Anyone catch Andrew Marr interviewing David Miliband this morning? Any more sycophantic and Marr would have been on his knees. The BBC obviously prefer David to Ed but in both cases their innate bias towards the left shines through.
MILIBAND WORSHIP
Bookmark the permalink.
The bias is your extreme right wing viewpoint.
The guy is a dull consensus ex-politician in the centre. If he’s left wing Alan is a commie.
He may represent the electable wing of his party but he is clearly left wing and identifies himself as such. Next you’ll be claiming that John Prescott is coherent.
Prescott? Fat bastard – he ate all the pies, you know.
Sorry give lard pressalot his dues he is also and adulterous lecher who abused public property and his office told a pack of donkeys boy parts about his ‘eating disorder’ which was a slur on those who really have one then managed to get scammed by a credit card cloner who followed him every where he went at the same time and even the same restaurants?
Miliband D is an avid global warming alarmist (nay, opportunist! – see ‘charity’ appointment) and therefore sits firmly in the Leftist camp (see ‘mitigating actions against climate change’).
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
“Labour MP turns up with no trousers on to David Miliband’s farewell party”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362760/Labour-MP-turns-trousers-David-Milibands-farewell-party.html
-Should allowances be made because the Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, is an ex-Beeboid?
Wikipedia:-
“When first elected in 1997, Ben Bradshaw was one of the first MPs to be openly gay at the time of election, along with Stephen Twigg. On 24 June 2006, he and his partner Neal Dalgleish, who is a BBC producer, registered a civil partnership. He was one of the first MPs to do so, and he was the first Cabinet Minister to be in a civil partnership.”
If it is an “extreme right wing viewpoint” to describe Ed Miliband as on the Left that tells us more about you than it tells us about him. No wonder you are so keen to defend the BBC.
Marr Show = Labour Party breakfast club.
There is no other reason to have Labour Party’s D. Miliband on.
Ed Milliband would call himself left-wing. In Colditz’s eyes, that makes him er, right-wing
Judging simply from his comments hereabouts “Colditz” is quite clearly a Labour supporter who would prefer a leader of his party and BBC interviewers (although Marr is much more than a mere interviewer) who would be less ‘consensus’ as he puts it – and much further left-wing.
In light of the above, his comments more specifically touching on what he maintains to be ‘BBC balance’ can be seen to be rather hollow.
Back the ‘Lager’ for him…. “Colditz”, for you the war is over.
Quite. Marr is part of the problem, and the exemplar of all that is bad about the BBC and its navel-gazing.
David Miliband. Former Minister of the Crown.
Record in office
1. DEFRA
A screaming disaster, with Foot & Mouth escaping from a DEFRA lab, a lab denied the £50k it needed to upgrade the waste disposal facilities there. Through which, of course, the F & M virus escaped. One must not forget, either, the not so small matter of the Rural Payments Scheme, which Miliband D fucked up as badly as the ghastly Beckett.
2. FCO. Where Miliband D managed to fuck off Russia, Sri Lanka, Israel and India, the latter who more or less strong-armed him out of the country it seems; when Mandelson was flown out to pour oil on troubled waters, the Indians, bless them, refused to let him off the plane, refuelled it, and sent it packing.
Truly, a towering politician.
Maybe if Mr. Marr stopped stuffing his hands down girlie’s panties, his blood pressure would stay lower? Just a thought.
Oh Scott you’re so dreamy ….
…”dreary”, surely?
How typical of Scott M that his expression of thanks for the recovery of Andrew Marr is nothing more than an expression of his hatred of David Vance.
When he wakes up in the morning he is Scott Matthewman, I wish he would get over it. To paraphrase, if he cannot break it stand it, and try to find within himself the morality to keep his poison to himself.
No wonder he does not believe in God, it offends his narcissism.
How typical of Scott M that his expression of thanks for the recovery of Andrew Marr is nothing more than an expression of his hatred of David Vance.
When he wakes up in the morning he is Scott Matthewman, I wish he would get over it. To paraphrase, if you cannot break it stand it, and try to find within yourself the morality to keep your poison to himself.
No wonder he does not believe in God, it offends his narcissism. I am sure even God wonders what is the point of Scott Matthewman, I must ask him next time I ponder the meaning of life. God that is, not Scott Matthewman, who is a predictable as a stopped clock.
“Would you be surprised to learn that I fund Labour? Well I do… and so do you”
By PETER HITCHENS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2362695/PETER-HITCHENS-Would-surprised-learn-I-fund-Labour-Well-I–you.html
Have you ever considered the possibility that Alan deletes your posts because you contribute nothing but abuse? OK we get it. You think that David Vance is devoid of compassion. I make “grubby personal comments” about your ugly personality, and Alan is a schoolboy detached from reality. Have you got anything to say about the BBC?
He does. Alan deleted one of his posts recently, despite the fact that it was completely relevant to a discussion about perceived BBC bias (about the Lions’ win and its online coverage if memory serves). A couple of weeks ago there was a debate over whether BBC3 was biased against white male presenters to which he on-topic contributions without abusing anyone. So you’re assertion that ‘he contributes nothing but abuse’ is wrong.
