Sean Connery.
if you strip away the glitz and glamour you’ve got a British agent who is a rather nasty piece of work. “Licence to kill” and all that…
The Worst Government in Living Memory:
“The Chancer of the Exchequer is bang to rights”
The Man Who Stole Your Old Age has been rumbled. Put your trousers on, Gordon, you’re nicked. He’s bang to rights.
The Chancellor couldn’t be more guilty had he been caught on CCTV walking out of the Bank of England with a sawn-off Purdey in one hand and a bag of swag in the other.
It is the biggest pensions heist since Robert Maxwell – from whose estate, incidentally, Gordon copped a cut-price flat in Westminster in the fire sale.
As I have remarked before, at least Cap’n Bob had the decency to top himself.
More: Richard Littlejohn
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=446326&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322
LOVE IT!!
IiD | 03.04.07 – 11:31 am
Thanks for pointing out Martin Belam’s study of us. I see he quotes me as calling “Palestinians” “Pretendistinians”, probably the only time I have ever done so.
I am a little disappointed that he doesn’t fully credit me for getting the BBC to acknowledge that the famous Barbara Plett piece violated their guidlines:
http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2007/03/my_biased_view_of_the_biased_b.php#success
It was also at least partly as a result of the Biased BBC comments thread that the notorious From Our Own Correspondent piece where Barbara Plett said she cried about Yasser Arafat has been appended with a note that the piece had been the subject of a complaint that had been upheld by the BBC Governors.
I’d say it was completely as a result of my bringing it to the attention of visiting Beeboid editor Nick Reynolds.
i use the term “Pallywood” or “Pallywooders” , in reference to that pallywood documentary.
the thing is with all the Pallywood coverage, is that much bigger stories get sidelined or pushed to one side just because some jumped up Jihadists decide to throw rocks at Israeli tanks.
pretty much everyone now knows what the “intifada” is.
i wonder how many people even know about the “Great War of Africa” which lasted from 1998 to 2003
*****************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
quote:
The widest interstate war in modern African history, it directly involved eight African nations, as well as about 20 armed groups, and earned the epithet of “Africa’s World War” and the “Great War of Africa.” An estimated 3.8 million people died, mostly from starvation and disease brought about by one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II.
*****************************
yes , i know the BBC (and the MSM) did cover it. but you have to ask – why is “intifada” better known?
is it because they is black?
BioD.
Mr Reynold’s seems to be taking a very keen interest in us.
Been doing some work on there “team”….I’m expecting some interesting times.
Anonymous | 03.04.07 – 12:49 pm | Thanks for the link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ pages…n_author_id=322
I particularly like this bit:
And still he denies it, and his sycophants rally to his defence. On the Today Programme, Labour Party spokesman Jim Naughtie even tried to peddle the risible line that the pensions crisis is really the fault of Call Me Dave, on the grounds that he was an adviser to Norman Lamont when an earlier cut in tax relief was implemented.
Anonymous | 03.04.07 – 1:24 pm |
This keeps happening to me … anyone got any ideas how to cure it?
archduke and others….
How did you end up here?
I’ve been on here a month and it really has opened up a new world to me.
Is it worth getting RSS as well?
How “serious” do others take it?
I would really like to know what others think because I usually use the net for reference and not blogging.
Martin Belam’s article of B-BBC is actually quite a good stab at seeing our perspective despite the fact he mostly disagrees with us, well, as much as you can considering he doesnt agree with us.
I have to say I enjoyed his attempt to prove the disparate threads we come from to the same conclusion of BBC bias.
For those who dont want to trawl through the whole article the relevant part (with my own comments in caps just to prove the point i’m sure others come at it from different ways) is:
“People who think the BBC is a good idea, and would happily pay for it, if only it wasn’t full of lefties.”
NOT ME
“People who think that the BBC used to be a good idea, but since it is now full of lefties, and they can’t see it getting any better, don’t think people should be forced to pay for it anymore.”
SORT OF, IN A WAY
“People who think that the BBC used to be a good idea, but regardless of any bias, think technology has now out-paced the need for a TV Licence fee, and that the BBC should therefore be abolished/privitised.”
YES, IN FACT I WOULD SAY THIS IS A TRUISM
“TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington*”
NEVER SEEN HIM ON HERE SO I CANT COMMENT
“People who think the BBC was always a bad idea, that people should never have been forced to pay for it, and that since TV went colour it has become full of lefties, and so having to pay for it is a slap in the face.”
