It must be true because scientists say so:
People with left wing views may have their political opinions controlled by a “liberal gene”
BBC US correspondent Katie Connolly is concerned:
Don’t worry Katie, we don’t need genetic tests to get to the essence of liberal bias at the BBC – we have Twitter.
In other news, the mythical BBC “impartiality gene” still eludes discovery.
This has to be a joke. Probably just an attempt to show beeboids are really human. đŸ˜‰
Beeboids are not human.
This will confuse the poor little luvvies, first Impartiality is in their genes, and now it’s Partiality. Aaah!
People with left wing views may have their political opinions controlled by a “liberal gene”
A misprint surely.
The gene for left wing people would be an ‘illiberal’ one. They love telling everyone else what they should and shouldn’t be allowed to do, say or think. They demand other peoples money as a right because they are convinced only they can spend it wisely. They demand ever more bans, boycotts, rules and regulations.
There is nothing liberal about left wing people. They are authoritarian, intolerant and aren’t keen on free speech except for clever, caring people like themselves.
Nice to know that my views are now being confirmed by MSM. All socialists and all muslims are genetic defectives. It’s what they are; it’s what they do. haha.
So there is a gene for being gay and now one for being liberal. Is there one for being a twat as well? They should start screening beeboids for it.
BBC-NUJ Toryfighters to join Firefighters and Islam:
“BBC strikers to join firefighters’ Bonfire Night Walkout”
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22886
Who needs genetic testing to prove that Beeboids are biased to the Left when we have Twitter?
The SocialistWorker (another oxymoron) rant quoted by George R, is a classic….the vision of a Beeboid, Fireman, Tube Worker and Muslim Front has really dampened their collective knickers.
There are no journalists at the BBC.
‘In other news, the mythical BBC “impartiality gene” still eludes discovery.‘
However, with some irony and metaphor, having made the science-based statement as settled fact, when soon found wanting, it got closed down for commentary.Which is happening all across the BBC Blog infirmament. I think they are using the CUTS! as an excuse to remove the tiresome necessity of actually exposing what is punted out to much scrutiny. Though there are some quite happy with this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/10/mobile_barcodes_and_smarter_sh.html#P102305855There is one lonely outpost still, while it lasts:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2010/10/new-bbc-editorial-guidelines-l.shtml
Bio Online correspondent, BBC News
I do notice that her views evidently do reflect those of the BBC.
Which makes the rather one-sided nature of her outrage on various topics explicable if, perhaps, not so excusable…
john mccain blast email says democrats are pouring “big money” into the campaign. but didn’t he spend $20 mill on his primary?
…were things not so ‘unique’ over there.
Fortunately, this side of the pond, I have rather cheaper and more reliable sources to gain a more rounded picture of reality – as opposed to ‘views’ I pay £140+ for – where I learn that the relative expenditures and claims by various parties may not be as one-sided as may be imagined.
It must be all the inbreeding among the luvvies – brings out all those criminal, sub-human, recessive traits that natural selection has not yet fully weeded out!
If ever there was a case for eugenics, this must be it!