Stephanie Flanders, has notoriously has slept with both Ed Milliband and Ed Balls. She is “nauseated” by Conservatives. So she is ideal as the Economics Editor of the BBC then.
“In his speech Cameron talks about the NHS but can they tell us how many of the Cabinet have private health insurance?!”
So Stephanie … do you?
We know you send your two children to public schools so it’s not as though being a hypocrite is out of character….
EDIT: It appears that Flanders has stealth edited her post to shift the comment on to an unverifiable “viewer contribution” hence two screenshots of the same post showing different text. Nice. And can’t be checked of course.
At least on Biased-BBC we document our edits.
What a nauseating thought. Which bit? All of it. The join between Labour and the BBC is now seamless, not least the shameless socialist hypocrisy.
When cameron lives in london is it in tower hamlets or newham?
Would you really want a PM who was stupid enough to live in either of those godforsaken pissholes?
From about the age of 5 I was taught the Prime Minister lives at 10 Downing Street.
Which school did you go to, kiddo?
When I lived in Bristol, a leftie friend of mine would insist that “real people” lived in St Paul’s and Montpelier (thereby discarding the other three hundred thousand souls in Bristol to the realm of unreality).
It’s nonsense to think that someone is an inhabitant of a city, only if he/she lives in a particular part of it. Why does Michael Holloway (presumably the “surname” refers to where his putative mum resides) think that the PM should live in either Newham, or Tower Hamlets?
Remind me which slum property millionaire Ed Milliband lives in.
of course she has private health care, as well as shares in companies. Labour and BBC, all a bunch of hypocrites.
The age old champagne socialism – champagne for them. Socialism for the rest of us.
She slept with both the horrible Eds? Did they ever stop talking, and get some sleep (let alone nookie)?
She must have been pretty desperate, or they were.
I have private health insurance because my dad died a horrible death in a filthy NHS hospital.
I took out PHI to try and stop the same thing happening to me.
I too have phi to avoid the ghastly local NHS hospital – only trouble is that the local private hospital is full of NHS patients being pushed through to keep them off the waiting lists. I recently had an op there and there were no privileges for those like me paying large sums of money.
Methinks Flo Nightingale would have stern words about hygiene these days, i’ll take my chances in the mud of the Crimea if i get a cannon ball up my arse.
Totally unbelievable person nowadays.
Having presumably been shagged by those two awfully unpleasant politicians, she’ll just spurt out her dreadfully inept discussion . Not even delivering well constructed argument,, she fits well with the fading beeb productions which are all so tedious.
Edna Healey treated privately because the sainted N.H.S. would have kept her in pain for months but pre-insurance days and Dennis was honest enough to be open about it.
Forget the two Eds, judge Flanders by her record of being wrong on any major policy – replay all her pearls of wisdom re the euro, boom & bust, etc
“Edna Healey treated privately because the sainted N.H.S. would have kept her in pain for months but pre-insurance days and Dennis was honest enough to be open about it.”
That’s not true: Dennis Healey was very far from “honest” about it.
I cherish the memory of his getting into a humungous paddy one morning on TV-AM when Anne Diamond tossed the fact of Mrs Healey’s treatment and just where it had happened into an interview with him, pointing out the hypocrisy of his stated opinions on private health care (Labour was trying to make something of PM Thatcher’s use of private treatment at the time).
What had been a jolly little softshoe interview of the type politicians love (lots of use of the first name: “Yes, Anne”, “Well you see, Anne.” “Why yes, I’m delighted you’ve asked a question that allows me to roll out a pre-prepared speech.” You know the sort of thing.) suddenly experienced a drop in temperature to Arctic levels while Healey’s face simultaneously turned a shade of red which suggested he’d shortly be joining wifey in requiring private health treatment. To her credit, Anne Diamond (with editorial approval) wouldn’t let it go. It turned out later IIRC, that Healey had been prevailed upon not to leave during the commercial break, but when the questioning resumed after the ads he stomped out in a strop, apparently punching Adam Boulton en route.
Such fun.
I also remember Health Secretary, Barbara Castle, attacking businessmen for taking private wards in NHS hospitals. When it was pointed out to her that she had recently been in a private ward in an NHS Hospital her reply was “I’m a cabinet minister so I need to have peace and quiet to do my job” or words to that effect. Even worse was that I don’t think she was paying for the private room either although my memory might be wrong on that.
