So, Labour has held on to one of its most safe seats. The BBC seem thrilled. UKIP came second with “only” 20% of the vote and the LibDems lost their deposit.
DOG BITES MAN, BBC OVERJOYED
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- vlad Nov 15, 13:52
Midweek 13th November 2024
Salty doesn’t mince his words about those American wimmin making themselves ugly as some sort of deranged protest against Trump.… - atlas_shrugged Nov 15, 12:58
Midweek 13th November 2024
Village Christmas Fair axed because of looney irrational council elf an safety conditions about terrorist attacks. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14085105/Small-village-Christmas-fair-Canned-terror-attack.html Wonder if my… - Lefty Wright Nov 15, 12:57
Midweek 13th November 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9kcQBVo5Kk Is this the copper who knocked on Allison Pearson’s Door on Sunday morning? - Solomon Grundy Nov 15, 12:50
Midweek 13th November 2024
George Osborne suggested this as chancellor in 2015. Since then, a number of LGPS’s have merged and it looks to… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 12:17
Midweek 13th November 2024
“You really couldn’t make this up. Just days before the 1,000 day anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have… - JohnC Nov 15, 12:09
Midweek 13th November 2024
I agree because the UN is too valuable as a ‘meeting place for all Nations’ which otherwise would not exist.… - JohnC Nov 15, 12:07
Midweek 13th November 2024
Have you EVER heard of a ‘hate crime’ from a woman or a BAME against a white male ?. Me… - MarkyMark Nov 15, 12:00
Midweek 13th November 2024
HATE CRIMES …. https://youtu.be/myjEoDypUD8?si=yyYfR8sFEAG0_Yu2&t=37 - Eddy Booth Nov 15, 11:55
Midweek 13th November 2024
“Tyson slaps Paul during final face-off” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/articles/cly03n4r1keo [img]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/800/cpsprodpb/5cae/live/a414d290-a2f5-11ef-b299-f9ebab4415b5.jpg.webp[/img] “Novice boxer Paul, 27, will take on 58-year-old Tyson at the AT&T…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
‘The BBC seemed thrilled’ . If you are refering to the link to justify this comment please explain why the BBC ‘seem’ anything. Its just a list of results! You are obviously ‘seeing’ something. I’d be interested to know what it is. Even better for you to rewrite the piece in what you consider to be neutral terms.
“rewrite the piece in what you consider to be neutral terms”
—
Maybe Mr. Vance needs some BBC-style Editorial Guidelines, including use and abuse of “quotes”, which can be used to thank you for your input, and then ignore it?
Maybe if he renamed ‘seem’ as ‘analysis’, this would allay your clear concerns on how a blog author conducts themselves vs. techniques deployed by an unaccountable state media monopoly.
Relieved would be a better description!
I can’t understand why people come on this blog to try to deny that there is any left wing bias in the BBC output. It is obvious to anyone with some common sense that this is the case and has even been admitted publicly by ex and current BBC employees.
In my view sometimes this blog can be a little over sensitive to perceived bias but that is understandable when a lot of the BBC’s output is laced with various degrees of bias that is not always plain to see hence sometimes it is seen where it isn’t. That said it doesn’t negate the need for sites like this point it out to the rest of us.
They come here to disrupt the comments. Just look at the Playing Politics With The Floods II thread. And I plead guilty to playing along, because it’s fun for a while, but I think the time has come to put Smiffy back in his box.
‘I plead guilty to playing along, because it’s fun for a while’
Me too, because it also shows up the BBC via those who associate with them, the areas they highlight by trying to distract away, their methods and the paucity of argument they and the BBC are mostly shown to have.
But you may be right. The possible combinations from ten letters, simply swapping one capital a time, makes the street fight scene from Matrix 3 seem puny in comparison.
That’s just one cycling one liners or asking questions over and over like a parrot toddler.
I also see there are flanker Alas Smiff and Moan Flokkers out and about to support the denial of service attempt, on occasion throwing in a ‘hate site’ generality when a rarely-seen poster throws them a nasty morsel to get high horsey upon.
