! 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 also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.
General BBC-related comment thread
Bookmark the permalink.
disillusioned german 12:45 pm
Yes, we must oppose the entry of 75 million Turks into the EU, and the consequent mass immigration from Turkey into the UK, Germany, Belgium,etc which would follow; as this understated ‘Economist’ article indicate there are all these problems in Germany even without Turkish entry(and worse ones not mentioned):
“Germany’s Turkish minority: Two unamalgamated worlds”
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10958534
“Stamp duty was raised and raised again on the basis of ‘dampening the hyper demand in the housing market’.”
Ah! You miss Gordon Brown’s cunning plan.One of the reasons Britain did not join the euro,is because of the lack of “convergence” between the British and the EU housing market.Britain’s economy is heavily reliant on the property market. Somewhere there will be instructions from Brown’s masters to cool the housing market down ready for Britain joining the euro. The Lisbon Treaty/constitution would be meaningless with a major country using its own currency.
Expect European carpetbaggers to make a killing.
I’m in shock. Newsnight actually had a decent guest on.
Take a bow James Caan of Dragon’s Den fame.
Gavin Esler’s was spouting “its a global issue” nonsense about the economy. Backing up the supposedly impartial beeboid was the Labour Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, John McFall.
In comes the super James Caan to skewer the ‘we can’t do anything’ lie by asking McFall what percentage of petrol prices is tax! A patently obvious riposte but a first for Newsnight.
MN: Yes. I see McFall is yet another Labour MP who has no experience of the real world of business (he appears to have no qualifications to be head of the Treasury Select Committee – he was a teacher before being an MP). In the USA George Bush is doing quite a lot to fire up their economy. Here we have a bunch of Scottish halfwits (Broon, Darling and McFall) who don’t have a clue what to do.
Cann should have got him on the issue of cutting public spending. It’s a joke with this shite Government and the BBC that they keep banging on about the NHS (a useless organisation that appears to kill as many people as it cures and if Michael Moore really likes it I challenge him to go and have an operation in Maidstone hospital) and the amount of money it gets.
They should be slashing public spending and cutting taxes. Why the BBC refuses to ASK this simple question is beyond me.
Aoun | 02.07.08 – 2:13 pm | #
Aoun,
Your link confirmed what I already knew; that we’re poles apart. You see truth where I see emotive histrionics.
I suspect that we have our minds pretty well made up about what constitutes truth, and most of what we say to each other is possibly an exercise in rationalisation – to ourselves as much as to each other.
So you will not be surprised to hear that although I am sorry for the lady from Milwaukee and the others, I would ask how that situation came about. Then we would be back to square one.
I can’t agree with your presumptive assertion that ‘Clearly such obstruction has nothing to do with genuine security issues.’ or “This is the sort of thing the BBC should report rather than the crazies from Hamas. ‘
This, unfortunately, IS the sort of thing the BBC reports on all too often, and unlike electronic intifada which is…an intifada, the BBC is supposed to be an impartial organisation that should inform not emote.
Sue | 02.07.08 – 11:32 pm |
although I am sorry for the lady from Milwaukee and the others, I would ask how that situation came about. Then we would be back to square one.
Probably so. But if we all stopped squabbling about how the situation came about and fixed on how to improve it, then most people of good sense and good will on both sides might end up on the same page, instead of poles apart.
The BBC doesn’t help because it thinks it is ‘realistic’ to focus on the gun-toting literalists. History is always made by romantics.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST?
Compare the fawning and breathless coverage of the failed attempt by the BBC socialist hero Chavez to release the FARC hostages with its current tight lipped and resentful coverage of the Columbian president Uribe and the Columbian Armys successful rescue mission! Hmmm? I wonder why the difference in coverage? We see the BBC in its true light now? The BBC is full of childish socialists who idolise perverted killers like Castro and Plastic Castro wannabes like Chavez and see them as heroic freedom fighters!
The BBC hates Uribe simply because Chavez hates uribe yes? The BBC is a biased left wing propaganda arm Yes? Now if Chavez had been able to buy/negotiate the release of the hostages then the BBC would be naming buildings after him yes? But because it was the class enemy and Yank lover Uribe who got the hostages out they dont want to know?
An anthropologist’s take on the BBC’s Tribal Wives:
Karen is supposedly going out to discover if she can change her life, but the film stops as soon as she leaves the village. They should talk to her six months later to see if she really has changed. Instead, we get a romantic notion of a Shangri-La. The idea that we have lost something that only the “savage” can teach us is hardly new. A serious series about what marriage means in different parts of the world would have been far more interesting.