Socialists are hypocrites? You bet.
‘Socialists are hypocrites?’
Actually, world-class ones, envied everywhere. Apparently.
Not so sure it’s about peace and quiet as surviving, so opting out (at least allowed, though granted with unique payments still made) of a turkey shoot doesn’t seem so unreasonable.
Hence getting impartially-motivated challenges from what can only be considered a Labour safe seat seems yet another ‘unique’.
“I’m a cabinet minister so I need to have peace and quiet to do my job”
That job in the “Smear Department” I assume?
I see that Flanders is a leftwing groupie who just loves to be ridden like a bike. HAve to admit she had to have Balls to f-k Balls.
Must you ? Are you going to pay for my industrial strength brain bleach ?
…this…from the Abbott fancier. 🙂
Oh ho, so it’s starting again is it ?
La belle Diane is a mahogany goddess, sent down from heaven to show us mere mortals what perfection looks like.
La not-at-all belle Flanders, meanwhile, is an economic illiterate and yours for half a bottle of mateus rosé and a box of chocs.
Now I haven’t reinstated my sexiful avatar from the prev. incarnation of this site, but any more cheek or cheap shots at my dream woman and it comes back smartish, capiche ? OK then.
With such threats, silence is guaranteed.
Class warrior Flanders from the front line of priviledge. People who opt for private health, whether insured or cash, have already paid for the NHS through their taxes, twice over in most cases (unless they are BBC tax-dodgers of course). They free up an NHS bed for someone else – who probably isnt entitled to it – health tourists.
What people do with their own money after that is their own business, and not Flanders business. Want to publish your bank statement Steph so we can see what you spend that (huge) BBC salary on, so we can tweet about it? She is a little red vagina.
Whose monologues aint worth listening to
I should qualify the Pat Condell description I often quote, for Steph, thus:
” Guardian-reading white middle class docking station for left wing pricks”
The whole political class and media camp followers are all one and the same in terms of their vast cosy salaries that bear no relation to what they do.
They are therefore the same in their educational arrangements,their financial vehicles, their clubs, pensions, perks…and ,naturally enough, their health insurance.
i used to care when I was an idiot-these days anybody is entitled to do as they like in regard of these things.
But what I really hate is Labour/BBCs/Guardians shameless hypocrisy about all these topics-I despise their disassociation from their base selves as they play “the man or woman on the Clapham Omnibus” …for these people have privileges now since that was a catchphrase.
I hate their “John Bloke” shit about top peoples pay, the need to Occupy, riot or the privileges of the Eton Rifles like Cameron…so unlike their own Oxbridge via Nottingham Grammar(fees paid!) or Harvard.
I hate them for it-deeply patronising, insulting and you just KNOW they`ll be pouring scorn on the licence fee plebs, proles, civilians, punters ; once the cameras are off.
The likes of Flanders, Mason, Toynbee, Webb as class warriors?…f*** off!
Being patronising or mocking the “normals” ought now to be on a par with imagined racism, sexism or Islamonausea…and get them stuck digging up Jimmy Savile for the show trial by way of punishment.
Stoopid Flanders to quote Homer.
Rather Homer than John anyway!…Ned rather than Steph.
The cartoons are more 3D and unpredictable that any Beeboid, I find!
“Stephanie Flanders, has notoriously has slept with both Ed Milliband and Ed Balls.”
I trust not on the same occasion?
I wonder if Balls was in fancy dress at the time?
Did he make her dress up as Helga from Allo Allo in the bedroom?
Oh crumbs, “wiz ze wet celery and ze flying ‘elmet” no doubt.
I voz sinking viz ze red basque and ze svastika garters.
I vonder if zey played ‘hide ze knockwurst’?
…a fallen Madonna – with two big boobies.
The big lie is that tax rates are 20% and 40%. Wrong. Add another 11% NICs onto that – so real rates are 21% and 51% tax. I wouldn’t say that represents good value. Then of course if you want to actually spend any of the money you have left they will hit you for another 20% VAT.
