Did you by chance catch the BBC new drama series “Bonekickers” which started a six episode run last night? What a hoot! We had a set of archaeologists led by the undeniably feisty Julie Graham investigating “mysteries of the past.” This quickly turned into a laughable plot which revolved around white psychotic Christians seeking to rid Britain of all other religions. This culminated in the beheading of a Muslim by one of these crazed right wing Christian types. Got to hand it to the BBC – they sure have their finger on reality.
BONEKICKERS.
Bookmark the permalink.
Episode 4 of Bonekickers will focus on Iraq, no I’m not kidding!
It’s all too much & David Presser,
I wasn’t having a go at the viewing public for liking LoM. But, if viewers accept such thinly veneered propaganda there shouldn’t be surprise when the same writers impose their worldview more boldly the next time around.
Hi Martin
Many thanks for your answer. Much appreciated. Obviously, the problem with your approach is that it is highly skewed and selective. The only BBC output you are evaluating is the one you are prompted to by this site (if I understand you correctly).
By the time you are evaluating the “evidence” you are already pre-disposed. In other words, you are not really forming your opinion about the BBC yourself.
Hi Terry,
You write kindly:
“Hi “gunnar” aside from the snarky comments above, what did you think of the programme ? Was it pro-muslim enough for you ? Did Al-BBC tick all their usual anti-Christian, anti-British boxes ? Hey, how about an episode when they discover that the Holocaust was just a Zionist plot to create Israel ! That should please all the islamofascist lackeys at Al-Beeb and their gollum-like supporters.
Terry Johnson | 09.07.08 – 7:19 pm | # ”
Haven’t watched the programme, so can not comment.
Perhaps if you write to the BBC and suggest to that they should put in an episode along the lines you suggested they will do it. Afterall, they are the Al-Beeb and should be second nature to them. Coming to think of it, shouldn’t this be a weekly standard output?
Can I recommend your comment to be included in David’s book. I think it hits the right note and the language must be close to what is termed “the language of moral clarity” on this blog.
Bonekickers really was a load of old fairytale cobblers. All those nice Christians going around cutting off peoples heads?
I’m reminded of the queen in Alice in Wonderland who said “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The glib propagandist BBC filling our heads with fantasies while filling their pockets with licence fees.
TPO | 09.07.08 – 9:04 pm
By the way, is gunnar the latest hillhunt manifestation?
No, gunnar is just a fellow traveler. He is not a manifestation of Hillhunt’s Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
Hi Gunnar nice of you to reveal a somewhat, how shall we say, corporatist approach to the “mindset” of people who post their opinions on this blog, especially love the use of irony – very ironical.
Still just to dispel any suspicion that you are another witless stooge making patronising and intellectually indefensible assumptions about the ability of people who post here to make up their own minds – why are you defending things you say you have never seen? Unless its your job of course, in which case the loyalty is comendable if foolhardy.
Anyone know who is running the fan site on Bonekickers. I glanced at the comments section a few times today & by this afternoon they’d got over 120. About 98% panning the show. Just dropped by & the comments are down to 60 and although the response is still overwhelmingly unfavourable there’s a much higher proportion of +’s.
s this another bit of BBC revisionism?
moonbat nibbler | 09.07.08 – 10:03 pm
I wasn’t having a go at the viewing public for liking LoM. But, if viewers accept such thinly veneered propaganda there shouldn’t be surprise when the same writers impose their worldview more boldly the next time around.
I agree the thinly veneered propaganda is unsurprising, but there won’t be any public outcry. The most objectionable thing about this whole deal is that we know for a fact that showing a Muslim beheading a Christian or Jew would not be allowed on air because that would be “controversial” and “offensive”.
The BBC/Leftoid explanation for why the beheading of a Muslim by a white Christian is uncontroversial is the ultimate display of the inherent hypocrisy of postmodern relativism. I’ve said it time and time again in the direction of the long lost John Reith and the recent drive-by appearance of Nick Reynolds: they do take care to look out for Muslim sensibilities, but absolutely will not do the same for anyone else. It’s not that they deliberately act against the rest of us; the thought of being sensitive just doesn’t occur to them at all. Reynolds can have no response to that.
They’ve already made their decision about which side they’re on in the “social cohesion” wars, and are sticking to it.