Frankly, the only reason this show works at all is because the volunteers are women. If they called it Tribal Husbands, and featured 48-year-old men going to Ecuador to find a bride, just imagine the squeals.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/01/anthropology?gusrc=rss&feed=media
This BBC report about a ‘man’:
“Man ‘linked to Bin Laden’ freed”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7487475.stm
– can be much better appreciated here from this excellent piece:
“Why British judges are freeing terrorists”
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=595
Jacqui Spliff was just on the Jon Gaunt show on Talksport. As much as I can’t stand Gaunt he did give Spliff a much harder time than she ever gets on GMTV or the BBC. Don’t think she’ll be going back!
Martin & Baggiejonathan: You are both spot on.
a true “Green taxes” is one where the treasury is not dependent on the revenue stream.
How many times ahve we heard the half-wit Mps run down demands to cut fuel duty by claiming that spending on Schools & Hospitals would have to be cut.
I maintain that the best way to help families, fill brown holes in the economy and “save the planet” would be the immediate abolition of the BBC and selling-off the assets.
What government gets the chance, in one fell swoop, to make every family £140 a year better off, to remove one of the largest electricity users (saving all that CO2 if you belive in that one) and to gain a few billions to cut tax, waste on windmills, whatever.
Since there are more licence payers than Beeboids, there will actually be some votes in it.
Any party not considering such a policy must be out of their frigging minds.
Where is the analysis to indicate that when Brown’s Labour government gives an extra £500m to various Pakistanis in Pakistan, that this will reduce the incidence of Islamic jihad attacks?
“Britain doubles aid to Pakistan”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7486948.stm
There is none:
“Shades of Steyn! Our friends the Pakistanis threaten —er, I mean, request the EU to end free expression”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/15278
Further to above;
Memo for Brown, Labour government, the BBC, Ms. Plett, and above all the British voters, taxpayers and licencepayers:-
” Our ‘Ally’ Pakistan ”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/14437
Have your say:
Is US troop surge in Iraq a success?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forumID=5034&edition=2&ttl=20080703150420&#paginator
I thought that the anwser was unquestionably “YES”.
No civil war
greatly reduced violence
greatly reduces casualties
etc.
But then I am not force fed the BBC propaganda. And it is interesting to read the total disconnect with reality which is the result of this propaganda.
A pretty boring ‘Question Time’ in prospect from Scotland tonight. (I never watch it anyway: the biased audience selection, the biased panel selection, the biased chairman, etc.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/7483855.stm
Mike_s | 03.07.08 – 3:20 pm |
The BBC always likes to drum up evidence of public support for BBC narratives. They shut down and hide when comments don’t go to form, and pull out the most egregious examples they agree with to use as featured quotes in news articles.
BIG BREAKING NEWS STORY
Ray Lewis has been accused of sexual misconduct.
Sky note that it could be the Labour left trying to take revenge on Boris Johnson.
The BBC….. well what do you think.
George R | 03.07.08 – 4:19 pm |
I can accept that Nicola Sturgeon’s bio is the only one with a mention of her negative comments about New Labour regarding the noise about Wendy Alexander. That’s why she’s on the show this week, obviously.
However, why does the BBC put in Douglas Alexander’s rebuttal? What purpose does that serve other than to take her down a peg in they eyes of the reader? Do they do that in other guest bios? Is this a hint of the way she’ll be treated on the show?
What a shock. Even though Ray Lewis has been convicted of nothing, the BBC attack dogs are in full force. That ugly jock bird was laying into Lewis and pointing out how BAD it will be for David cameron (smear smear smear)
I’m strongly suspecting the stench of Michael Prick at work here. Funny how the BBC seem to have plenty of info on this story.
However, I don’t remember the BBC being quite so keen on Ken Livingstone’s sleaze (didn’t the BBC have stuff on Lee Jasper a year before it came to light?)
We BBC haters need to watch the left wing twats here as they are clearly going ot smear Boris Johnson regardless of the outcome. The BBC were running a video of David Cameron meeting Ray Lewis and praising him (mind you didn’t the lefties welcome Ray Lewis’s appointment?)
Peter Hain anyone?
I commented the other day that the BBC were bigging up that non story about the RAF in the USA and their crap new toy (the Typhoon).