It is of course the right of any individual on a tea break to waste their time engaging for sport (or a sincere attempt to correct a misdirection that may be left simply by wearing sincere posters out), but the volume being thrown at present does suggest another wave has been given a budget.
Seems who prevails boils down to numbers, as always.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/06/world-war-z-special-effects/
‘They’re called “agents” ‘
Maybe that’s where the DMI money was actually ‘lost’?
“I can’t understand why people come on this blog to try to deny that there is any left wing bias in the BBC output.”
And that is the problem with this site. Taken as a whole it fails to accept other viewpoints. There are a great many people who don’t think that. If you want to change things you have to prove the validity of your argument. Just repeating the same argument over and over isn’t going to change anything. This site has tried that for 10 years and got nowhere.
I do agree that there is a need to hold the BBC to account, but this site fails in its core task because it takes the easy path and as I have pointed fails to construct valid arguments.
This post is a one example. There is nothing biased in the linked BBC story at all, so to claim there is makes it incredibly easy to disregard the entire site.
Other examples are the flawed logic that used time and again. So for example in the argument above “admitted publicly by ex and current BBC employees.” And denied by many more, yet the only evidence you consider is that which reinforces your argument. That is prime facie confirmation bias.
I don’t know who Craig and Sue are, but if they had testable evidence then that would be incredibly helpful to prove a case.
There is a huge assumption in my argument which is that this site is about the argument. I suspect that isn’t the case. Having engaged quite a few times I get the impression the aim of this site is to reinforce existing beliefs among its active members, confirming their weltanschauung, rather than testing those beliefs. That is not a criticism.
This site has tried that for 10 years and got nowhere
That sounds familiar! Hello Dez.
That response is right at the bottom.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
How about going for the top “refuting the central point”?
“Having engaged quite a few times I get the impression the aim of this site is to reinforce existing beliefs among its active members, confirming their weltanschauung, rather than testing those beliefs.”
The best summing up of this site that I have seen in a long time.
Uncouth commentators would probably describe this site as a “circle jerk”.
So that would be like the BBC R4 programme I just switched off, which comprised nothing but a series of Left wing social theorists banging on about the joys of diversity, community and how the Olympics was such a wonderful success at encouraging ‘social cohesion’?
Frankly, your post is just absurd. What do you expect a site dedicated to discussing the profound ‘liberal’ bias of the BBC would be discussing – ferret racing?
Because they know that once the BBC is no longer in public hands the last bastion of international socialist broadcasting is dead. Hence why the bluster about it being “impartial.”
I have been to many sites where the left has dominated and hate any counter arguments (a common tactic is to scream “troll” when anyone rigorously defends opposite views.)
It would be wrong to bully people just because they have a different view from us. Let them talk and then argue with them.
The Guardian’s CIF being the prime example.
Howard is being his usual disingenuous self. The greatest example of thought control in the past 30 years has been the calculated spread of language corruption (‘political correctness’) which has sought to control behaviour by re-shaping the language.
Who were its proponents? Frankfurt School Marxists carrying the notion from US universities to Europe. What has been the most successful vehicle for its spread? The BBC.
Next time someone uses the word ‘racist’ in an attempt to silence debate, or uses the phrase ‘hate crime’ just remember what the real purpose is.
It’s a purpose that people like Howard thoroughly approve of – and then have the gall to suggest anyone who disagrees, is refusing to accept ‘other people’s viewpoints’.
Pure humbug.
This is just an ad hominem: “attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument”.
You are attempting to ascribe views and beliefs to me rather than addressing the main argument.
And what argument would that be?
As you have yet to advance one, and as your only purpose here seems to be to complain about what others have posted, I’d say you’re lucky an ad hom is all you get.
It is laid out above. I don’t want to repeat it all but the problem with this site is that it doesn’t advance any kind of argument in support of its case. It starts with the premise the BBC is biased, then looks for evidence to support that viewpoint. It is a prime example of confirmation bias. Chuck into that mix fatally flawed logic and almost none of the evidence assembled passes muster.
On a post a while back I was asked to comment on the cases presented. I went through all 76 posts and not one had a sustainable argument of bias.
