Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
Incidentally, I do not for one moment believe Reith is a single person. Just another small, busy department in the paper-hanging and redecoration section of the beeb…
I am sick and tired of the BBC. I used to be supportive of them in that they were the best of a bad bunch. But now they are intent on smearing the Conservative party on orders from No.10 no doubt via Labour Ambassador Marr.
And there is not one single report on the BBC News website about Ken Livingstone’s dodgy use of public funds or the police investigations under way. What a bunch of toadies. Ever since Dr. David Kelly the government has had the BBC in their pocket.
DK | 14.01.08 – 4:44 pm
not one single report on the BBC News website about Ken Livingstone’s dodgy use of public funds or the police investigations under way. What a bunch of toadies. Ever since Dr. David Kelly the government has had the BBC in their pocket.
To date, all the running on the Livingstone story has been made by the Standard’s……Andrew Gilligan (late of the BBC).
Sadly, Gilligan has yet to find the smoking-gun. When he does, I’m sure the BBC will be all over the story.
Meanwhile, I shall just sit and savour the irony of the BBC being exhorted to run with one of Andrew’s stories before all the facts are in!
And there is not one single report on the BBC News website about Ken Livingstone’s dodgy use of public funds or the police investigations under way
Unfortunately you have to search around on the Website to find stories
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183929.stm
This site is on the England page, so the story is indeed there. Anyone want to comment on the fact that the story is written from the Mayor’s perspective as opposed to providing both sides of the argument?
The headline Mayor’s Aide cleared in funds row, really ought to have been Mayor’s Aide ‘cleared’ in funds row,
As the Standard has already pointed out this was an internal review, rather than an audit. You will note from a brief mention in the article that a police investigation is underway. So a different headline might have been Mayor’s Aide investigated by police in funds row, but happily the BBC chose the mayor friendly one.
Wow, one up on Reith in finding a BBC reference before he does, your slipping Mr Reith!
Arthur Dent | 14.01.08 – 5:01 pm
Arthur Dent | 14.01.08 – 4:59 pm
You are a mischievous fellow who isn’t being entirely straight with us.
For instance, you strangely neglect to mention the earlier story for which the one you do cite merely provides the punch line:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7143310.stm
But all this relates to Brixton Base – a bit old hat now. I thought yer man was talking about the Green Badge Taxi School story.
Much more interesting.
…But, say some Labour people, Osborne has been doing the same thing. Instead of using a dodgy think-tank as a front, they claim, he’s been using the Conservative Party. The result is the same: the public are kept in the dark about the identities of the people giving politicians money…
Mmmm.
John Reith | 14.01.08 – 2:52 pm | #
Complete rubbish JR.
I love the way you snow us all with your apparently superior knowledge – and then sneak in a complete blatant porkie, hoping we won’t notice.
All the Tory donations in question are already listed with the donor’s names on the Electoral Commission website here:-
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272008%2D01%2D14%2017%3A32%3A52%27%7D
Declaring the same sums and donors a second time on the member’s register simply shows who actually spent the money.
Not declaring donations at all, as Hain has done, is a clear breach of electoral law – no ifs or buts.
Whether the Tory donations should appear for a second time on the member’s register is a trivial administrative detail.
I have had a comment on BBC HYS following on from assertions that there were over half a million civilian casualties. It was rejected because it broke “house rules”. My comments were:
DEBATE:Lifting of Baath restrictions: Your viewsSENT:13-Jan-2008 22:22COMMENT:
We should be cautious with the Lancet 06 figure of “most likely…654,695”. It seems that this figure was compiled without access to the researchers raw data, nor any questioning of it. Using ‘cluster sampling’, 1,887 households in Iraq were visited(compare a UN survey in 04 – 22,000) and questions asked – e.g.: how many lived here at 1.1.02? How many have died since? Combat related? etc. Results were extrapolated across the whole population. So one death = 2,000. This deserves more scrutiny. COMMENT STATUS:Rejected
You may disagree with my views (I hope some do) but why was it a breach of rules. Is it because, I wonder, it breaches the BBC’s view of what the public should swallow? I can think of nothing demafatory (compared for example with Bush and Blair beign accused of being Nazis and murderes, which was not rejected). Does anyone know if I can question the BBC?