Most journolists,BBC or other wise are ‘engaged’
on some,tax dodging,bogus,self employed status
so wouldnt know N.I. contributions were even if they bit them
Yeah, and if you drive you can pay that 20% vat on the fuel tax you’ve already paid, only in the UK can you pay a tax on a tax.
Surely you also need to add employer’s NI – as that is a tax on your employment. Add that, and the rates are getting towards 45% and 65%.
shouldn’t she be asking how many union leaders have private health insurance?
shouldn’t she also be asking how many of her fellow comrades at the BBC have private health insurance. I’m sure Andrew Marr has private health insurance.
‘I’m sure Andrew Marr has private health insurance.’
I hope we are not uniquely funding the payments, because with his lifestyle choices the actuarial red flags would be flying left, left and left of centre.
Actually Stephanie Flanders is now denying she said this.
Next she will be denying that she told us that there will be a sharp falls in petrol prices this year! That Greece will get no-where near default and so on…
‘Actually Stephanie Flanders is now denying she said this.’
Yes, well, a denial from a BBC source is now worth what?
However, in the spirit of substantiation that BBC ‘news’ too often gives a pass is there any link to where she said it and where then denied.
Such things of course used to not trouble them too much, but even BBC CECUTT seems to be struggling with its comfort in rectitude when you cut and paste two directly contradictory statements and refuse to allow them to distract matters by answering only the questions you didn’t ask whilst refusing to be held to account on the actual facts.
Really, just what is the nausea threshold of someone willing to have both Wallace and Blinky bounce around nekkid on top of her without payment?
“Without payment”? The hoor screwed her way into a fatcat’s job by sleeping with the Labour Party.
What hypocrisy. Clearly some BBC staff benefit from private medical healthcare, at the expense of TV license payers (many of whom don’t have access to private care).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/jobs/north/benefits.shtml
Flanders is a comedian. It’s genetic.
Whats that term again? Nepotism …?
Laughably, The One Show the other day did a who is related to whom section. Not one of the people mentioned worked at the BBC!
Blimey,it looks like the only way to get into the higher levels of the BBC, is to have had a parent with their feet under the table.
Talk about your closed shop patrician class brothers
Didn’t Cameron used to remind everyone fairly often that he loved the NHS because of the great treatment he got for his severely disabled kid? One assumes “Two Eds” knows how many of the last Labour Cabinet have private insurance.
At last, this morning, the great Robert Pestoid on the Today programme has shown us he has a sense of humour after all,
listen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n6st9
at 1 hour 11minutes 29 seconds about Gordo’s finest hour!
Brilliant!
“It wasn’t particularly well-considered, I will accept. I took a fairly informal approach to the discussion – perhaps because at that point I had been broadcasting on the subject since 7.30am on Today. I had also done the bulletins at 6pm and 10pm – and the one at 1pm.”
—————————————————————————-
Aw widdums, been bwoadcasting for a whole five and a half hours had we.
There there, take a public sector duvet day off tomorrow den.
‘I took a fairly informal approach to the discussion’
Apparently, that is BBC code for ‘I didn’t say it’, when it seems pretty clear what was said was ‘It has been mildly nauseating the last few days the way the Chancellor has sort of crowed here’, and hence rather still counts as saying it… if outside the Bill Clinton School of Semantic Weasels (BBC Complaints Campus).
The safe Labour seat within the BBC really should have pulled a sickie.
Heard some typical padded piece of guff about the loss of the logbook of the submarine that torpedoed the Belgrano.
It was the Todays Shows traditional equivalent of throwing its mattress out onto the lawn -just pointless…basically it`s the white flag for Libby, Melvyn etc before the shows slides hopelessly into the gutter.
My point-not that what was said(usual crap), but who said it…one Stuart Prebble who was once Mike Neviles cocktail johnny up at Newcastles BBC.
This is the name getting bandied about for the “independent outsider” who might look into the Jimmy Savile hamper ther at the BBC.
The BBC might regard anyone who worked north of Pebble Mill to be an “outsider”, but Prebble clearly was enjoying his return to the mike…and all he said showed us that his views are as well dressed to the left as any old boy at the BBC.