BBC editors don’t write these shows; the producers are outside of any division with the vaunted editorial policy. But a BBC maven approves it for air. The fact that they allowed this plot but made Spooks change theirs is now documented proof of their bias.
Hi canon alberic,
Many thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated.
To clarify, I have suggested, that it is difficult to make up ones own mind in the way Martin described his relationship with the BBC. If he only consumes output that is deemed having a biased, he obviously is not able to get the whole picture. I thought this would be a pretty lame statement to make.
Since I have not watched the programme , I have not put forward any opinion. Perhaps I have phrased things somewhat unclear and I would be happy to clarify if you could point me to the sentence in question.
“Unless its your job of course, in which case the loyalty is comendable if foolhardy.”
Your loyalty to this blog is comendable indeed.
“Your loyalty to this blog is comendable indeed.”
Isn’t it just? And we’re not even being paid for it. I doubt the term “principled” is in the vocabulary of Al Beeb types.
Can anyone show me a case of a Christian beheading a muslim in the past 600 years?
gunnar: You are an idiot. If the BBC produce something I am interested in watching, I will.
However, what leftie losers like you seem to think is that it’s OK for the BBC to turn out utter shite and simply say well if you don’t like it, don’t watch. That’s fine, but I don’t want to pay for the shite I don’t want to watch.
Now can you get that through your thick skull?
It’s called choice.
And YES, so long as I’m forced to pay for the BBC I will attack programmes (mostly political) that do not provide a fair and balanced view of politics.
I detest the fact the BBC fudge packs Nu Labour day in and day out.
Gunnar: You’re the coward. If you really believed the BBC provided good value for money, you’d be happy to agree to the BBC going as a subscription only service. After all if the BBC is such good value, we’ll all be gagging to pay out £13 a month. Won’t we?
Gunnar,
I think I’ve tolerated your pathetic sniping too much. Stepped over the line once too often.
Actually I dont do loyalty to the blog just to the idea that one can critise error and folly without being prejudiced.
I rather regret to say that the differential execution treatment of a muslim and christian murderer in Oklahoma may be about to demonstrate the multilateral nature of religious bigotry.
Still Gunnar acknowledged the lameness of his response and signally failed to deny where his loyalties so obviously lie.
Welcome brother, now tell us what you really think.
canon alberic: I wouldn’t call it loyalty to the blog but loyalty to your own positions. Martin has pointed out what it’s all about and he’s absolutely correct. That’s why I opted out of the German version of the license fee a few years ago. I don’t watch their shite and therefore I’m not going to pay for it. It’s a matter of being pricipled and principally I’m against Al Beeb bleeding you guys dry.
A short comment to gunnar’s comment on people’s view about the BBC being framed by this blog:
I became aware of the BBC’s leftist mindset during the run up to the second Iraq war (2003) a couple of years before I discovered this blog.
I wonder if we could find out what made the posters on here aware of Al Beeb’s bias.
For me it most certainly was the past 9/11 Question Time. Probably the worst moment in television. EVER!
David Vance,
gunnar is hardly as offensive as some can be. Other commenters here have spewed much more abusive language than him. I know his remark was too personal, but it pales in comparison to things other people who are still tolerated have said.
Should anyone want them, these are the Bonekicker summaries from the Radio Times:
Episode 1 – A group of Templars believed they had a piece of the true cross. That piece of cross is exploited by a fundementalist Christian group.
Episode 2 – Suspected slave corpses found near Bristol. People expect an apology for the city’s history, but the team discover something about the bones which impacts American Presidential elections.
Episode 3 – Toxic gas is building up underneath Bath’s Roman baths, and then gets released by an earthquake. The team discover a Roman love story and evidence of a famous Celtic warrior being imprisoned there.
Episode 4 – Treasures from war-torn Babylon were stolen and sold. One of them contains a prophecy that may afford some hope for Iraq; that the country will be great again.
Episode 5 – A WWI tank is discovered buried in a French field. Remains are found, and the UK, France and Germany argue over ownership rights. But the team discovers the bodies are linked to a far older feud.
Episode 6 – More personal. Something to do with team member Gillian; a mystery that has been running through the entire series now threatens to rip the team apart. A stone tablet in Latin…
I’ve been reading comments on another site, from people who have no particular interest in any beeb bias, one way or the other, just merely passing comments on the tv show generally. Even the general concensus there is that it’s utter shite of the first order.