I cannot see why
I love John Reith’s comments.They represent the right little, tight little smug little, world view of the patronising middle class public sector liberal lefty.
Sorry Wraith old thing,you are simply bad at PR,your righteous condescending rightness reflects badly on the BBC.
“To date, all the running on the Livingstone story has been made by the Standard’s……Andrew Gilligan (late of the BBC).”
Yes a recovering Beeboid.
To date, all the running on the Livingstone story has been made by the Standard’s……Andrew Gilligan (late of the BBC).
Sadly, Gilligan has yet to find the smoking-gun. When he does, I’m sure the BBC will be all over the story.
Meanwhile, I shall just sit and savour the irony of the BBC being exhorted to run with one of Andrew’s stories before all the facts are in!
John Reith | 14.01.08 – 4:54 pm | #
Have I got this right JR? – you mean a serious news operation like the BBC holds it’s fire until “the facts are in” rather than reporting mere allegations.
I bet that caused a bit of spilt coffee here and there.
How about “Cameron Pressed on Drugs Question”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4340328.stm
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 14.01.08 – 5:49 pm |
All the Tory donations in question are already listed with the donor’s names on the Electoral Commission website..
Yes • but that’s no real help when you’re asking the question ‘who funds George Osborne’s private office?’ is it?
You should be able to get an answer to that question from the Register of Members’ Interests. If people decide not to say which party donors particularly asked that their money went to a named MP • then that’s keeping facts from the public that the public ought to know.
What’s the point in having an elaborate system of ‘transparency’ if people are going to weasel their way out of telling us which millionaires have given what cash to which pols?
You may disagree with my views (I hope some do) but why was it a breach of rules. Is it because, I wonder, it breaches the BBC’s view of what the public should swallow? I can think of nothing demafatory (compared for example with Bush and Blair beign accused of being Nazis and murderes, which was not rejected). Does anyone know if I can question the BBC?
I cannot see why
Cheeta | Homepage | 14.01.08 – 5:54 pm | #
That’s particularly disgusting, since the Lancet study has been comprehensively discredited just recently:-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984087808076475.html?mod=Letters
You have to wonder why the BBC is desperately defending this ridiculous number after everybody else has agreed it’s garbage.
Peronally, I wonder if they’ve subcontracted HYS moderation to the Muslim Council of Britain.
You should be able to get an answer to that question from the Register of Members’ Interests. If people decide not to say which party donors particularly asked that their money went to a named MP • then that’s keeping facts from the public that the public ought to know.
What’s the point in having an elaborate system of ‘transparency’ if people are going to weasel their way out of telling us which millionaires have given what cash to which pols?
John Reith | 14.01.08 – 6:18 pm | #
I think the public has every right to know who donates to political parties – but I don’t see you can extend that to knowing exactly who spends the cash.
Private organisations have a right to keep their internal arrangements confidential.
Unlike publicly funded organisations like the BBC which should be completely transparent.
Can we see the Balen Report now?
I think JR is great.
But I’d love to know, why do you bother?
It seems unlikely that any amount of argument or related facts are going to change these people’s minds, and I am sure that most sane, reasonable people who read what is posted are able to see how ludicrous most of it is, so what can be achieved?
BBC Radio Times
Clash of the Worlds Monday 14 January
8:00pm – 9:00pm
BBC4
1/3 – Mutiny
Exploring how past conflicts between a Christian West and Islam can help explain more recent violence. The series looks at three great clashes between a Christian British Empire and Islam: the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the Mahdi uprising in 1880s Sudan and the creation of the state of Israel in the first half of the twentieth century. The first programme tells the story of the Indian uprising in which both sides committed atrocities in the name of their faiths.
Surely queen & country for the Imperialists, not God.
Joel:
I think JR is great.
But I’d love to know, why do you bother?
