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. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated!
General BBC-related comment thread:
Bookmark the permalink.
@ MattLondon | 20.02.08 – 5:00 pm
Of course all Governments wanted to control the Unions, but no one dared to do so. Barbara Castle tried to bring in proposals with her policy “In Place of Strife” in 1969, but Wilson bottled out. The Heath Government was desperate to find a solution to the Union problem, but failed in the notorious Three Day Week and lost the election in 1974. Thereafter until Margaret Thatcher, no Government dared to challenge the Unions’ power.
The problem of over-mighty power in the country in the 1960s and 1970s is rather similar to what is happening today with a monolithic old-fashioned dinosaur trying to preserve and extend its power and privilege. We should modernise the BBC news department and give it some competition.
.
There’s been no sign of Andrew here for quite some time. I know he was suffering from ill health, I sincerely hope he gets over it.
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 20.02.08 – 5:26 pm | #
Didn’t know that. I hope he gets better soon too.
The link above gives some sense of the disturbing nature of pounce’s posting, though, don’t you think?
.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 5:23 pm
No.
Despite you posting several times since JR about other things you have not come back about this post.
“No reply to the poll details from 2007 I see, not still relying on that 2006 stuff are you JR?
Searching For Evidence | 20.02.08 – 4:09 pm”
I now have to assume you agree with it and are too embarassed to admit it.
Too late in the day, IMMIGRATION CONTROL is officially on this Labour government’s agenda:
“British citizenship rules planned” –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7253933.stm
That immigration control is on the political agenda is due to pressure from Britsh people:
“Brown warned of voters’ fears of the ‘vortex issue’ of immigration by his private pollster”:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=516279&in_page_id=1770
Regarding BBC HD on terrestrial. My understanding is that although trials have been carried out, there is NOT sufficient bandwidth available at the moment for the number of channels required and deliver HD at the same time.
This problem won’t be solved (if at all) until analogue it switched off. And even then those frequencies might be sold off to make money for something else.
Not only that, many people cannot receive digital terrestrial (I can’t) and many people can’t get cable, their ONLY alternative is satellite.
The BBC are arseholes. The BBC should have provided (free of charge) satellite boxes and dishes FREE to every house. If they had sacked a few thousand of the losers they employ they could have afforded to do it.
Why should the BBC still cream in £140 a year whilst people who want HD TV have to pay a third party to get BBC output?
The BBC are a joke, a bunch of arseholes who think that tele tax monmey is for gold plated pensions and 6 figure salaries whilst private companies build the infrastructure to actually deliver high quality digital TV.
I called myself Ultraviolence back then.
Anyway, the emotional outburst from Pounce has been forgotten until I brought it up again. I’m sorry. Now let’s get back to what we normally discuss here at B-BBC; Al-Beebs obstinate, institutional refusal to call a spade a spade and properly report mass-murder as mass-murder and not “militancy” or “bombings.”
Radical impartiality they call it: institutional mass-murder denial I call it.
But then again, Hillhunt probably sympathises with the said mass-murder denial. Didn’t you inform us that were being groomed by a pair of Muslims for conversion to Islam? Visiting a Mosque?
More bollocks from the BBC. 6PM News (not even worth calling it news these days) on the story about the USA trying to intercept the spy satellite. The USA has of course already explained WHY they want to try to intercept it and destroy it, but oh no the BBC thinks it’s got more to do with the USA wanting to have a “willy waving” contest with China (those MAGNIFICANT COMMUNISTS).
What a bunch of arsewipes the BBC are. If the Americans just let this thing come down and it hits a populated area can you imagine what the BBC mafia will say about America?
However, switching over to Fox News there was an excellent interview with a former US Navy Captain who explained very clearly to the Fox News anchor why they needed to do it and what the shoot down would mean and how it would be done. Very clear and very balanced.
Unlike the Arsehole Broadcasting Corporation as I now call them.
Regarding Obama. The ABC (Arsehhole Broadcasting Corporation) are in a real tail spin here. Many posters here will have noted how pro Hillary and anti Obama the BBC has been. I suspect the BBC “Assumed” that Hillary would win and that they have a lot of programmes in the making about “The First Female President” a good excuse for the short dumpy deep voiced “Wimmin” at the BBC to vent their anti male spleens.