Another good usage of our tellytax. Well done, BBC, more please.
disillusioned_german | 10.07.08 – 12:43 am:
I wonder if we could find out what made the posters on here aware of Al Beeb’s bias.
For me it was, and remains, the BBC’s reporting of the Hamilton affair – the controversy that embodied Tory sleaze and, according to the Beeb, “helped bring down the last Conservative government.”
From Uganda to New Zealand, India to Canada, the affair is held around the world as one of the defining political scandals of our age. But close examination of the affair shows that the charges against the hated Hamilton are free from any cogent evidence. To the contrary, they are supported by mass perjury and forgery.
As our national Public Service Broadcaster the BBC’s principal duty under its Royal Charter is to cover political controversies impartially.
For the past ten years I have executed several news events, held press conferences, and lobbied scores of BBC journos and management in order to provoke the BBC into discharging its solemn duty and investigate the merits of our research • research which many people of standing have assessed and endorsed.
But despite its oft-trumpeted claims to have a duty to “investigate the facts to get at the truth,” (sundry allegations concerning Caroline Spelman, Iain Duncan Smith, WMD etc.) the BBC has steadfastly averted its eyes and covered its ears.
For these reasons then, I commend the Beeb’s reporting of the Hamilton affair as the defining unarguable fastidiously-documented case study of illegal liberal bias, which proves what contributors to this blog allege: that the BBC is institutionally, unlawfully, irredeemably biased.
Haven’t watched the programme, so can not comment.
gunnar | 09.07.08 – 10:06 pm | #
Yet you defend it. Neat
I wonder if we could find out what made the posters on here aware of Al Beeb’s bias.
For me it was the gloating over Hurricane Katrina.
.
Hi Martin
“gunnar: You are an idiot. If the BBC produce something I am interested in watching, I will.”
Some doubts about your first sentence, but fully agree with your second one. However, I thought from your post above, that they not produce anything that interests you.
“However, what leftie losers like you seem to think is that it’s OK for the BBC to turn out utter shite and simply say well if you don’t like it, don’t watch.”
Who has said this?
“Now can you get that through your thick skull?”
Well, I am not sure, since it is not my position in the first place.
“And YES, so long as I’m forced to pay for the BBC I will attack programmes (mostly political) that do not provide a fair and balanced view of politics.”
Fine, no problem with that. However, since you are being prompted to outputs, your knowledge of BBC outputs appears to be limited at best.
“I detest the fact the BBC fudge packs Nu Labour day in and day out.”
If that is the case, I can fully understand your position.
“Gunnar: You’re the coward. If you really believed the BBC provided good value for money, you’d be happy to agree to the BBC going as a subscription only service. After all if the BBC is such good value, we’ll all be gagging to pay out £13 a month. Won’t we?”
Again, another strawman.
Hi David,
“I think I’ve tolerated your pathetic sniping too much. Stepped over the line once too often.”
Could you please define what “line” you have in mind.
Hi David Preiser (USA):
Many thanks for those kind words. I believe I have stayed clear of offensive language in the past. Not sure what constitutes “being too personal” on this blog, but I will consider your point.
Hi anoonymouse
I have not watched the program and did not put an opinion forward. Neat indeed.
“I wonder if we could find out what made the posters on here aware of Al Beeb’s bias.”
It was their continual drip drip effect of talking down America and Israel at every opportunity, first noticed around 10 years ago.
Nothing really direct, but always sly, insinuated and implied.
O/T – (sorry but the general thread is taking an age to load………)
Iain Dale has spotted an alarming fact – the BBC are heading towards a near monopoly of political coverage:
I have only just heard the news that the Sunday morning GMTV politics show is beoing axed on 20 July and won’t be replaced. This means that there is now not a single national politics programme in ITV’s schedules. I also hear whispers that it is axing its General Election night programme. Last year it axed Andrew Rawnsley’s Sunday Edition. All we are left with now is the increadingly ludicrous Tonight with Trevor McDonald. If that went any more down market it would meet Big Brother coming the other way.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/07/itv-axes-its-only-political-show.html
gunnar
I will come to your defence as well – you have always been polite and usually ask some probing questions.