It seems unlikely that any amount of argument or related facts are going to change these people’s minds, and I am sure that most sane, reasonable people who read what is posted are able to see how ludicrous most of it is, so what can be achieved?
Joel | Homepage | 14.01.08 – 6:44 pm | #
—————————-
Maybe this will help you out Joel.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/01/bbc-is-turn-off-its-official.html
“The first programme tells the story of the Indian uprising in which both sides committed atrocities in the name of their faiths.”
Queen,or Empress and Country is hardly fighting for Jesus.Further a large number,if not majority, of the troops under British command were native levees.
Who is making Gaza residents suffer.
We hear that there is no money for hearing aids, reduced to ride donkeys, etc. Yet they have money for producing a remake of “The Omen”:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28606_Hamas_TV-_Bush_As_Antichrist&only
Joel:
I think JR is great.
But I’d love to know, why do you bother?
Joel
Why don’t you just send him an internal memo and quit bothering the rest of us.
Peter | 14.01.08 – 7:35 pm |
Change of tactics for the BBC. There Islamophilia is no longer tenable, so now they’re switching to equivalence.
John Reith has still failed to respond to the isue on headlines raised by Honest Reporting, no amount of evasion or changing the subject will hide the fact that this is about as clear an example of BBC bias as you can get.
Perhaps we could call Joel,Igor, his “Yes Master” is truly cringeworthy.
Re: repeat of BBC series, ‘Clash of the Worlds’ (BBC 4, 8pm, GMT, tonight)-
Inevitably this anti-British series depends heavily on the views of one William Dalrymple, a BBC, anti-Western favourite.
Here are two critiques of William Dalrymple:-
1.) “William Dalrymple on Western values”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/10770
2.)”William Dalrymple, The West, and ‘A Little Old-Fashioned Humility'”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/10773
Joel,
This is an example of why we bother:
NewsWatch, 11 January: “US elections – Too much, too soon.”
Snoddy doesn’t go into complaints of pro-Democrat bias, but as I said at the bottom of the last open thread, Barron’s defense speaks volumes.
We will continue to bother. We know wagons circling when we see it.
I was actually asking JR why he bothers?
I know why you do.
New descriptive low for the BBC in writing about Islamic Terrorism,
“Taleban carry out a daring attack”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/default.stm
I guess the Taleban spokesman Zadihullah Mujahid, was quite excited when he told the BBC what had happened, presumably that’s why they call it “daring”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7187592.stm
Surely a terrorist act by a suicide bomber can never be “daring”
Daring- brave, willing to do dangerous or unusual things involving danger or taking risks, a daring walk in space [Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary]
William Dalrymple – his mare name makes Hindus cringe because of his coverup of Muslim genocide of Hindus
during th Mughals.
Here BBC is not even taking a respectful multicultural line. This guy is insulting to everyone except the Muslims.
From dhimmiwatch:
Ah, of course. William Dalrymple, described here long ago, quite accurately, as an up-market Barbara Cartland, whose tales of trans-racial passion at the Mughal Court, or at this or that princely court in the time of the Mughals, has it all: star-crossed lovers, and of course the Splendor That Was India, or rather the India of the Muslim rulers who lived off of their Hindu subjects, the subjects who were killed by the Muslims in numbers without any historical parallel. (The historian K. S. Lal and others estimate that 60-70 million Hindus were killed by the Muslim conquerors and masters). Now a love of luxe, and of luxe combined with heaving breasts, is the kind of thing that the Barbara-Cartlands of this world love, including even the plausible sort who put in a bit more history and a little less of the Romance-novelette lord or duke or Arab prince (see “The Sheik”), who picks up the girl in her swoon at the very end (the promise of sex has always been just beyond what Nabokov calls “the skyline of the page”) — that is, William Dalrymple. He’s as vulgar and stupid as they come, behind the plummy voice and the pretense of being a historian.
And what is funniest about the Dalrymples and their admirers is that these are the same people who find nothing wrong with the late Edward Said’s complaint about Jane Austen in Mansfield Park, the complaint that she does not specify that a main character lives off his revenues from his West Indian plantation, a plantation with slaves.