Now the BBC have beeb bigging up these two pointless aircraft carriers. What no one is mentioning on the BBC (surprise surprise) is that they are being built in Scotland.
So yet again the English tax payer is funding Scottish jobs to prevent Nu Labour being wiped out by the Nats at the next election.
Completely off-topic, inasmuch as it’s not bias. But it is a casual laziness that the BBC should be truly ashamed of . . .
. . . and that’s the BBC’s unwillingness or inability, or laziness, or combination of all the above, that allows their commentators in the second week of Wimbledon still not to have a clue about how to pronounce the name of the plucky and charitably-inclined Chinese ladies semi-finalist Zheng Jie.
For some reason – probably just sonic accident – they persist in pronouncing it ‘Jong Jee’. As anyone who has even a passing knowledge of Chinese could tell them, and as the sainted lady herself did tell them in an interview, this is just wrong. The correct pronounciation is rather more like Jung Ji-Air, with the second Ji-Air two distinct sounds.
This is basic phonics and easy to pronounce. What’s the matter with BBC commentators and newscasters that they think they needn’t bother to get it right? Their unwillingness to take the minimal time and trouble to find out and then act on the knowledge is very very lazy. And it’s also, to my mind, a discourtesy to the lady involved.
Maybe by next year, they’ll repair their manners. But I doubt it.
Michael Taylor:
Completely off-topic, inasmuch as it’s not bias. But it is a casual laziness that the BBC should be truly ashamed of . . .
I still say Peking! Sorry.
On the front page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
How the hostages were released
It implies that they were let free by the FARC.
Questiontime. 4 liberal lefties and one Tory. Oh and an audience of unemployed ginger haired skirt wearing men. Brilliant.
More shite from Emily Maitlis on Newsnight. She just said in an interview to Paulson “hasn’t George Bush wasted the last 8 years on looking at alternative fuels?”
Hang on. Who was in charge BEFORE Bush? Why Bill (I’ll shag anything with a pulse) Clinton and Mr Al Bore the great saviour of the planet (he invented the Internet and Christianity you know). What did those two halfwits do for 8 years? SFA that’s what.
Michael,
They couldn’t pronounce Bethanie MA-ttek either. And yes, this was just an excuse to post a pic:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/mattekbboyDM0309_468x501.jpg
Martin wrote;
“Now the BBC have been digging up these two pointless aircraft carriers. What no one is mentioning on the BBC (surprise surprise) is that they are being built in Scotland.”
The BBC just loves to stick the boot in at those who won’t and can’t fight back. I wonder if they will do a story on how Black men who own Mercs/BMWs in London drive like they own the road. (ESP that twat who pulled straight onto the road Before Wembley) Nah that is racist , the BBC would do a story on how evil it is for immigrants to have a valid driving licence in the UK. (Aimed at that Spanish woman who cut me up tonight, mind you the black tape holding her rear bumper together tells me that trick hasn’t always worked)
pants:
I wonder if they will do a story on how Black men who own Mercs/BMWs in London drive like they own the road
David Vance: Here is Chapter One of your book. Right here….
(ESP that twat who pulled straight onto the road Before Wembley)
£3 billion to spend, and they weren’t even there to capture this, er, event…shameful.
Nah that is racist
Admirable that you’re owning up. It’s better for you in the long run…
the BBC would do a story on how evil it is for immigrants to have a valid driving licence in the UK
When did you last look up a dictionary definition of evil?
Aimed at that Spanish woman who cut me up tonight…
They’re out to get you mate. I hate to say it…
…mind you the black tape holding her rear bumper together tells me that trick hasn’t always worked
Amid all the evil, proof there is a just God.
Hallelujah!
.
A top judge says that some aspects of Sharia law might have a role in the UK’s legal system – contrast two reports on this story.
The first from the Daily Mail, which does its job in reporting the understandable barrage of criticism which has ensued after the judge’s comments:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
“But his remarks, which back the informal sharia courts operated by numerous mosques, provoked a barrage of criticism.
Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by sharia could disadvantage women or the vulnerable.
Tories said that legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.”