Some of the posters (eg DV) and some of the haloscanners can get a bit gung-ho at times and use language that doesn’t help anyone.
Please help us and help yourself by sharing some of your thoughts on here.
Do you think that the BBC is perfection on air ? Totally impartial ? Or do you agree with the general theme here that its a bit lopsided, piping Guardian values into our homes day-in day-out ?
I became aware of BBC bias the moment I noticed that after nearly ten days straight of reporting by ITN of illegal immigrants trying to cross into England via Eurotunnel ,the BBC was completely ignoring the story.
The BBC simply wanted this story to go away-a clear editorial decision.ITN ,Sky,C4 all ran the story as did most newspapers.I remember going to Google and typing in “BBC not reporting illegal immigrant activity ” and a link took me to this website.Then you realise how many people have the same concerns about the BBC including,perhaps, Andrew Marr…
Notice just how Gunnar pulls a typical BBC trick of misdirection and manipulation?
He says ” I havent watched the prog so I cannot comment” Well Gunnar thats convenient isnt it? Dont look over here look over there instead! Dont like a question or cannot defend an abysmal BBC prog? Easy isnt Gunnar, just talk about silly details and irrelavent nonsense and hope no one will notice eh?
Is there any example of BBC bias you have seen? Why not give us an example? Think that bonekickers is a valid prog? then tell us why! Crafty sidestepping of difficult questions may seem clever to you but it just proves that you have nothing to say worth hearing or nothing worthwhile to add yes? Perhaps you misunderstood the reason for B-BBC? Perhaps you thought this was a blog for too clever by half socialists to practice their Marxist political skills? Now you may think to yourself how clever you are manipulating the comment thread and perhaps you smirk and giggle at how slow and narrow some of us are on this blog Hmmm? Thing is Gunnar and I mean this as a helpful comment, nobody likes a smarmy and creepy clever Dick, so instead of playing your tricks why not engage and play by the rules? Perhaps if you lost that BBC type smugness you may get a better response!
Gunnar I promise you that we are not thinking how clever you are, we are thinking what a smug git!
Gordon Brown has replied on Youtube. Reported on the BBC, but no mention about how Gordon failed to meet his original promise on answering by the end of June. They also said the most popular questions were chosen, this also went unchallenged and is a lie as there were other videos (I noticed one on political correctness) that got far more views and weren’t answered.
Correction, just noticed the political correctness one now.
Jack Hughes: gunnar is just another hillhunt troll. He/she doesn’t offer any views, just looks through others posts to come up with his/her latest trolls.
gunnar/hillhunt/colin chase etc etc never offers any view on the bias that is suggested on this blog.
For example, why doesn’t the BBC ever report back about climate change stories that turn out to be total bollocks?
Anonymous: That’s not quite true. The BBC has also cut some of its political output (not that much of it would be missed) but C4 and Sky News do have plenty of political debate.
With Sky I do miss the longer political shows. They’ve always had a problem with the mid evening slot. They have sky.com now their web show which is quite good at times, but they tried Richard Littlejohn in a similar slot but it never really worked. They also had Jamie Rubin for a while as well.
I’d really like to see Sky try to do something like Fox News with the O’Reilly Factor (which Littlejohn’s was a sort of rip off of, even down to the talking points memo) or the excellent Hannity and Colmes.
As the song says “a spoonfull of sugar helps the medicine go down” Unfortunately the PC obsessed BBC does not realise that we are choking on the multicultural medicine that they mix into every program. Message to the BBC – too much propaganda, not enough sugar.
Jack Hughes 10 44 a.m.
I disagree. Gunnar cannot be defended for choosing to bait DV rather than comment on the topic that DV posted.
The Bonecikers fan site must be run by the BBC because I just posted my above comment ( about BBC multicultural medicine ) and it was removed after 5 minutes. It is not possible to speak your mind in this PC controled country.
Please fully understand that I am not questioning or condeming muticuturism, or any minority rights but the position of the BBC promoting political values which is not it’s job.
Gunnar….simple question…what did you think you could contribute to a thread headed “Bonekickers” with a discussion theme about said BBC program, when by your own admission you have not watched it?
Why not pick another thread where you may contribute something through your knowledge of the subject?
You can consider these questions rhetorical, as the answers are very obvious to all…..excepting yourself perhaps.