Do they put a chip in before they go off roll…or is the BBc just a hopelessly hellish Hotel California…you can check out when you like, but you`re always on call and won`t be leaving( to paraphrase , of course!)
“In his speech Cameron talks about the NHS but can they tell us how many of the Cabinet have private health insurance?!”
FAKE
If you go to the relevant BBC webpage and scroll down to 11.55 you will find that the comment was actually made by someone called “Ted Gormally”.
http://bbc.in/TmndFY
That took me less than five minutes. And you wonder why people laugh at this blog?
EPIC FAIL.
‘And you wonder why people laugh at this blog?’
All that’s going down, and this is what you emerge for when your colleagues are at least smart enough to bunker down?
Like tonight’s HIGNFY, they laughed when they said it was a topical satire show. Well… they’re not laughing now!
You remind me of a kamikaze pilot in a clapped out Zero wondering what the B-52 called Enola Gay heading the other way might be doing.
Guest Who; “All that’s going down, and this is what you emerge for”
All that’s going down…, and yet it’s okay for you to make five posts on this subject before I said a single word. Duh.
Not even man enough to admit you were sold a pup?
As I said… and you wonder why people laugh at this blog?
Apologies, I made an error. It was of course a B-29.
If any other have been made, one hopes they will be admitted and clarified as necessary between those raising them with each other.
Some things can get beyond a joke.
How can both ASE and Dez’s screencaps be real? Unless Stephanie Flanders liked the email from Ted G so much that she re-sent it.
The answer is that ASE’s isn’t real. It’s a fake. Go to the BBC website; check it out yourself; learn something about this blog.
This blog teaches you many things about your beloved BBC but you ignore the truth as always.
ASE?
Do I smell a famous BBC stealth edit cooking over there?
Corran, you might wonder why “All Seeing Eye” didn’t provide a link for where he got his screencap from?
Then you might wonder why it has a profile picture next to the email icon unlike every other email/text/twitter icon on the actual BBC webpage:
http://bbc.in/TmndFY
Then you might wonder why that “profile pic” is kind of similar but different to the one Stephanie Flanders uses on her blog:
http://goo.gl/s56AZ
Then you might (just might) realise that what you can smell is the stench of Biased-BBC using faked evidence to sell you a blatant lie.
How much more evidence do you actually need?!
Latest score:
Dez 1 B-BBC 64,809
Dez,
I’ve taken a good look at both images of the disputed section, and I noticed that on the version from ASE the bottom of the post above is visible as you can see;
and in the image you provide this is missing;
So I decided to follow your link to the B-BBC’s web page (bill for mind bleach for me and my PC on its way) and I saw that your image is right it says it was an e-mail form a Ted Gormally.
But what I also saw was this;
The line above is now changed from the one in ASE image, which makes my suggestion of a stealth edit all the more feasible.
The post above in ASE’s image has now it appears, been moved to below the e-mail from Mr Gormally / Flanders.
This to me reinforces the suggestion of a stealth edit even more.
No issues there. When those Live pages are being actively updated, new entries appear at the top, moving older posts down. Once they are archived and no longer being updated live, the order of entries reverses, so that the oldest entry is at the top rather than the bottom and people can read down chronologically.
That’s clearly what’s happened here, as anyone who looks at the time stamps against each entry can see for themselves.
‘No issues there.”
Getting quite used to seeing that statement.
But at least you have gone further in offering some explanation.
But there still seem some other issues outstanding.
ASE has been pretty clear that there was no edit to justify the ‘stench of Biased-BBC using faked evidence to sell you a blatant lie.’
I don’t recall it ever happening here before and would be very unimpressed if it did. There’s also the small matter of the effort required for the end-result.
Now, the BCC making stealth edits that drop even their supporters right in it, has happened before. A lot.
It’s a trust thing. At the moment I’m erring on the volunteer site I’m not compelled to fund, until convinced otherwise.
You’re right, it’s a trust thing. And when it comes to Biased BBC, I still remember David Vance being furious that Frankie Boyle had told an anti-Thatcher joke on Mock the Week. The absence of any such joke on the iplayer copy was used by the site’s commenters as evidence that the BBC was ashamed and had edited the joke out.
