With the likelihood that Gordon Brown will FINALLY call the General Election tomorrow, the BBC are lumbering up for the final round of “Save Gordon.” Last evening, I listened to the BBC Radio 4 between 10-11pm and there was the concerted witch-hunt against Chris Grayling and also an attack on George Osborne. It’s going to be a tumultuous four weeks as the BBC seeks to damage the Conservatives as much as possible which I would hope David Cameron will remember when he gets in power. The malignancy of the State Broadcaster needs excised once and for all.
TARGET THE TORIES!
Bookmark the permalink.
Don’t hold your breath about Cameron doing something about the BBC because he’s one of them.
He might be but the majority of Tories detest the BBC.
Story not deeded suitable for the state broadcaster – Save Gordon!VC hero refuses to shake Gordon Brown’s hand because of ‘disrespect’ for Armed Forces
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263619/Johnson-Beharry-Victoria-Cross-hero-refuses-shake-Gordon-Browns-hand-disrespect.html#ixzz0kDb0cIAw
The more the beeb rants about Grayling the better. The majority of voters dont give a toss whether he holds those personal views or not. They are not relevant to the issues on voters minds anyway, and persisting will backfire on the beeb.
Spot on, in the average working mans pub the rights of a couple of old gays doesn’t register at all, unlike in the trendy drug taking rent boy abusing wine bars of Islington where the average camp beeboid hangs out.
Yes, the Today programme this morning was obviously skewed against the Tories. What a change !
But yes – the BBC focus on the Grayling comments is probably counter-productive. The gay tried to say there was no difference between objecting to a homosexual per se, and objecting to the likelihood of homosexual acts at the BandB. Ridiculous. He also said that the BandB couple should not have set up their business when the Act requires them to accept homosexual guests, it is all their fault – but surely they were already running the business BEFORE the Act imposed what to them is a totally unpleasant and offensive “duty”.
Most people can draw a distinction between irrational homophobia and a couple declining to have homosexuality performed in their own home. Hopefully the utterly pro-gay BBC have overplayed this one, big time.
Meanwhile John Humphrys was totally biased in his handling of the cancer-drugs issue – not contradicting the economist who was attacking the Tory proposal, but hardly letting the Tory health spokesman get a word in edgeways.
Top management at the BBC, especially Mark Byford, are a disgrace to allow such naked bias – especially as the election approaches. But an increasing proportion of the electorate are now aware of the ingrained BBC anti-Tory bias ?
…………
I must have dozed off – I missed the Today piece on Cpl Beharry VC giving Brown the bird !
Yes I noticed that Landsley and the Tory plan to make Cancer drugs free is getting HAMMERED on Radio 5, the BBC have wheeled out one leftie tool to say it can’t be done, YET the Limp Dems ‘plan’ to open up old disused railways using money robbed from the roads (wow just as the roads are falling apart) gets a total free pass.
The Limp Dem plan is nonsense, the old railway lines often lead to places no one lives anymore, with the invention of the car many rural areas have no railway line and it would cost billions to put a railway line in to every part of these remote areas.
Oh and Beharry got no mention on 5 Live either, funny as when he won his VC the BBC wouldn’t shut up about him.
The LibDem railway “plan is “costed” at just £3 billion. Anyone knows that this is an utterly inadequate sum for the sort of ideas they are proposing. The BBC picks apart the £200 million the Tories say the cancer-drugs proposal will cost – but nary a scrap of questioning the LibDems and their cucumbers-into-rainbows ideas.
Spot on the high speed link cost about 8 billion to build, not to mention all these new railway lines would cost millions in court battles, many of the old lines have been ripped up and replaced with country walks etc not to mention the huge subsidies required to make these things economically viable. But hey it’s a Limp Dem policy so it gets a thumbs up from the Meow Meow snorting tossers at the BBC.
What about the costs of rolling stock ? Stations, level crossings etc.
When the Beeching cuts happened in the 1960’s there was furore about the old Haltwhistle to Alston 20-mile line going way up in the Pennines to the highest market town in England. Sure, it was very picturesque, including a magnificent Victorian “viaduct” to get across one of the valleys.
But I never saw more than a dozen people on the line.
It would have been far cheaper to dish out cars to the few users than to keep the line open.
Many of the old lines have been turned into nature walkways. So the LibDems want to abolish that form of leisure ?
John Anderson
The LibDem railway “plan is “costed” at just £3 billion.