But god forbid that a “man” might defeat Hillary, even if it’s a black man (the BBC hates black people as most of us are aware, unless they are employed as cleaners or in the BBC canteen of course)
The BBC on 5 lite even interviewed some dopey Tory MP who has been helping Hillary’s campaign. Good lad, keep helping her and stay away from helping Cameron at the next election.
Woad:
Hillhunt probably sympathises with the said mass-murder denial. Didn’t you inform us that were being groomed by a pair of Muslims for conversion to Islam? Visiting a Mosque?
Er, no. I’m with Christopher Hitchens on organised religion. God is not great.
Of whatever flavour…
My, my the return of the clones. Heartfelt concern for the broken-reed Andrew; Reith’s pouting pleas for politeness (please!); flapping red herrings and crocodile tears about the non-banned banned — jeez, butter won’t melt anywhere near you guys. What a crock of crap.
Somewhere in all that, self-esteem must take a hit. It can’t be much of a life and you girls really hate to be ignored, don’t you? I guess the hope is a little muck-spreading will confuse the sheep. You’re dead wrong, it’s too late for that.
Many people loathe and despise what you represent. There ain’t a damn thing you can do to change it. It must suck to be you.
knacker:
Many people loathe and despise what you represent. There ain’t a damn thing you can do to change it. It must suck to be you.
I understand the emotion, K, but don’t you think that’s a little harsh?
These guys honestly believe the BBC is Biased. It’s up to us to help them see where they’re wrong…
.
u on drugs as well hillhunt like the rest of the beeboids?
Cockney | 20.02.08 – 8:19 am |
Did the BBC reporter really say how ‘brilliant’ it was David? ‘Cause if nothing else us Brits lead the world at creating an atmosphere at sporting events (along with the Turks and Irish perhaps and obviously excluding any Arsenal home games).
Even an ignorant American like myself knows the difference between British and European football crowd behavior and the highly rehearsed, mechanically choreographed performance seen here. The BBC reporter portrays this obvious display of brainwashing and autonomic behavior as being perfectly fine, parroting the Chinese government propaganda. He even puts a little “sell” into his voice at one point.
But don’t take my biased American word for it. You can see the report for yourself here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7254479.stm
AND
Cockney | 20.02.08 – 1:42 pm |
I’m slightly perplexed by the fact that nobody has commented on the Kosovo/Serbia situation, surely the most interesting and important geopolitical issue of the day (and an excuse for the usual suspects to stop banging on about Israel).
Is this because the coverage has been exemplary or because nobody understands the issues or because B-BBC’s Russian/Serbian readership needs a marketing drive. Personally I think that the lack of historical and cultural context given in the reporting has been pretty poor.
But it hasn’t been really biased toward one side or the other, has it? If the reporting seems a little incoherent, its just down to the fact that they’re throwing everything in there without trying to make sense of it all. I bet a different team is producing the historical background stuff, shown in side links (which they pretend people actually read for context), and neither group talks to the other. This is typical, and has been brought up before. Also, unless I am mistaken, it seems that like the silly TV people they are, the BBC has assigned younger, newer people to cover the story, rather than older reporters who would have some knowledge of the region because they covered it a few years back when this all started.
But that’s not particularly biased, is it? Just a little sloppy. So I don’t think it’s so puzzling that nobody here has been complaining.
Nothing from the BBC on this:
Ban Ki-moon slams Ahmadinejad over ‘microbe’ remark
But they waste no time in reporting this:
Israeli MP blames quakes on gays
But they waste no time in reporting this:
Israeli MP blames quakes on gays
Biodegradable’s Ghost | 20.02.08 – 7:44 pm |
And waste absolutely no time to report that Chelsea’s Israeli soccer coach Avram Grant received an anti-semitic death threat and police is investigating.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/956309.html
Is this also anti-Zionist and not anti-semitic? Is that why it doesn’t deserve a mention on BBC, but
“Israeli MP blames quakes on gays” does.