NO
“People who think the BBC was always a bad idea, that people should never have been forced to pay for it, and that even before TV went colour it was full of lefties, and so having to pay for it is a slap in the face.”
NO
“People who think the BBC is a stealth propaganda arm for militant Islam in the UK.”
THE EVIDENCE CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE…
“People who think the BBC should be abolished on free market principles, regardless of any perceived bias.”
SORT OF, IN THE MODERN, SUPPOSEDLY FREE, POST COLD WAR WORLD THERE IS NO PLACE FOR STATE BROADCASTING IN ANY NATION
“People who think the BBC should be abolished on principle. And also that once it is abolished, the ex-staff should be beaten with sharp sticks. And that this should probably be broadcast on ITV, with some sort of premium rate phone-call determining whether Jonathan Ross or Anne Robinson should be jabbed the hardest.”
🙂
TPO
“Labour Party spokesman Jim Naughtie”
I think that should read Brownstuff spokesman, he has no love at all for Blair.
Baggie.
I agree.
I think the hat tip of the day there Sir…:)
Anonymous | 03.04.07 – 1:24 pm |
This keeps happening to me … anyone got any ideas how to cure it?
TPO | 03.04.07 – 1:26 pm
Make sure cookies are enabled in your browser. If it still happens quit browser and relaunch.
I think it’s a Haloscan problem, it happens to me occasionally then clears itself up.
IiD Supporting Our Troops –
I was so ticked off with the BBC that I typed BBC bias into google expecting to find like minded references and I happened across this blog.
As they say it was and is a real eye opener.
“IiD | 03.04.07 – 1:26 pm ”
it was the Danish Mohammed Cartoons fiasco that did it for me, when NOT a single British media outlet, including the BBC published them in fear of the Islamonutters. that was the big tipping point for myself (and many others).
to make matters worse, it was the supposedly craven French that showed us up – satirical magazine Charlie Hebo in Paris carried them and sold out instantly.
BaggieJonathan:
Martin Belam’s article of B-BBC is actually quite a good stab at seeing our perspective…
I agree, I quite like the bloke. He was after all a techie at the Beeb and not involved in the editorial side, so any bias he may suffer from is probably his own rather than corporate groupthink. 😉
TPO – additional
That should probably have read IBC’s ‘Toady’ programme!
The typo must have got through the spell checker as ‘today’ a word but ‘toady’ does more accurately reflect the content and status of the going to be defunct programme.
Anonymous | 03.04.07 – 12:49 pm
As I have remarked before, at least Cap’n Bob had the decency to top himself.
I realise that you are quoting Littlejohn but I can’t let anyone on this blog think that there was anything decent about ex labour MP maxwell.
I remember reading the obituary of the man who did the autopsy on rm. He had found that the fat git’s back muscles had been severely torn, consistent with an effort by the bloated body to raise itself by the arms to get back into the yacht.
This seems to point to accidental drowning or perhaps a suicide attempt followed by a change of mind.
“Martin Belam’s article of B-BBC is actually quite a good stab at seeing our perspective despite the fact he mostly disagrees with us, well, as much as you can considering he doesnt agree with us.”
BJ – I agree. In particular persistent efforts to point out global warming fallacies and the overwhelmingly loaded coverage against Israel and incipient anti-Semitism (paritcular recognition should go to Biodegradable for his tireless work in this respect) do seem to be paying off. Belam is going some way also to ‘decontaminating the brand’ – the kneejerk beeboid stereotype of the ‘anti BBC right’ – and encouraging a more receptive attitude. All this can only be good. The vital question is – what difference will it make?
I think last night’s Newsnight podcast shows that the Conservative spokesperson scrammbling around in the dark.
Where was Ken Clarke….doing some STW speech?
I think there is a grain of truth that you really are in desperate straits if you have to go 10 years to clobber Brown because he isn’t PM yet…..
That’s the problem with DM land…..all that nasty name calling of TB, who’s fans now become the “floating voter”.
Why should the Tories be any better because from where I’m sitting it DC in la la land.
Of course if we knew what the Tories policy was on health, education (defence excepted) then we could talk but we don’t? Are they going to reverse it? You can hardly say that Cameron has been “steadying the nations nerve?” either.
And I think you will find that the lunacy comes from Brown.
TB…you’ve never had it so good