Now look at the BBC’s reporting of the same story – absolutely no mention of any outrage or criticism at all. In fact one would think that the judge’s comments have provoked no controversy in the slightest. Sharia law in the UK legal system? Move along – nothing to see here…The BBC obviously sees no problem with this at all and doesn’t think it’s necessary to report any counter opinions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7488790.stm
BBC apologists will no doubt claim that the BBC is being “impartial” in this case by simply reporting what the judge said and offering no opinion, but those whose brains tend not to be comprised of mashed turnip know fine well that when it’s a case of someone expressing an opinion which the left wing ideologues at Al-Beeb don’t like, they make every effort to include as much counter opinion as possible, including opening up a “Have Your Say” on the matter and publishing a carefully selected “correct” opinion on the page of the story. Etc.
I rest my case.
Good editorial by our friend Jeff Randall in the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/04/ccjeff104.xml
The bBc, the east London mosque , how sharia law is good for you and half the story.
Sharia law ‘could have UK role’
Principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system, the Lord Chief Justice has said. But there is no possibility of sharia courts sitting in the UK, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers added. Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law’s principles could not be used in mediation…. Sharia is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe one should live one’s life. In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel, Lord Phillips said that sharia suffered from “widespread misunderstanding”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm
and here is a something the bBC doesn’t want to advertise about that ‘East London Muslim centre/Mosque.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/East_London_Mosque_Front_View.jpg
Look at the notice boards next to the doors.
The bBc, the east London mosque , how sharia law is good for you and half the story.
Change from the Middle East – Ingrid Betancourt and FARC – more BBC confusion as to who are the good guys
The headline claims “Betancourt urges Farc peace talks” (Clearly “talks about peace” are the solution to all conflicts in Beebland?)
According to the leader article: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or Farc, has been waging a war of independence for the past four decade”
Err would that be independence from the elected government of Columbia?
Elsewhere in its profiles of Columbian revolutionary groups it concedes “drugs have changed the way it fights..kidnapping and extortion are now often an end in themselves. The Farc …is on US and European lists of terrorist organisations”.
So BBC, “a war of independence” or “terrorists”? Put that Che Guevara T-shirt away!
Then its now automatic pop at Sarkozy (Axis of The Right Sarkozy/Merkel/Berlusconi) “an unsuccessful attempt to get her medical treatment”. Like his peace meeting with Israel was “spoiled”.
Drip drip drip.They must have a script.
1.) UK: Sharia law, BBC report-
Receiving less prominence on its UK webpage than a report on:
“Badger cull proposals rejected’,
we finally get to the BBC’s blandly reported:
“Sharia law ‘could have UK role'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm
As mentioned above (by e.g. Jason, and Pounce) the BBC does not indicate the controversial, unpopular nature of such pronouncements.
The ‘Daily Express’ rightly does:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/51021
2.) TURKEY: Sharia law, BBC report:
for Turkey*, the BBC at least gives some indication of the very controversial nature of Sharia law for Turkey, (if not for the UK):
“Turkey’s ruling party has been defending itself in court against
charges that could see it closed down.
“Prosecutors allege that the AK Party wants to impose Sharia law and is a threat to Turkey’s secular status…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7487222.stm
(* the BBC reports Turkey on its ‘Europe’ page, even though Turkey is located predominantly in Asia: so as to further the Brown-Miliband campaign for entry of 75 million Turks into EU.)
I expect that this Jeff Randall article about Anthony Jay’s new book:
‘How to save the BBC’ (Centre for Policy Studies) will get much attention on this site.
Jeff Randall recalls this particular experience of corporate imposition of ‘multiculturalism’ at the BBC:
“According to Jay: ‘Corporate gigantism and belief in a unique moral mission have made the BBC what it is today. And yet both are of vanishingly small concern to viewers and listeners.’ It’s the high-handed moral rectitude that many outsiders find so infuriating.
“In 2003, I was fighting an internal battle to bring more balance to the BBC’s coverage of immigration. I felt that some of its reporters had been programmed to promote the benefits of cultural diversity as an incontrovertible fact.
“Fed up with what he perceived to be my subversion, one of the BBC’s most senior figures sent me an email: ‘The BBC internally is not neutral about multiculturalism. It believes in it and promotes diversity. Let’s face up to that.’
“I was amazed that he felt unembarrassed to put this in a formal memo. It revealed an arrogant mindset at odds with millions of his customers. Impartiality was fine, but only if it confirmed the prejudices of the BBC’s editorial elite, the self-appointed custodians of liberal values.” (Jeff Randall).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/04/ccjeff104.xml
Jack Bauer,
I’m relatively relaxed about the Beijing/Peking thing, as it’s just another variant of the London/Londres choice we all have to make.