Even though we find out by the end of the “quakes” article that Israel’s record on gay-rights is better than most in the West. Including openly gay senior officers in the IDF. Nevertheless the classical Israel demonization title is given based on a quote of a religious minority loon, no one is taking seriously.
Bizzare selection of stories to cover and not to cover.
waste absolutely no time = don’t report at all on the anti-semitic death threat Avram Grant received!
Bob Geldof says something controversial about African poverty and the BBC doesn’t go near the story? Not even the Today programme, whose current editor has a particular love of items about celebs with causes. Puzzling? No, not really.
These guys honestly believe the BBC is Biased. It’s up to us to help them see where they’re wrong…
.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 7:06 pm | #
Well you ain’t doin’ much of a job so far.
These guys honestly believe the BBC is Biased. It’s up to us to help them see where they’re wrong…
.
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 7:06 pm | #
And it is up to us to prove that you are in a serious state of denial.
Alan, what’s this then? About 12 hours before your post..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7254547.stm
The People’s Front of Judea | 20.02.08 – 1:54 pm | #
“Just because some people use awful “cuss words” doesn’t mean their comments are any less valid than your own.”
True, but I was referring to the assertion that the anti-bbc posters manage to criticise the BBC while retaining dignity and not lowering themselves to being abusive – which is obviously nonsense.
“The beauty of the internet means that you can say what you want and pretty much get away with it. Truth be told, if you were standing in a room with me and started churning out your Islam worshipping gobshite, I’d just smack you in the mouth.”
Guess you can only manage the abusive part.
Many people loathe and despise what you represent. There ain’t a damn thing you can do to change it. It must suck to be you.
knacker | 20.02.08 – 6:58 pm | #
Things could be much much worse.
Hillhunt wrote;
“Absolutely not. The post was pulled within ten minutes with sharp words from the moderator, unsurprisingly.”
Excuse me,I’ve never had a post pulled.
I have had one post ammended by Nat on which she added she knew where i was coming from and that i clearly pointed out no threat was been made.
So Hillhunt please be so kind as to provide that actual post .Silly me you say it was pulled, in that case find the moderators retort. You can’t , you won’t and that tells me all i need to know about how people like you resort to mud slinging in which to try and gain the moral high ground.
So on that note please pray tell what i was supposed to have said to you..
Oh and the post of mine that Nat censored;
It was about how would the parents at the BBC feel if a bunch of militants decided to conduct a peaceful protest at a school in London like they did in Beslan. The way the BBC reported it the muslims were the bloody innocents. Yup sure would like to see the BBC report that one.
Please feel free to reply.
Anonymous | 20.02.08 – 8:11 pm |
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NATION/882137091/1002
score one up for geldof,of course your right the bbc would never use this quote,it would hurt too much.
Mr. Bush “has done more than any other president so far,” Mr. Geldof said.
“This is the triumph of American policy really,” the singer continued. “It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion. What’s in it for him? Absolutely nothing.
its enough to make matt frei’s eyes water.
BBC 10 o’clock coverage of the US Primaries was well up to the mark tonight. The Justin Webb report had lots about Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton obviously and the only reference to the Republican party was re them starting to take Barack Obama seriously because the Republicans attacked his wife for a slip of the tongue.
In the early stages of the Primaries, defenders of the BBC’s coverage said that the BBC were concentrating on the Democrats because that was a two horse race whilst the Republican contest was too confused to cover. Now I presume the excuse for all but ignoring the Republican contest will be that it is now too settled. Is there any level of contest within the Republican party that the BBC would deem suitable of covering? The answer of course is no; the BBC is not interested in reporting and analysing the news it is interested in getting a Democrat elected President.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/02/bbc-mccain-is-a.html
I see BBC Newsnight with “oh did my tits fall out of my dress again?” Emily Maitlis was banging on about this American spy satellite.
What utter arseholes the BBC are. They’ve [the USA] have got NO control over this satellite so it could come down just about anywhere. Odds are it would hit either water or uninhabited land. However, it could come down over a populated area. Seems to me that it makes sense that if you’ve got a chance to damage it enough to ensure that most of it burns up you’d do it (nothing to lose) but oh no the BBC are now driving this story.