With regard to Life on Mars, the producers might not have anticpated the extent to which Gene Hunt became a cult hero. He became the star of the show and the subsequent Ashes to Ashes. I think the idea was to mock a 1970’s un PC police dinosaur, but instead that is exactly what people want to see. I expect in the next series they will have to make him behead a peaceful Muslim student to restore some balance.
You get stuff like Shitkickers because of the unique way the BBC is funded. When your income stream is guaranteed by the State’s enforcers, and the only check on you is political (and dependent upon your favourable coverage), you can do whatever the f*ck you like.
The BBC is anti-Christian because as a whole it loathes Christianity. At a time when Muslim paranoia hits new depths each and every day, broadcasting an egregious lie such as a Christian beheading a Muslim (oh, the irony!) is quite simply sheer incitement.
The BBC attitude towards Islam, however, while partly shaped by the left-wing identity politics of alleged victimhood, is in really dictated by simple cowardice. They know that any negative portrayal of Islam significantly increases their chances of being killed. It is that simple.
So instead they congratulate themselves for being “transgressive” for constantly attacking the one group they know will never retalliate with physical violence.
The “Rob” above is a different one from the “Rob” above that. Sorry!
Rob | 10.07.08 – 12:34 pm
I absolutely agree cowardly self interest pure and simple. These writers and commissioning editors etc right up to the DG do NOT want their publicly funded and very comfortable life styles placed in any jeopardy by the telling of truths not liked by violent fundamentalists.
Why risk a comfortable salary and index linked tax backed pension with which to enjoy the fruits of freedom fought for and paid in blood by others. Better to bend the knee, ignore the truth and live happily ever after by selling everyone else short.
Truth
Courage
Backbone
And many other words have long since been struck from the BBC lexicon.
Hi Jack Hughes,
Many thanks for your kind words.
You ask:
“Do you think that the BBC is perfection on air ? Totally impartial ?”
No, I don’t think the BBC is perfection or impartial. Not sure how impartiality is supposed to work in the first place anyway.
“Or do you agree with the general theme here that its a bit lopsided, piping Guardian values into our homes day-in day-out ?”
There I disagree. I do not think the BBC is piping Guardian values into our homes. The news coverage and usual content is to my mind pretty establishment driven. Obviously, there are exceptions, but on the whole, most of the time it is pretty much in the safe middle of the road if not steering to the right.
“The news coverage and usual content is to my mind pretty establishment driven.”
The British Establishment is not full of bishops and generals any more. The Establishment is the political class, the civil service, NGOs and the media, most of whom share ‘Guardian values’.
Rob
Really? According to your analysis are the sales figures for the Guardian pretty low. Think the Telegraph and Times do a lot better, not to mention the tabloids.
Judging on the above, I guess the British Establishment (as described by you) must therefore be pretty poor in getting their propaganda across.
Gunnar,
If you think the BBC leans to the right then what does that say about your own political leanings? Perhaps the BBC looks right wing to a hardline revolutionary Marxist/communist/Maoist? You say the BBC is establishment driven, would this be the Nu establishment as led by the large number of life long socialist activists/party hacks who now hold all the senior slots at the BBC? I have to hand it to you, you certainly have the snake like escape and evasion instincts of a NuLabour technocrat!
You know that the BBC is run by Grauniad devotees and that the leftists have a stranglehold on the BBC high command yet your crafty wordplay tries to give the illusion of an impartial observer?
Care to talk about the champagne celebrations when the NuLabour regime took power, perhaps you were there?
“I do not think the BBC is piping Guardian values into our homes.”
And therein lies the problem. Gunnar’s worldview obviously matches Al-BBC’s, which is why he feels the need to constantly defend a multi-billion pound corporation.
Gunnar,
Hmmmm! lets have a look at the Nu establishment propaganda organs shall we?
The Guardian, home of the nonjob ads that would not last a week without the artificial subsidies from the establishment and socialist talking heads wittering on about class war and social justice blah blah!
The Independent, it isnt are you? with this rag you get the Noooos from every angle, as long as it comes from the left.
The observer, now this is one tangled up rag that I cannot fathom.
The Mirror, bite sized leftist/socialist prejudice for retarded old labour voters who cannot understand sentences of more than four words.
The Sun, Political clenched fist slogans for those with the IQ of stunned slugs. Although the Sun isnt sure who to spin for now.