Really. Isn’t that how much the BBC gets annually from its TV Poll Tax?
So why not close down the BBC, and transfer that money for just one year to the LibDem’s RAILWAY CHILDREN plan?
Okay — we all know it’s frackin’ crazy, for the reasons Martin has explained; and while the reasons elude the Libz, they should be obvious to the average 10 year old.
You’re right Martin.
I’m at my mother’s place and she insists on having the bleedin’ BBC radio on, so I can’t miss hearing the top of the hour news bulletins all leading with what a AWFUL idea it is to give people life saving drugs.
It’s a topsy-turvey world all right.
Imagine the difference:
TORIES REFUSE TO ALLOW CANCER PATIENT’S BEST DRUGS
Spot on Jack, but as we know this is another policy that will be popular with the public just as scrapping the NI increase is.
Classic Radio 5 this morning. Dopey female beeboid going on about the proposed Tory NI plan “It was supported last week by a few businessmen” she stated. A few? F**k me there was a whole list of businessmen and organisations in support.
Telling lies, it’s what they do at the BBC.
Ya think?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100032694/the-bbcs-double-standards-over-rupert-murdoch/
Compare how the drugged up arseholes at the BBC present these three stories.
Chancellor – Nat Insurance rise ‘will not cost jobs’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8602988.stm
Lib Dems plan rail expansion by cutting road projects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8603009.stm
Conservative cancer drug saving disputed by King’s Fund
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8603240.stm
Note how the Lib Dem and Liebour stories have a positive headline and article, but the Tory one does not.
The content of the articles is just as bad Martin!
The first gives Labour most space, and two audio clips (including Alistair Darling’s interview with Labour Boy Naughtie in full) and features a pro-Labour economist for good measure.
The second describes Lib Dem policy at huge length, with some mild criticism confined to the end. The demolition job by Prof Whitelegg on this morning’s Today (which so surprised John Humphrys) was not linked to or even mentioned.
The third featured the strongest critic of the Conservatives first, a milder critic second, and then last and definitely least the Conservatives themself. The only audio clip was from the strongest critic. Andrew Lansley’s harrying by Humphrys was not linked to.
But there’s also ‘Tough times, tough choices’ on schools, says Balls http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8602979.stm. This quotes Ed Balls at ridiculous length, while confining Michael Gove and David Laws to a few paragraphs at the end (22 paragraphs for Balls, 4 paragraphs for Gove and 2 for Laws.
The BBC are in overdrive again.
BBC ditches drama that makes Blair look bad for one from “his beeter days” with Clinton.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/05/bbc-ditches-blair-bush-drama
Fat ugly female beeboid interviewing the fat vile mad eyed Ed Balls. Why couldn’t she ask the obvious question? Balls kept going on about effiecency savings, why didn’t she ask why these savings haven’t been made before?
It was a totally one sided interview allowing fatty mad eyes a total free political broadcast.
I’d be happy for the Tories to keep the tax on TV use but I think the cash raised by it should go on something useful like schools, hospitals or help for the elderly.
A Tory government shouldn’t allow £3 billion of tax cash per year to be wasted on Eastenders, Casualty and all the other trash the corporation spends 95% of its income on.
Burying the Corporal Beharry VC story are they? Not at all surprised. To be snubbed by a man who has won the VC is about the most damaging personal insult Brown has yet had.
A VC winner is very special and carries an aura for the rest of his life. Brown must know how damaging this could be for him.
The orders from the bunker to the BBC have obviously been most explicit.
They just can’t help themselves. At 3am I was the only person listening to Dotun Adebayo (R5), but even at that time his anti-Tory Tourettes took over, blurting out for near enough no reason during a discussion on Paddy Ashdown’s autobiography, that Osborne has links to the tobacco industry
Did you catch the outrageous political bias shown by BBC News 24 just today in broadcasting Ed Balls’ speech to the NAS/UWT? Only his speech was broadcast – none of the rest of the conference – and it was broadcast in toto. And lunchtime is prime time. And the speech was clearly aimed at the broadcast audience, not the conference delegates. In the run-up to an election, this is outrageous bias.
Brown, Blair and now Balls have had speeches broadcast in full by the unbiased BBC; odd?
The ‘concerted witchhunt’ that David mentioned was Carolyn Quinn’s latest Tory ambush on Westminster Hour.