But, as it happens you hit on another area where our lavishly tax-funded State Broadcaster repeatedly can’t be bothered to get its linguistic arse into gear. The BBC has gone for the ‘Beijing’ route – fair enough – but once again can’t be bothered to find out how to pronounce it. Nine times out of 10 they pronounce it ‘Beige-ing’, as if the whole city were an attempt to smear a drab but inoffensive colour across the expanse of northern China. This is not an editorial judgement, it’s just ignorant and wrong. The correct pronounciation recognises that the ‘j’ in Beijing is hard – almost a ‘tsj’. So instead of ‘Beigeing’ it becomes something like ‘Bay Tsjing’.
I shudder to think at the numbers of BBC creeps who’ll be sponging off our taxes in Beijing this Olympics, but I wonder whether their extended exposure to that city might at least have the benefit of enlightening them as to where they’ve been. Once again, one can but hope.
Right, that’s enough pedantry for now. Have a nice day.
There are an awful lot of people in Britain now who are pretty familiar with the Chinese capital, and the BBC keeps correspondents there at our expense. Is it too much to ask that they
pounce: Where is the entrance for homosexual men?
There’s a thoughtful article on the future of the BBC by Jeff Randall in today’s Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/04/ccjeff104.xml
RE: MP’s expenses vote
Of the 172 MP’s who voted to keep the ‘John Lewis list’; 84% [146] were Labour MP’s. I’d have thought that this fact was worth a mention by our State Broadcaster • but surprise, surprise • their silence is deafening. Why is that?
Now it could be argued that since this was a free vote, party affiliations were irrelevant. True • but if that’s the BBC’s excuse then why did the same rules not apply to the abortion vote recently? If you remember, the BBC ran several stories both on-line and on-screen, talking about the high % of Tory MP’s who voted in favour of lowering the abortion limit and what this might mean if a future Conservative GVN was elected [sub-text: if you favour the status-quo on abortion you’d better vote Labour or Lib-Dem].
Now I have no problem with the above • a Conservative GVN probably would lower the abortion limit. But from last night’s vote it is also equally clear that a future Tory GVN would end the John Lewis list. So why hasn’t this been highlighted?
Chris Grayling was on 5 lite this morning attacking the vote last night. People kept referring to his as “that sensible Lib Dem MP”. Victoria Derbyshire didn’t bother to correct them that he’s a Tory.
It was of course a greedy pig Labour MP that was defending himself for voting to keep the John Lewis list.
Michael Taylor:
Jack Bauer,I’m relatively relaxed about the Beijing/Peking thing, as it’s just another variant of the London/Londres choice we all have to make.
MT — I have a thing about faux attempts to pronounce “foreign” words like johnny foreigner does in his own land.
And consistency, which actually supports your position.
For instance, why doesn’t the BBC have its halfwits say Paree, Roma, Noo York, Lisboa, Barthelona, Polska, Livorno, et al, if it’s going to insist on Bejing for Peking, Mumbai for Bombay, and all those other idiotic attempts to be PC — Pronunciationally Correct.
And is the Chinese for “China” really “China”?
Football commentators, in particular, drive me up the wall with their moronic attempts to sound “cosmopolitan” by saying MEElan for Milan, “Davide” for the correct English pronunciation of David.
It wasn’t so very long ago that educated folks said in English “Don Kwixote” And so forth.
JB,
I think it’s impossible to drain this swamp along any rationally defensible lines. I’d have nothing against the BBC opting for Peking or Bombay or Burma, or even Persia & Mesopotamia for that matter.
Similarly, I’d not get too excited if its football commentators opt for either ‘David’ or ‘Davide’.
In both these cases there are two concurrent internationally acceptable pronounciations with which most people would be familiar, and which both could probably accept with equanimity (even though feeling them wrong, or out of date).
But with ‘Jong Jee’ for Zheng Jie, that simply isn’t the case. The various weird attempts by the commentators weren’t debateable amongst different audiences – they were simply and flatly wrong in any language and to any audience. It’s wrong in the classic Constable Crabtree way – ‘I was pissing by your door.’ And, as I say, it’s also lazy and rude to the person involved.
So anyway, to cut a potentially long diatribe short . . . they’re paid good money to do their jobs, and that job includes learning something very simple like how to pronounce the competitors names – no difficult task when it’s just three syllables. Their unwillingness to make even that effort is, to my mind, deeply unprofessional, and ought to be a source of shame to the BBC as an institution. Fat chance!
My apologies to George R for duplicating his link. I’d missed his comment.