Emily Maitlis interviewed some liberal prat who trie dto claim that it is in retaliation for a Chinese missile that shot down a Chinese satellite as a test and that there was (rightly) outrage at the time as the Chinese sent debris back into orbit.
However, in this case they will be hitting the satellite very close to the atmosphere so most of the debris will either burn up or will get dragged down into the atmosphere eventually.
Not that dopey Maitlis could understand that (well that arts degree isn’t much use with Orbital Mechanics is it luv?)
I actually wish the Americans would now leave it and the sodding thing come down on top of Mecca, that would be hilarious!
Er, no. I’m with Christopher Hitchens on organised religion. God is not great.
Of whatever flavour…
Hillhunt | 20.02.08 – 6:43 pm |
Than, like me, you must abhor the BBC for giving Islam a free pass that it doesn’t extend to any other religion.
Ben:
Alan, what’s this then? About 12 hours before your post..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/72…/uk/ 7254547.stm
Ben | 20.02.08 – 8:58 pm |
Nowhere near the front page prominence it gave the Israeli anti-gay religious loon (1 of top three articles on Mid-East page for 12 hours).
True, I was not googling for it, I was reading the front page on Mid-East, Americas and UK every couple of hours and I didn’t see it anywhere.
Just because it appears buried somewhere in the wast license fee funded mess of a BBC news site doesn’t mean anything.
Alan:
Just because (the Avram Grant story) appears buried somewhere in the wast license fee funded mess of a BBC news site doesn’t mean anything.
I know. They just hate Jews at the BBC, don’t they?
Oops! The Grant story’s been running on the main pages after all, as I explained earlier…
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8468469111844664321/#386016
The Avram Grant story’s been on my UK page all day. Strap reads “Chelsea boss gets death threats” and opens with the words Anti-Semitic death threats have been sent to Chelsea football boss Avram Grant. It appears in Sports Headlines. (Grant is best known as a football manager).
Biased BBC: The Whingey City (part 2)
“Barack Obama seriously because the Republicans attacked his wife for a slip of the tongue.”
She didn’t just have a slip of the tongue…She said she had never been proud of her country in her entire adult life until the leftist loons started voting for her husband??? This along with the fact that Obama refuses to salute the American flag when the national anthem is played and made a point of never wearing an American pin during ceremonies has started to show people their true colors.
Along with the new news which will never make it to the BBC is that Obama has been ripping off the speeches and ideas of John Edwards almost word for word, he employees the same speech writer.
The leftists are such racist, the same words coming out of the mouth of the white Southern gentleman caused not a stir and they rejected in total, yet coming from the mouth of Obama and the leftist fall all over themselves.
pounce’s psycho moment:
Here’s what I said of pounce’s 2007 psycho post earlier on this thread:
He called for a direct bomb attack on BBC staff and on the schools their children use.
Here’s what the man himself writes just above:
It was about how would the parents at the BBC feel if a bunch of militants decided to conduct a peaceful protest at a school in London like they did in Beslan.
Not very far apart…even though the fearless pounce is still trying to weasel his way out of it.
pounce: the courage of other people’s convictions and half the story
.
hillhunt,
Your version of what pounce allegedly posted and what pounce says he wrote are as far apart as John O’Groats and Land’s End, and I know who’s version rings truer.
hillhunt; expert in weasling in and out of it. Twisting others’ words to suit a speciality.
The Avram Grant story’s been on my UK page all day. […] It appears in Sports Headlines. (Grant is best known as a football manager).
Biased BBC: The Whingey City (part 2)
Hillhunt | 21.02.08 – 12:45 am |
Oh, wow, UK Sports Headlines, what an exposure to your world wide readership. Quite the same as your site front page indeed.
LogicalSC | 21.02.08 – 12:51 am
Obama the member of the black nationalist church committed to full ecomonic parity between blacks and whites (which means Obama could well support a Poll Tax on white people for being white).
Obama the charlatan, he believes being racially mixed puts him in a better position to understand the politics of foreign countries.