But it may very well be that that isn’t the point of this site. I believe the main aim of this site is to be an self-reaffirming exercise for the community assembled around it rather than a serious attempt to address BBC bias.
Ah, so there we have it. You don’t accept the copious evidence presented, therefore it is valueless.
And you accuse posters here of confirmation bias?
Fail.
So explain to me in what way the BBC report of the by-election is biased?
And yes I do accuse them of confirmation bias. Where is the assessment of the counter evidence, where is the context?
So yes, huge confirmation bias. So huge that I don’t think there is even an understanding of what is meant by bias.
Not only that but the most posters have a complete inability to construct a valid argument, which is why when challenged the modus operandi of the site is to drop down to ad hominems rather than address the issue. As you did.
28gate Danny? Got an answer for us yet?
No, an ad hominem would be ‘fuck off you country-wrecking left wing twat’ (for example).
No that would just name calling which is not even an argument.
This might help: Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Argumentum Ad Hominem
Which says ‘the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.’
My example fits perfectly.
Anything else?
Yes. Which part of “the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument” did you not understand.
Argumentum Ad Hominem isn’t saying “You smell”. That is an insult not an argument.
This is like pulling teeth.
Where were your ‘character’ or ‘circumstances’ attacked? I apologise if I missed it – and agree that ad hominems are out of order (but a rarity on this site – ‘climate change denier’ is one of the rare examples).
And I think someone might take ‘country-wrecking left wing twat’ as an attack on character, especially if he were a country-wrecking left wing twat – almost ‘hate crime’ territory in some people’s eyes, in fact (especially country-wrecking left wing twats).
P.S. can recommend some coaching on verbal reasoning.
Go away and learn what an argument is. When you have done that, come back.
Then go away and learn what an ad hominem is. Let me help you with that one. It isn’t trading insults.
“Away you go now….”
Cheers, Danny!
What a lovely bloke….
And as I said before, I never enter arguments about AGW.
The last time I was asked to refute an argument I did, all 76 posts on a thread.
How about you explain why the BBC reporting above is biased. I did 76 posts you just have one to do.
‘And as I said before, I never enter arguments about AGW. ‘
Oh dear, he’s gone all shy on us!
Not asking you to debate the science, just the extremely biased position taken by the BBC – 28gate being the primest of prime examples.
So have another try otherwise your argument ‘….the problem with this site is that it doesn’t advance any kind of argument in support of its case. It starts with the premise the BBC is biased, then looks for evidence to support that viewpoint. It is a prime example of confirmation bias.’ is dead in the water.
Away you go now….
I said it before. I don’t enter AGW debates. They are pointless.
But I was challenged before. I responded and refuted all 76 posts (actually that isn’t quite true – one thread was on AGW).
I notice that you are failing to even take on one simple task. So put up or shut up. Or in your own words “Away you go now….”
Strange, Danny – can’t see an answer on 28gate anywhere in there. Is it in code, or are you excluded from FOI requests like the BBC?
Ok, let’s have another try. 28gate was a meeting. 28gate isn’t science. 28gate was discussing how to promote the AGW agenda and the BBC tried its utmost to cover it up because it revealed its screamingly one-sided stance on global warming.
In other words, it’s about BIAS.
Now, try again…..
I am not sure what the point of all of this is. I have made my position quite clear. I was challenged before. I responded to that challenge.
In return I now ask you to do the same. You seem unwilling to do so.
The fact that I chose not to engage in your challenge is not evidence in any way that I accept the assertions you make. That would be yet another fallacy, affirming the consequent. I have already laid out more than once the formal logic that that entails. I don’t propose to do it any more.
So you can carry on going “What about 28gate” all night long if it makes you happy but don’t expect me to respond to it.
It is up to you if you wish to take up the relatively simple task of proving why the BBC story on this by-election is evidence of bias.
Equally well you could take up the task of refuting my argument posted above.
Or you can do what ever makes you happy on a Friday evening.
“Away you go now….”
‘refute an argument I did, all 76 posts’
Nice to have the time. Or be sponsored to spend it.
Were trombones involved?