But here is Dalrymple singing the tale of Mughal India, and its luxe and volupte if not its calme, all of it based on the ruthless enslavement and oppression of the Hindu masses by their cruel Muslim masters. (Of course, there were a few exceptions, such as syncretistic Akbar, his memory revered by Hindus for his temporarily lifting the Jizyah, and his memory despised by the Muslims, for his softness toward Hindus.)
If anyone should be complained about, it is not that subtle miniaturist Jane Austen, who after all was not singing the praises of slaveowning in the West Indies, whereas William Dalrymple has written endlessly about, made his heaving-breast passionate high-toned nonsense out of, nothing but a slave-state.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014572.php
johnj: “daring attack”.
Yes, it is a seriously odd choice of adjective for an attack on a civilian target.
Whoa – hold the phone.
BBC – Since when was a Indian Mutiny and Islamic revolt?
Hindus and Moslems fought on both sides.
Whilst there were numerous factors that contributed to it it was a growing unrest initially from mainly Hindu regiments
19th Bengali Native Infantry (BNI), 34th BNI
followed by mainly muslim calvary regiments 2nd and 3rd (Bengal) Light Cavalry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
http://www.educationforum.co.uk/KS3_2/mut.htm
‘Daring attack’? Jeez, that’s one step away from ‘heroic’.
Someone get a screengrab quick.
Congratulations Beeboids,
Al-Jazeera is now more reliable than the BBC, they dare criticize BBC’s beloved UN:
Fraud and abuse levels stun UN
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FA25253B-D8FC-4A31-BFE2-D870FCF3ADE3.htm
think its been removed now cos i cant find it
but i wonder what type of person would descibe it as a “daring attack” obviously one whos loyalty is somewhere else
“”Taleban carry out a daring attack””
Is it too much to expect that the BBC interviews these “daring attackers”?
For the latest politically correct farce check out the Best of Top Gear series 10 Episode 1 currently playing on the BBC I Player.
About a minute in you see they have actually censored James May’s face because he is smoking from a pipe!! What a complete and utter joke the BBC has become
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7188461.stm
This article just sums up everything that’s wrong with the BBC. See how Hain’s excuse is put directly above ‘Osborne in deep poo’. It makes it look like Hain has an excuse, but Osborne doesn’t. It puts the whole Osborne thing in an article which is about a possible police investigation of Hain, which implies Osborne could face similar. He cannot. And last but not least, nowhere does it mention that Osborne didn’t declare because he was advised that he didn’t need to.
The end of the article, under the title “The President Comes to Town”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7186757.stm
Tim Franks (one of the more honest reporters) writes:
At Ben Gurion airport, Mr Bush, stood to attention for the Star Spangled Banner and the Hatikva (the US and Israeli national anthems).
In Ramallah, he emerged from his car and walked straight into the presidential office. Unlike his predecessor, Bill Clinton, he was not going to listen to the Palestinian anthem.
“That hurts,” a Ramallah resident who was watching the TV pictures, told me. “It’s disgusting behaviour.”
Nor were there any schoolchildren on hand to serenade or to dance.
It never occurs to Tim Franks that maybe the reason Bush didn’t stand in the open in front of PA guard of honor with AK47s (half of them members of Al-Aksa Martyrs brigades) is not because he wants to denigrate the Palestinian people, but because
the Secret Service didn’t trust such honor guard not to shoot at Bush the Satan. That was why he rushed from the car into the building!
He forgets that when Bill Clinton was there, the security was provided by Israel and Jordan in addition to Secret Service.
Our Beeboid implied that the phantom Progressive Policy Forum is the equivalent of the Conservative Party.
That Hain receiving money from a front organisation to run for internal Labour Party office,is the same as Osborne receiving money to run his office.
That the secretly donated PPF money is the same as money declared to the Electoral Commission by the Conservative Party.
Biased BBC? Of course not.
BTW,Doesn’t Africa need Hain more than we do?