Obama the demagogue, in a CBS interview with him and his wife, she said;
“The reality is that as a black man, Barrack can get shot going to the gas station.”
Obama remained silent. He didn’t correct this, how the can a race hustler say “No Michelle, the opposite is the truth.” He permits it. It’s a convenient lie, and demogogues thrive on lies.
Obama the race hustler, who spent the early years of his career as a Chicago ethnic rights advocate and campaigner. He got some asbestos removed from a housing estate. But he wasn’t satisfied with asbestos. He wanted to be the angry black man righteously rooting out predjudice and discrimination but he couldn’t find any. He knows why and it rips him apart.
Obama the Pied Piper. “Change” and “Hope” and of course vapid, but that is the important thing, by leaving those words undefined people fill the blank with their own messianic expectations. It’s the secret of “cool” incidently. He doesn’t sell people a policy, he sells a psychological attitude: accept change, all change. Not all change is good of course, but that requires deciding what is good and bad: discrimination. Nevertheless, moral deriliction seems to be quite charming for many Americans.
Bloody hell, I haven’t been here in about 12 hours and this place is like a first form class room waiting for the teacher to turn up. Another 600 posts to plough through.
Great, isn’t it?
Stiletto:
“I do not know how old the BBC troll currently using the handle of “John Reith” really is”
I’d guess he’s in his mid to late 50’s if comments like this are anything to go by:-
“Okay – let’s give your wheeze some
respectful attention.”
Wheeze? WHEEZE! When was the last time you ever met, or heard of someone who used a term like “wheeze.” I’m sure the last time I heard it was in the “Damnbusters.”
I bet old Reithy boy is a part-time magistrate in his spare time. Nice to know the BBC keep the old boy network firmly alive and well with people like Reith on the payroll.
It also appears our resident Oxbridge troll works in radio, and not TV:-
“FX: (hold under)…sheep bleating.”
He must have read a fair few radio scripts in his time to know the term (hold under).
What’s wrong Reith, doesn’t your management position in some crusty old BBC radio station take up enough of your time you need the cut and thrust of B-BBC to keep you going.
Not to worry, only a few years away from pension day eh? No wonder you’re so riled.
Sarah Jane:
Nice to see you back. Really. I’ve missed your Joyce Grenfell Jolly Hockysticks routine. I do wonder if you are not the offspring of Reith.
You said you were on holiday. Where would that be? Surely not ski-ing??
“He called for a direct bomb attack on BBC staff and on the schools their children use.”
“…how would the parents at the BBC feel if a bunch of militants decided to conduct a peaceful protest at a school in London like they did in Beslan.”
Hillhunt: “Not very far apart…”
Actually, those two seem very far apart.
If you lot want a break from insulting each other, try
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7254540.stm
It’s about the satellite being shot down by the USA.
‘Military operatives had only a 10-second window to hit the satellite – USA 193 – which lost control shortly after it was launched in December 2006.’ Why only 10 seconds? And hasn’t the satellite gone out of control, rather than ‘lost control’? It’s the boys on the ground who have ‘lost control’ of the satellite.
Worst use of metaphor/simile EVER! ‘The BBC’s Jonathan Beale in Washington says this operation was hugely ambitious – like trying to fire a missile through the eye of a needle.’ That’s not ambitious; that’s impossible.
Shocking grammar alert: ‘If the tank were to land intact, it could leak toxic gas over a wide area – harming or kill [sic] humans if inhaled, officials had warned.’ Another one: ‘Officials expect that over 50% of the debris will fall to Earth within the first 15 hours after the strike.’
How much do we pay for this rubbish?
LogicalSC: My phrasing may have been unclear; I was saying that it was the BBC who thought it was a slip of the tongue, I will amend my blog article to make this clearer.
The BBC seem gutted that the Americans have managed to do exactly what they planned. Not that the BBC will let TRUTH get in the way of a good lie or hatred.
Chuffer:
Shocking grammar alert: ‘If the tank were to land intact, it could leak toxic gas over a wide area – harming or kill [sic] humans if inhaled, officials had warned.’ Another one: ‘Officials expect that over 50% of the debris will fall to Earth within the first 15 hours after the strike.’