Deep breaths before you rush to reply and hit ‘post’. Noticing some of your later-in-the-day screeds do tend to veer from sensible composition as well as argument.
Another ad hominem: “attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument”.
🙂
And here was me thinking I was simply gently mocking.
Oh well, I guess I must be simply beastly.
Lucky the BBC’s finest talents wouldn’t stoop so low.
Here, by way of compliment and balance, I will say you seem extraordinarily prodigious in output.
Grow up – it’s called taking the piss. Bit like you’ve done since you came on here.
76 ??? thats a lot of oxygen thievery for such a small unimportant littl man….. cool stories anyway… i read the the first then followed with 75 tl:dr `s
‘And that is the problem with this site. Taken as a whole it fails to accept other viewpoints.’
No, just viewpoints regurgitated from the BBC Leftist echo chamber.
Well BBC Agent Smith, they are thrilled in the way that they enthusiastically reported ” Labour have held the seat with an INCREASED majority and the Conservatives have slipped to third place.”
To claim that 55% of a 28% turnout gives any indication of an increase can only exist in the cookoo mindset of the BBC.
“of an increase can only exist in the cookoo mindset of the BBC.” Or someone who understands percentages.
And how did they report this “enthusiastically”. What language would they have used had they been unenthusiastic?
AgentSmith – this is like clubbing seals.
I went onto BBB, selected ‘politics’ and searched for ”
Labour win Wythenshaw by-election – BBC Headlines :
Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election: Labour wins
Wythenshawe by-election: ‘Labour holds safe seat’
Wythenshawe by-election: Coalition support ‘shrivelling’
Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election: What have we learned?
Labour wins Wythenshawe by-election
UKIP win Eastleigh by-election – BBC Headline :
(I searched for “Eastleigh election” and went to 1 March to get election responses :
Eastleigh by-election: What the result means
UKIP’s Nigel Farage: Jobs and growth the big issue in Eastleigh
Up close with the candidates in Eastleigh
Eastleigh by-election: Lib Dems hold on despite UKIP surge
UKIP’s Nigel Farage on Eastleigh and European elections
People in Eastleigh describe ‘crazy’ election campaigning
Eastleigh by election: UKIP’s first MP will come, says Farage
Eastleigh by-election: Miliband says Labour ‘can do better’ after fourth place
Conservatives win Havant by-election October 2013 –
I typed in “Havant Election” and got two results from 2001. So I typed “Havant election 2013” –
BBC Headline : “Sorry, there are no results for your search.”
Co-incidence?? Just bad luck?? Or outright bias?
I suggest you try it for yourself, I look forward to seeing your results.
Sorry I am in a rush but I meant to emphasise that nowhere do the BBC headlines actually mention that UKIP won a seat, and that the Conservative victory has been completely taken off their website.
LimpDims and Liebour get entirely more sympathetic reporting…. enjoy.
“nowhere do the BBC headlines actually mention that UKIP won a seat”.
That’s because they didn’t. The LibDems did.
“Conservatives win Havant by-election October 2013”
What Havant by-election in October 2013? Havant is David Willetts seat which he has easily held since 1992. It is a very safe seat.
Like you I typed “Havant election 2013″ but I typed it into Google and got
No results found for “Havant election 2013″.
If I take off the quotation marks I get borough council election results
http://www.havant.gov.uk/election-notices-2013/election-2013-results
Is this what you mean?
Sorry am I missing something,that’s got what to do with the BBC?
As opposed to the battery of labour of triumphalism ‘lojolondon’ found via BBC web site.
That I think was his substantive point that you have yet to address
I was prepared to give you benefit of doubt .You know genuine engagement and all that.But so far all Ive sen is mealy mouthed disablement
“nowhere do the BBC headlines actually mention that UKIP won a seat, and that the Conservative victory has been completely taken off their website.”
The reason that nowhere do the BBC headlines say that UKIP won a seat is for the simple reason that UKIP hasn’t won a seat. The LibDems won at Eastleigh.
The reason that the Conservative victory has been completely taken off their website is there wasn’t one. There wasn’t a parliamentary by election in Havant in 2013. It is a seat held by David Willetts since 1992.