A while back, BBC Deputy Director-General, Mark Byford, said that he was immensely proud of the fact that the BBC had conducted an interview with the Taleban.
That’s the kind of thing we’re up against, folks. The rot starts from the top. No doubt Byford also sees the Taleban as “daring.”
It seems unlikely that any amount of argument or related facts are going to change these people’s minds, and I am sure that most sane, reasonable people who read what is posted are able to see how ludicrous most of it is…
Joel | Homepage | 14.01.08 – 6:44 pm
Again, I find it necessary to point out to you that it’s a very poor argument to turn your nose up disdainfully and criticise people’s opinions here without offering any evidence of what you regard as “ludicrous.” If this were a debating society, you’d be laughed out of the hall.
The BBC have had a reporter with the Greenpeace ship as they have chased Japanese whaling vessels through the Antartic sea for over a month now. The total time for the project will be two months.
The following issues and questions arise:
a) Costs
How much has it cost to have a dedicated journalist and crew for the duration of this expedition?
Did the BBC bid to participate in this against other news crews?
To what extent has the BBC now been funding what is a political organisation through this embedded position?
b) Underlying Assumptions
In dedicating so many resources to this, there is an assumption that a) the story is of significant interest to warrant such expenditure; b) that the Japanese are doing something wrong, and that Greenpeace are doing something right.
It is not the place for the BBC to be making such judgements.
b) Capture
Is it really appropriate for a journalist from a supposedly impartial news organisation to be based on the ship of an overtly political interest group?
d) Is it only the BBC that are based on these ships?
Given the BBC’s tendency to campaign on environmental issues, it wouldn’t be surprising if they were the only news crew on these ships.
A couple of days after the BBC reported this;
Saudi Arabia beheads foreign maid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7185532.stm
The BBC has a bash at America on capital punishment.
The search for a ‘humane’ execution
In the US all executions by lethal injection have been temporarily halted while experts examine whether it is a “humane” form of execution. How does it compare to other forms, and for supporters of capital punishment, is there a more benign method?
The United States is one of 55 countries that practise the death penalty as the ultimate sanction on convicted criminals. But in the majority of US states the procedure is frozen while the Supreme Court decides whether lethal injection is a “cruel and unusual” form of punishment that violates the constitution.
The length of hangman’s rope depends on weight
For many, the debate has a ring of the absurd. Those opposed in principle to the death penalty believe all its forms are immoral and arguments about methods are irrelevant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm
Err BBC don’t read this weeks economist
The bullet or the needle
Jan 10th 2008 | BEIJING
A change in technique for the world’s busiest executioners?
You wouldn’t like the photo
http://www.economist.com/images/20080112/0208AS2.jpg
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498179
The BBC, the smoking ban and those poor Islamic smokers…
Shisha bar faces smoke ban action
A bar in Bradford is continuing to let its patrons enjoy their cultural habit despite the nationwide ban on smoking.
The Markaz Shisha Lounge is to be prosecuted for flouting the law. Shisha is an Arabic water-pipe in which fruit-scented tobacco is burnt using coal, passed through an ornate water vessel and inhaled through a hose. Bradford West Labour MP Marsha Singh said he would support a ban if there were proof that the practice was harmful, but no research had been done.
………………..
Syima Mer Ali, who runs the restaurant and lounge, said the law needed to be reviewed as it was unfair.
The business would not be economically viable if the ban was enforced, she said, adding that it was different from cigarette smoking and was primarily a social activity. Customers have also criticised the law. One said: “We Muslims don’t go night-clubbing or to bars and pubs. “Shisha is one of the few ways we can have a nice sociable night out with our friends.”
Marsha Singh said: “The whole point of legislation was that smoking is harmful to health. No research has been done into this.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7188402.stm
On the west Yorkshire site they even have a Video of people smoking indoors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/default.stm
Now what did somebody say about the BBC editing out Hammond (Top Gear) for smoking?