Not sure if this is of interest to this site, but following from last weeks announcement regarding positive discrimination, I thought I’d have a look at the BBC’s Workforce Diversity Targets and how they match with reality.
Surprisingly these were the results:
The BBC’s workforce targets
The BBC has set targets for ensuring that diversity is reflected on and off air, supported by a number of initiatives aimed at promoting diversity in the workforce and in output and content.
The current workforce targets are:
* 12.5% for black and minority ethnic staff overall (status: 11% at 31 January 2008)
* 7% for ethnic minority staff at SM1 and SM2 grades (4.8% at 31 January 2008)
* 4% for staff with disabilities (target met in November 2007)
The workforce targets are currently being reviewed by the BBC Diversity Board, which is chaired by the Director-General.
This is all very well, until you check what the UK’s ethnic diversity figures are:
White: 91%
Non White: 9%
There are no official statistics for the educational and financial status of uk subjects which has been split into ethnic bands or into disability bands. So how come the BBC has a target? And is it fair to under represent the white majority within the country that pays their telly tax?
Don’t people still say “Don Kwixot”? That’s what the letters spell, so why should we say it any differently?
(I noticed that the posters that were put up all round our town about Burma all called it Myanmar – but then they had to put Burma in brackets so we knew what they were talking about.)
Jay’s report on slimming the BBC is available at:
http://www.cps.org.uk/latestpublications/?
Has anybody linked to Jay’s piece in the Mail today?
Bloated, Biased and Creaky. A sitcom legend explains why the BBC must be broken up
By Antony Jay
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031706/Bloated-Biased-Creaky-A-sitcom-legend-explains-BBC-broken-up.html
What with Randall’s Telegraph piece today and David’s book announcement this week – maybe the boulder is starting to roll down the hill.
Time for the beeboids to jump out of the way?
Quite interesting to hear the Daily Mail attacked yet again on Radio 5 this morning by a caller.
I really do wish Victoria Derbyshire would ask “Why do you buy it then?” to which we know the answer “I don’t”, then “So if you don’t buy it how do you know what it’s writing?”
I’ve had tihs before with Fox News. Some twat is a pub was going on about Fox News being full of right wing Muslim hating Bush loving twats. When I asked him if he’d ever watched Fox News, he replied no. Got it all from the BBC.
pounce: Where is the entrance for homosexual men?
Martin | 04.07.08 – 9:07 am
You really do have an unhealthy fixation with gay men don’t you?
Were you perhaps molested as a child?
Do you perhaps struggle against an attraction to men yourself?
Before you ask, no I am not gay, none of my best friends are gay, but I do find your constant, gratuitous reference to male homosexuals boring, to say the least.
martin:
‘Quite interesting to hear the Daily Mail attacked yet again on Radio 5 this morning by a caller.’
Like all leftie/progressives, the beeb are obsessed with the Daily Mail – probably because when the young beeboids were in their first flushes of idealistic far-leftism, their bigoted, right-wing, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, everything-phobic, wealthy, middle class parents read it over breakfast, while passing extremely un-pc comments about immigrants and single mothers. This would get the young beeboids fuming in righteous anger. ‘Daddy, you’re such a racist! I hate you! I hate everything about your petit bourgeoise world. By the way, can I have £1,000 please, I want to go travelling.’
Piers Morgan once said he aimed to ‘make Daily Mail readers splutter into their meusli.’
Yet ‘Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan is in many ways more Mail than Mirror, with his prep school education, handmade suits, chauffeur-driven car, Marco Pierre White dinners and Caribbean holidays.’
I reckon lefty/progressive/bbc types hate the Mail cos they hate themselves. They’re obsessed with it cos they’re obsessed with themselves too. They hate that they’re upper middle class and probably went to public school. They hate that their backgrounds mean they’re not cool and never will be. And that’s what really matters to them.
They blame their middle class parents and subsequently turn on every manifestation of their upbringing – except the money, cos lefty bbc types are without exception, tight-fisted, money-obsessed bastards.
Anyone else think the BBC’s choice of top stories on the TV news is rather odd?
We’ve had Badgers, SATS tests, That French woman released from captivity and a bit on the MP’s expenses (the BBC making some accusations about David Cameron as well)
Sky News have been going big on yet another knifing and the murder of the french guys.
Anyone else think the BBC is simply trying ot divert attention from the fact crime is out of hand in the UK and the Governmetn are totally to blame?