So I went to Google to see what lojolondon could be referring. The only result that came up was this local election. My question to lojolondon was simply was that the vote to which s/he was referring.
See thats what I mean , you knew as well as I did what he meant, a genuine engagement would have been ‘ UKIP havent done enough to warrant that level of coverage’ Which may be true but begs the question have Labour?
This ‘I simply dont know what you mean’ shtick aint doing you no favours
This is like entering some Alice in Wonderland world.
Someone complains about bias because the BBC fail to report two things THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
UKIP did not win the Eastleigh by-election.
There was no parliamentary by-election in Havant in 2013.
However Labour did win Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Yet somehow by reporting this fact,(supposedly enthusiastically, supposedly by reporting that their % of the vote went up that is bias, supposedly they were “thrilled” at this result, supposedly) unlike these other events that happened in some parallel world, this constitutes evidence of BBC bias.
“Co-incidence?? Just bad luck?? Or outright bias?”
(d) None of the above.
Have a very good weekend.
I apologise,you really don’t get it.
Sorry should be dissemblement.
Thrilled? Relieved I’d say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wythenshawe_and_Sale_East_by-election,_2014
Labour seemed to have dragooned their hard core vote out ,though slightly less than poll would have indicated (53/61%) Where as UKIP have done better than predicted (18/15%).Perhaps now BBC will treat UKIP as third party rather than Lib-Dem’s whose vote has collapsed more than the BNP’s
I note Sex Without Permission front ,TUSC, saved themselves the embarrassment of standing this time. Though that wont stop BBC from giving Owen Jones and his like unlimited platform .
It`s as if Mr Smith above has only come to the BBC buffet in his very own Year Zero.
I came to the table in 2009, where giants such as Sue and Craig showed us things like “interruption coefficients” where interviewers choose to butt in and deflect, distract and muddy the waters…things like “who`s in the dock” as the BBC require.
In fact all manner of things Mr Smith.
So your seeking neutrality is a lost cause-we all see BBC bias every day, we know of it…and you will too.
A woman got a caesarian by order of our Supreme Court at the weekend…and Belgium has voted for child euthansia…and yet you and the BBC see no problem in not reporting these EU diktats seeping through..and would rather we give a swimming f*** about the career prospects of Messrs Pickles and Paterson…not so much Paul Flowers or Dennis MacShane.
Go, do a bit of research, take an interest..and then get back to us.
Its one of their iterative reports once again, the one’s where they just update on the QT…
Anyway, in the current iteration you have to go all the way down to the penultimate paragraph to see that only 28% of the electorate could be arsed to turn out. Now that does say something, but it isn’t reflected in any of the commentary or analysis except with the words “it is normal in by-elections for lower turnout in by-elections”. I’m not sure whether that statement is even true, I don’t have time to check, but I bet it probably doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The point about postal votes by Mr Farage is very valid. They threaten our democratic traditions and need to be returned to the previous situation.
The liberal media will downplay UKip because it just cannot handle the notion that it exists. . This was an exceptional result for the party and bodes well for the EU elections.
“This was an exceptional result for the party and bodes well for the EU elections.”
I agree on both counts. UKIP did well and I predict will do very well in the EU elections. UKIP does a good job in mobilising its supporters and that matters when turnout is likely to be very low indeed.
I am not so sure about GE2015 but it is early days.
Can’t agree. 18% of 28% is crap, whichever way you look at it.
Frankly, so is 55% of 28% and the mandate of anyone elected on such figures should be questioned, rather than the turnout being relegated to footnotes. Particularly if the postal vote accounts for 40% of the voting.
Is there ever a breakdown of the postal votes? It might be very interesting but for some reason none of the big parties ever seem to want to go there. Publicly, anyway. Over to you, BBC….
Put like that, yes it is unspectacular. The winning candidate polled, what, 15% of the eligible vote, second place got about 5%.
But by elections never have good turnouts, Euro elections likewise. In Slovakia only 19.64% of people could be bothered to vote.