—————–
I was with you on the first example, but I can’t quite see what’s wrong with the second. Am I missing something?
Thank you
I think Prince Phillip did it.
What odds that Mohammed Al-Fayed thinks the BBC is biased too?
Miv:
‘Officials expect that over 50% of the debris will fall to Earth within the first 15 hours after the strike.’
OK.
It should be:
‘…will fall to earth within fifteen hours of the strike.’
The ‘first’ and ‘after’ are not needed. It wouldn’t take place during the ‘second’ or ‘third’ fifteen hours, and it certainly wouldn’t be ‘before’ the strike.
Keep it short, keep it elegant.
At least, that’s the sort of thing I learnt during my sub-editing course.
Post to the mods:
Are you aware that by the activity on the “General BBC-related comment thread” dated Tuesday, February 19, 2008 your site is being rendered useless by the deliberate wrecking activities of BBC agency workers operating as trolls?
Hillhunt” posted at least 23 times or so starting at 12:20 in the afternoon and ending at 12:52 in the morning.
“John Reith” posted some 22 times.
The level of their contribution is abuse, sarcasm, bullying, deliberate misunderstanding of a post, aggression, ridicule and childishness. They will back each other up as they hunt in packs.
They level this performance at anyone expressing any view disapproved of by the BBC.
Moral support was given by “Sarah Jane”. There are others too.
This is a deliberate coordinated attack presumably paid for by the BBC to stifle debate thought to be threatening to the interests of the BBC – it just shows what a really dangerous organisation the BBC has become and how urgent it is that it is reformed. The efforts of these feeble BBC trolls are the clearest evidence of this.
It seems very similar to the orchestrated abusive chanting attacks of the Brownshirts, the ignorant and primitive thugs that Nazi party used in Germany in the early 1930s to take control of the streets and stifle debate.
They are clearly agency workers employed by a PR company used by the BBC to spread deliberate disinformation and stifle debate.
Because of the total lack of effective moderation on this site they will win. That is a pity because David Vance’s initial articles are good and interesting.
Why do you let them wreck your site?
You are letting these agency workers kill any usefulness of your site – and the BBC wins, again. Shame.
.
Why have the BBC failed to point out the OECD figure on the UK’s immigrant population? (it seems to be between seven and eight per cent)
They manage to give the number percentage for other EU countries – but have omitted ours. “The OECD’s new research shows that immigrants now make up 7.5% of the population of the rich countries as a whole, with the highest proportion in Luxembourg (32%), Australia (23%) and Switzerland (22.6%)”
Nowhere does it give the UK figure for which you have to look at the chart. Instead it minimises the effect on the UK with the bland phrase
“In terms of the number of immigrants it accepts, the UK stands broadly in the middle of the OECD. ”
But the choice of comparator countries is baffling. The use of Japan as a comparator is perverse. And where is Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium?
Stilleto, they allow it because they are biased in favour of the BBC, isn’t it obvious?
Joel | Homepage | 21.02.08 – 10:24 am |
If Al Fayed did have a problem with the BBC, you can be sure we would all have heard about it by now.
Unlike the characters who can only post on this their displeasure on this blog, Al Fayed puts his money where his mouth is. I would be interested to see them try and get him paying his TV licence if he decided not to.
The posters on here would have plenty of ammo for his legal team too.
The BBC – a conspiracy you can believe in.
Justin Webb has been living in the US and out of the far left wing BBC bubble for so long, he’s starting to see the light.
Justin says this commentary on the current situation in Cuba is the best he’s seen.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aWVzmT1ASNUA
It’s pretty much the opposite BBC point of view on everything Cuba.
The commentary calls Castro and his brother dictators, says there’s half a centruy of frustration built up with far more than the 125,000 that left in the 80s wanting to leave, the situation resembles East Germany, gives Bush senior credit for that and says the current Bush is following that path and that the US trade embargo should remain!
All that and Justin says its the best he’s seen.
My, my, there may be some hope for Justin after all. Stay in the US and out of the left wing BBC bubble Justin and you’ll be enlightened even more.
Chuffer – thanks.
I’m ashamed I didn’t know that.