Alan has explained why he did it, but I don’t think it’s fair on Scott to delete everything he says just because some of them may contain ad homs against the regulars here. Just my opinion.
“without abusing anyone”
He repeatedly screamed that David Brims was a liar I recall, but as you say it was a rare instance when there was a nugget of factual content in his posts, even though he knew exactly what David Brims was talking about, and pretended that the BBC is colour blind, whereas he knows full well that it operates a racist positive discrimination policy in order to balance up it preponderance of hideously white Guardian readers.
Calling someone a liar isn’t abuse if you believe it to be true. Scott argued (not ‘screamed’, how can you justify such emotive language?) that David Brims was a liar, based on the fact that he asserted that TV doesn’t reflect the majority-white nature of Britain when Scott and I had shown that it does. During that exchange David Brims asked if Scott suffered from a persecution complex, for no apparent reason. He could have tried to show why he wasn’t lying, instead all he did was attack Scott.
I didn’t say it was rare that his posts contained factual content. Some do, some don’t. Is it fair to delete all his posts just because some of them contain abuse, particularly when others here have been equally abusive towards him?
You are being as disingenuous as Scott M if you do not notice that calling somebody a liar (as opposed to mistaken) is not being “emotive” as you put it.
By the way if I recall correctly David Brims was talking about the continuity announcers/news report presenters on BBC Three, but even as a general claim it would be absurd to deny that the BBC has sought to promote on screen racial diversity, which is a nice way of saying it selects people on the basis of racial quotas.
You do not seem to comprehend that the phrase “as you say it was a rare instance when there was a nugget of factual content” does not mean I was claiming that you are saying that it is rare for one of his posts to have a factual content, it means that as you say there WAS a some factual content to that particular post.
You ask is it fair to delete his posts just because they are abusive, to which the obvious answer is the editors can do whatever they damn well please.
In the past I would say let him publish and let him be dammed, but as his recent post seem to be more animated by hatred of the editors of this blog than anything to to with the BBC I for one will not miss them.
oh and scott, btw, as a soldier, id gladly sacrifice my life in order to protect your right to be gay, not like the fella you found hot who would have you swinging from a rope.
‘Shows how detached Biased BBC has become from reality.’
Really? I think the recent scandals on 28-gate, the facilitation of paedophilia going back over decades, the “deep” left wing liberal bias on coverage of immigration, the closed recruitment of James Purnell and, oh, don’t forget the vast and unnecessary severance payments to staff, all show that Alan, David Vance and this blog are finely attuned with reality and consistently ahead of the game.
Which makes you a total loser, Scott. That’s why you always disappear whenever these scandals break!
Well said. 28gate, Balen etc to Scott, Dez and their ilk is as a crucifix to a vampire.
Once Miliband D reaches 70, he will take over the ‘Greatest Prime Minister We Never Had’ mantle from Lord Stansgate aka Anthony Wedgewood Benn aka Tony Benn (he was well ahead of man-made global warming in the re-branding stakes), appearing on the likes of Jeremy Vine so worshippers can phone in to tell us he’s the best Prime Minister we never had and what a wonderful job he’s done to combat the effects of climate change, or the next Little Ice Age as it will then be referred to by ‘extreme right’ sceptics ……(etc)
On D. MILIBAND, and his political affection for the Muslim Brotherhood (which echoes that of INBBC):-
‘Atlas Shrugs’ – by the banned from Britain, Pamela Geller-
“POLITICAL DHIMMA: FORMER UK FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND URGES LEADERS TO EMBRACE ‘POLITICAL ISLAMISM’ IN EGYPT”
[Excerpt]:-
“This is horrifying but revealing. So now we know what the left’s true agenda really is.
“‘Embracing political Islamism’ is a fancy way of saying everyone must convert to Islam or accept the status of the dhimma under Islamic law.
“David Miliband urging all sides to embrace ‘political Islamism’ for the sake of democracy is like urging all women to embrace prostitution for the sake of chastitiy. There is nothing democratic about political Islam. It is, far and away, the most brutal and extreme system of governance on the face of the earth.
“The urbane savage Miliband explains that bringing ‘political Islam’ – into the democratic process is a good thing not a bad thing.'”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/political-dhimma-former-uk-foreign-secretary-david-miliband-urges-leaders-to-embrace-political-islam.html
D. Miliband (and Beeboids) could do with reading this rare leftist’s critique of ‘left-Islam’ political alliance:-
“A Leftist’s Harsh Words for the Unholy Alliance”
-a review of book:-
“Double Bind: The Muslim Right, the Anglo-American Left, and Universal Human Rights.” By Meredith Tax.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/a-leftists-harsh-words-for-the-unholy-alliance/
new labour are always right wing post election to get the votes then resort back to there left wing len mcluskey idealogy once elected.beware of these frauds.
Good write-up, I’m normal visitor of one’s website, maintain up the nice operate, and It’s going to be a regular visitor for a lengthy time.