It later transpired that Vance had been watching an Englishman on Channel 4 instead of a Scotsman on BBC2. Oops. Not that Vance, or any of the commenters who accused the BBC of a cover-up, ever apologised for their mistakes.
So yes it’s all a matter of trust. My trust of Biased BBC to be honest is much, much smaller than yours. I’m sure Dez has his own reasons for his own levels of trust.
Personally, I’ve no experience of the BBC’s liveblogging system, but I’ve worked with prototypes of similar ones to evaluate their usefulness for our own publishing platform. Looking at how the BBC’s get formatted, I’d imagine that each “micropost”, for want of a better word, would have options for marking a source (email, text, tweet, etc.) and a field for attributing the source. Given that the live blogs frequently include contributions from BBC correspondents, there must be some way of selecting a correspondent as the author rather than typing in their name every time.
If ASE’s screen grab is genuine, the most reasonable explanation would be human error – it could just be that Flanders’ name was selected by accident, and so her name & headshot appeared where it shouldnt have done.
A fast moving series of updates that has no errors at all would be unheard of. I’ve just implemented a new publishing system in my workplace that’s designed to be used very quickly, and a couple of times articles have been published attributed to the wrong author by complete mistake. When that happened, we corrected as quickly as we could. Not “stealth editing”, but correcting human error.
I have no knowledge that that’s what happened here, but again – if ASE’s screen grab is genuine, then human error is the most likely reason and a correction would seem most reasonable.
‘Personally, I’ve no experience of the BBC’s liveblogging system’
Refreshingly candid, and I appreciate the technical input, which seems reasonable.
I wish I could say the same for the moral and logical relativism in complement. Especially in making comparisons.
The BBC is a vastly-funded, hugely-staffed news broadcaster who makes errors all the time, often on purpose, and until the last few weeks has been incapable of admitting error on having it shown and proven.
Yet you are now getting all factual on how ‘errors’ get made and harking to how no proper apologies were made on some small mis-attribution by a poster on a free forum?
In face of and trying to mitigate accusations of lying and manipulation?
Pretty desperate.
Especially as the half dozen who haunt this site on the basis of trust and accuracy appear to have zero interest in holding the national broadcaster you are also required to fund, to account.
Odd priorities.
Dez… any comment?
Yes. The feeble minded laugh at anything.
That was in reply to Dez’s first comment about him and his friends in the asylum.
For shame Demon; ASE got it wrong and you lapped it up. Why can’t you just admit that you made a mistake?
Repent before it is to late or you suffer eternal damnation in the lake of fire.
Earls court, I’ve been meaning to ask you; all those young, left-wing socialists murdered by Anders Breivik – are they going to suffer eternal damnation in the lake of fire?
Anyone who doesn’t except Jehovah god will end up in the lake of fire. Doesn’t matter how good they were when they were alive.
So to clarify; you do think the murdered victims of Anders Breivik are now residing in Hell.
Thanks for answering my question.
…and you wonder why people laugh at this blog?
Still spitting his posts out at 2.42 a.m.
Pissed, high, or just very lonely Dez?
Earl’s Court has really got you fooled (easy enough I suppose) and I suspect many others on this blog too. This will turn out interestingly.
I am 100% genuine in my believe in Jehovah god. Someone may be good in our eyes. But we don’t matter it is God who decides who is good or who is not..
“…and you wonder why people laugh at this blog?”
I refer you to my previous answer about the feeble minded who would laugh at everything.
Just supposing this actually is that rare occasion when someone has posted something wrongly on this blog, it must be remembered that we don’t have the resources of our money that the BBC has.
That money of course means the BBC never get anything wrong. No, wait……
If you look at the original screenshot the post is valid considering the original BBC comment (and digital evidence). Followed up by an open and public Update on this post after the BBC changed their own post quietly.
Biased-BBC does not believe in stealth edits. The BBC, as is shown by this thread, do.
‘after the BBC changed their own post quietly.’
Dez, it would appear you have made some rather serious claims based on what you think the BBC has portrayed vs. what others have noted.
This is hardly a matter of trust as there appears to be clear evidence available.
Will you now be writing to the BBC to challenge them on what they appear to have done to mislead you so?
If so, I’m sure your fellow site posters here will be interested in any explanation they may offer you, and how you feel about it.