Mind you the turnout for the Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012 was 15%. On very low turnouts being able to mobilise your vote becomes very important. If you look at BNP voting, in terms of numbers their vote held quite firm, while everyone else fell away.
UKIP has historically done well in getting its members to vote in Euro elections. Given the massive disenchantment with the other parties I suspect their polling will go down substantially and there will be a big swing to UKIP on an historically low turnout.
The solution is simple. Call foul. The result of an investigation by the Electoral Commission (ITSE) should be illuminating.
Hardly an election goes by where Labour aren’t caught stuffing the ballot box. Whether is it’s General, local or European ballot boxes go missing or postal vote counts don’t match, dead men and women apparate their voting slips etc.
It put them in a quandary: more flood coverage or big up the Labour win? So they decided to give five minutes to the by-election. Every 20 minutes.
What I notice from the still of Miliband is it seems he’s trying to look like Michael Portillo these days.
UKIP are proving themselves to be insurgents of sorts, so far, but they’re not doing what the Liberal Democrats used to do in by-elections – and actually win them”
This comment by Chris Mason is priceless. When did the Lib-Dems ever turn over such a huge Labour majority? If the Greens had such an insurgence the BBC would be wowing it up.
The Liberals had a huge win in Bermondsey in 1983. Labour had 64% of the vote, the Liberal 7%. 1983 by-election Liberals took the seat with 56% of the vote, Labour fell to 26% (this was the notorious Simon Hughes/Peter Thatchell by election)
The LibDems took Brent East from Labour in 2003. In 2001 Labour had 63%. In 2003 Sarah Teather won with 39% to Labour’s 34%.
The LibDems also took Christchurch from the Tories in 1993 with a swing of 35%.
But the LibDems where an amalgamation of to existing parties with seats in parliament allready, UKIP are coming from a standing start.
(And Bermondey was a steal from the National Front)
FFS
Q: “This comment by Chris Mason is priceless. When did the Lib-Dems ever turn over such a huge Labour majority?”
A: (see above)
“But the LibDems where an amalgamation of to existing parties with seats in parliament allready, UKIP are coming from a standing start.”
So what? A direct question was asked. An answer given. You can equivocate as much as you like. The fact (and yes, it is a fact) is that Chris Mason’s comment is correct. The LibDems have overturned big Labour (and big Conservative) majorities.
Thank you and good night.
My point is its not a valid comparison (by you or Mason)
The BBC are keen to down play UKIPS achievement because it contradicts their narrative.
An achievement made in the face of relentless opposition from the bourgeois liberal media (not just the BBC ) Whether they can maintain their momentum is is another question. I’m sure they would have liked to have done better But the fact remains they are still on an upward trajectory
In contrast a !% gain in Millibands popularity would ( and has) have the BBC breaking out the champagne. (or should that be shiraz?)
Seeing the 2010 Londoncou cal results ,it’s inevitable Labour will do better in May this yea than 4 years ago, so the BBC will go ecstatic for the results,
what is really a worrying develoment today is the news i heard on of all places the daily politics show on bbc 2 that the labour party under the leadership of ed milliband have set up a special unit to deal with what they say in there words the threat of ukip in the coming general electionl,this is worrying.north korea,china,russia deal with there politacal opponents in this way,now we know that ed millbands father ralph was a dedicated marxist and a communist but i am even sure he would not agree with his sons eds policy of dealing with his poitical oppenents in the stalinist way,very worrying indeed for ukip this smear campaign organised by the labour party.
This is nothing new for Labour I’m afraid, they have organised like since the 1990s, when they became determined to turf the Conservatives out of power.
That is where Alistair Campbell came in. A former journalist, he made sure that the media was constantly force fed a diet of anti-Tory stories.
‘media was constantly force fed a diet of anti-Tory stories’
In some cases, I doubt much force was needed.
He probably was more sent proactive drafts to sign off on as a time-saving measure.
The elephant in the room is the postal voting fraud , which is starting to have an bigger influence on the outcome of elections , maybe it is time that the UN monitors were put on standby in time for the Euro elections in May, the country is beginning to resemble a third world banana republic with increasing evidence of electoral corruption.