The BBC, the smoking ban and those poor Islamic smokers…
Isn’t it obvious that because the BBC is reliant on public money via the TV licence fee (Tax), that you end up employing a socialist workforce with a bias in news reporting towards Labour and not reporting at all any news which contradicts your political agenda?
Posted by George on January 14, 2008 11:26 PM
Report this comment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=F4OOQLF4B2ZVHQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0;j?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2008/01/14/nosplit/view14c.xml
Oh dear. Metrication rears its ugly head again.More martyrs to EU folly.
Pounce,
The government has really got its head up its arse on smoking.If the shisha is allowed we can all us it.If it isn’t the shit will hit the fan.
Why do these imbecilic politicians think we can have multicultural societies and impose unitary laws on it.It is obvious that it won’t.
“Why do these imbecilic politicians think we can have multicultural societies and impose unitary laws on it.It is obvious that it won’t.”
To prove we can all live together under universal laws and therefore promote understanding and end war forever.
The licence fee tax is being used by the BBC to push its agendas – this is like having to pay for a newspaper every day of your life even though you don’t agree with its various stances and don’t want to read it, or having to pay for a subscription to a political party even though you object to their policies. With their licence tax billions the BBC have been thinking above themselves, rather than just a plain ordinary public broadcasting corporation disseminating unbiased news, drama and factual programming without overbearing opinions, they seek to change the minds of the British people. Opinions are what the BBC does best – their misguided trendy liberal views permeate through everything they do, but this is not what we pay them for even if they cannot help it. This liberal groupthink organ should now stand on its own two feet and stopped from taxing everyone with a television set.
Mr Thompson, should we be allowed to have the fundamental freedom not to have to pay £135.50 if we don’t want to watch the BBC and/or don’t agree with what the BBC stands for?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=F4OOQLF4B2ZVHQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0;j?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2008/01/14/nosplit/view14c.xml%5DArticle Link
John Reith:
“‘Sooooo biased’, they’d wail, ‘see how Al-Beeb try to minimize the Palestinian culpability bu using the word ‘killing’ rather than ‘slaughtered’.
And more in the same vein.
John Reith | 14.01.08 – 2:20 pm | #”
Odd that you had to dredge up a three and a half year-old article to prove your point that the BBC does lay culpability at the hands of the Palestinians (in its opening paragraphs, no less!) when they fire rockets at Israeli civilians. There have been thousands of rockets fired since then, with dozens of injuries, several deaths, lots of property destruction, and quite recently a two year old Israeli toddler was injured by a rocket (a story never picked up by the BBC), yet your example does nothing more than prove the exception to the rule. The truth is that were you to review BBC online articles on the Middle East for the last seven years there is demonstrable, quantifiably overwhelming evidence that the BBC tends to bury Palestinian culpability in cases of “clashes” and “rockets fired in ‘reaction’ to Israeli operations” deeper in its articles and tends to feature Israeli culpability more front and center, in headlines and opening paragraphs. It doesn’t take a genius to notice this, just a committed reader.
I see that today’s BBC/NuLab mud-slinging at the Conservatives involves David Cameron. In their new piece about the Peter Hain allegations maybe being referred to the Police – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7188461.stm – the BBC put in a new non-story piece of conflating with this “Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that Tory leader David Cameron failed to tell the Electoral Commission about three free flights he took during his leadership campaign in 2005. The donated flights are registered in David Cameron’s name in the Commons register of members’ interest, but do not appear in the Electoral Commission’s record. The commission says a donation of more than £1,000 must be declared and it is estimated these flights would have cost between £3,000 to £8,000. However Mr Cameron’s office said the costs could be split between the number of people on board, keeping the amount for Mr Cameron below £1,000 on at least one of the flights.”
The BBC never happier than when attacking Conservatives and supporting Labour.
BBC is going into full cross promotion mode to counter ITV News At Ten, using all the free (paid for by us) advertising available.
I’ve just heard a promotion for the BBC ten o clock news on my local BBC radio station, with Hugh Edwards promoting their “big story” tonight.
After which the BBC local Discy-jokey said “In other words, don’t watch Sir Trevor!”
Desperate times indeed.