“Judging on the above, I guess the British Establishment (as described by you) must therefore be pretty poor in getting their propaganda across.”
Judging by the above, Gunnar knows nothing about how political power works (big surprise). Political power is not measured in how many people favour your views but on how well you control society. The new Brit Establishment control the courts, the Civil Service,
the Police, the schools, academia and, of course, Al-BBC with it’s unlimited funds and it’s 24/7 output.The Establishment have actually been very good at getting their propaganda across and at their attempts at social engineering. The good news is that the British public is slowly starting to resist the agenda of the elites….BiasedBBC is part of the fightback.
disillusioned_german:
I wonder if we could find out what made the posters on here aware of Al Beeb’s bias. For me it most certainly was the post 9/11 Question Time. Probably the worst moment in television. EVER!
I go back quite a bit further than that in my disgust for the BBC. I suppose the thing that did it for me, which I found so unbelievable as to be almost stunning, was the BBC’s coverage of the European Single Currency question. It was announced one night that they were going to do a ‘special feature’ on it, so I watched with interest, thinking (naively) that they were going to tease out some of the issues involved. Instead, what it consisted of was the BBC’s European correspondent (looking vaguely embarrassed throughout, as if he knew the dross he was spouting) talking to stall-holders in a Dutch market, near the border with Germany, who had customers paying in Dutch, German and Belgian currency and who said their life would be a lot easier if there was just one currency. That was it! That was the BBC’s ‘special report’! At first I couldn’t decide if they were just stupid, or were being deliberately dishonest, but I decided the latter was probably the case when, about the same time, they started making a big issue about whether, if we joined the Euro, the Queen’s head would appear on the new notes or not. By making an issue of this, you see, they could pretend that they were ‘sticking up for Britain’ while in fact they were deliberately diverting the public’s attention from the real, important issues involved. That this tactic was a success was proved to me by the fact that I have myself heard europhiles and other lefties say, with a sneer, referring to the issue of the Queen’s head, ‘That’s all they (i.e, eurosceptics) are bothered about, you know. As if that matters!’ Meanwhile, although I have known many, many eurosceptics over the years, I cannot recall one of them ever mentioning the issue of the Queen’s head on euro notes – not once – let alone declaring it to be of any importance.
“I wonder if we could find out what made the posters on here aware of Al Beeb’s bias. For me it most certainly was the post 9/11 Question Time. Probably the worst moment in television. EVER!”
100% in agreement. I’ve never thought of Al-BBC in the same way since. Their bias
was obviously there before but that one programme showed me just how rotten to the core the whole set-up was/is.
Hi Cassandra,
“If you think the BBC leans to the right then what does that say about your own political leanings? Perhaps the BBC looks right wing to a hardline revolutionary Marxist/communist/Maoist?”
“”Well Cassandra, that cuts both ways, doesn’t it?
“You say the BBC is establishment driven, would this be the Nu establishment as led by the large number of life long socialist activists/party hacks who now hold all the senior slots at the BBC?”
Interesting assertion. Could you please provide some back-up?
“I have to hand it to you, you certainly have the snake like escape and evasion instincts of a NuLabour technocrat!”
Cassandra, another assertion, that hurts! For you info, I am no fan of New Labour!
“You know that the BBC is run by Grauniad devotees and that the leftists have a stranglehold on the BBC high command yet your crafty wordplay tries to give the illusion of an impartial observer?”
If only you were right 🙂
“Care to talk about the champagne celebrations when the NuLabour regime took power, perhaps you were there?”
No, wasn’t there and no champagne either. Never thought there was something to celebrate.
Hi Terry Johnson
“Judging by the above, Gunnar knows nothing about how political power works (big surprise). Political power is not measured in how many people favour your views but on how well you control society. The new Brit Establishment control the courts, the Civil Service,
the Police, the schools, academia and, of course, Al-BBC with it’s unlimited funds and it’s 24/7 output.”
We almost agree, apart from the first sentence of course.
“The Establishment have actually been very good at getting their propaganda across and at their attempts at social engineering.”
Simply said, you are probably right there.
“The good news is that the British public is slowly starting to resist the agenda of the elites….BiasedBBC is part of the fightback.”
I am not sure about that one. Let’s say I am not as optimistic as you.