It really did sound like a show-trial, with Carolyn as chief prosecutor and both the Plaid guy and the Labour woman as her deputies. She staged it so that the prosecution would have both the first word and the last word, harrying the Tory spokesman (Charles Walker) as they went.
Westminster Hour is even worse than Today when it comes to bias and Carolyn Quinn pulls stunts like this on a regular basis. She is probably the worst of the lot. It’s a good thing few people seem to listen to it!
So let’s get this right. The BBC/Liebour are saying that the Tories plan to allow more Cancer drugs is a slight of hand because they are usibng money that they would save from not putting up NI.
So why don’t the BBC point this out about for example Vince Cable who keeps saying he’d cut the deby by cancelling ID cards and Trident? You can’t save money you haven’t spent Vince and you’re supposed to be an economic genius. NOT!
Oh and at least Sky News mentioned Corporal Johson Beharry, unlike the drugged up rent boy abusing beeboids.
Ugly jock bitch Laura Kuntzberg (or whaever this dopey dyke’s name is) spouting on about how the Tories won’t rule out VAT rise.
Well why didn’t she mention Lord Fondelbum’s refusal to rule out VAT rises as well on Sky yesterday? The BBC were quick enough to show the clip of Fondelbum going on about Chris Grayling.
Now another dopey beeboid bint has just commented on Ed Balls getting a standing ovation fronm scummy teachers. Hmm still no mention of Johnson Beharry though.
Lib Dems claim to have identified £17.7bn pa of resources to allow the tax threhold to be lifted to £10,000. None of this huge sum is from a rise in VAT, yet the BBC leave Labour spinners unchecked when they claim that every Conservative policy will require an increase in VAT.
All the Tories have to do is send the accountants down to Shepherds Bush for full audit on BBC finances and financial practices.
They are not under the same stringent NAO supervision that other public organisations are so I suspect that an audit would uncover some real nasties. A financial corruption scandal would be all the excuse that the Conservatives need to scrap the Telly Tax and break the BBC into a thousand pieces especially when coupled with tabloid stories of talentless Beeboids using licence payers money for coke fuelled rent-boy orgies.
I seem to remember the Tories saying that they would do an audit on the BBC a couple of years ago. I hope they keep to that.
Headline still running: Nat Insurance rise ‘will not cost jobs’
And it will probably run until people beleive it.
The battle lines are drawn. Tax, spend and expand the state vs. cuttng the state and encouraging wealth creation.
As BBC and the monstrous regiment of parasitic Beeboids are beneficiaries of the oversize state they have a direct economic interest. Thay should declare it.
St Vince Cable is exposed as a flip flopper in the Sun today.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2920255/Lib-Dem-Vince-unstable-Cable.html
Biased BBC broadcast news, sure. But keep an eye on BBC On-Line News with its huge reach. Today was a disgrace. All morning with Balls in top spot – all afternoon with Darling.
Looks like they are giving it one last shot before Bottling Brown calls it a day.
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/hurry-up-gordon-weary-voters-cant-wait.html
The BBC website politics front page stands as a damning indictment of the BBC.
Headline story is:
NI INCREASE ‘WILL NOT COST JOBS’
The second story is:
BALLS LAYS DOWN FUNDING CHALLENGE
The third story is:
LIBDEMS PLAN HUGE RAIL EXPANSION
See a pattern in those stories? Now what party is missing from the page headlines?
The first story is framed not so much a question as a statement of fact and the story ends with a poisonous attack on the hated tories.
The BBC bid to secure a labour victory or at the very least prevent a tory lansdslide has begun.
I enjoyed GB’s podcast that was reported this morning forming analogies between the UK economy and Wayne Rooney’s injured foot. I cannot believe the BBC and the Today program let them get away with that – it was completely brushed aside. Clearly in the eyes of the government, the UK electorate isn’t that bright and needs puerile analogies to understand the gravity of the financial situation. Everyone I have talked to (socialists and conservatives alike) is up in arms about this stupid speech – where are the reports?
As Craig pointed out on his blog earlier today, John Humphrys referred repeatedly to the the “highly respected” King’s Fund on the Today programme this morning. Carolyn Quinn used the same trick on tonight’s PM. Do they really think we don’t notice these games they play?
Incidentally, here’s how the Guardian described the King’s Fund in 2002: “an independent thinktank with close links to Labour ministers“.
Relevant re-BBC’s anti-Grayling campaign:
“The hypocrisy of the Left’s hate-mongers”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1263796/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-hypocrisy-Lefts-hate-mongers.html