8 Responses to Proud Of Their Independence

  1. bogtrott says:

    If this was a con PM raking in the money via a bogus charity the dear old beeb would be putting it on their news channels 24/7.But as its one of theirs they hide it….

       39 likes

    • Tony E says:

      What really surprises me is that the ‘Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown’ is regarded as a charity.

      Has anyone actually seen the accounts to verify the charitable status of the spending. Not many years ago now, the BBC and Labour were leading a charge to remove charitable status from public schools so that they had to pay taxes on income. But they are strangely silent on this.

      And also they are silent on the number of votes that Gordon takes part in, or the number of times he attends the commons for his salary, or if he is actually representing the people of Falkirk. Or his expenses? How can he claim expenses at all for the meagre attendance he registers?

         26 likes

  2. Guest Who says:

    “Guess Brown has no problem negotiating the BBC’s complaints procedure”

    It clearly operates on a basis he can work with and approve.
    Possibly not the most ringing of latest endorsements the BBC can have given their current status as a national treasure.

    Their ‘but everyone HAS to pay or go to jail’ wailing in face of the TV poll tax decriminalising efforts seems to have impressed no one outside their pension bubble.

    Even the comments to a Guardian article were… unkind. And DOTI duty posters were getting shirt shrift.

       9 likes

    • Tony E says:

      Very easy for him. He calls past the office of his old underling and throws Nokias at him. Purnell, like the beaten servant he is meekly conforms.

         20 likes

  3. johnnythefish says:

    Yet another post our occasional defenders of the indefensible won’t be too hasty to comment on….

       7 likes

    • Albaman says:

      “The above video was removed from the BBC iPlayer archive at Gordon Brown’s insistence.”

      Bit difficult to comment as no evidence or background is given to support the assertion.
      It would seem that the regular “speculators” are as quiet as the “defenders of the indefensible”.

         2 likes

      • richard D says:

        Fair comment, Albaman. But this situation begs two questions :

        1. Accepting that the video has, in fact, been removed….why on Earth would the BBC remove part of it’s own programming…. unless it had been asked to do so ? If it hadn’t been asked to do so, then there are very serious questions for the BBC to answer regarding political censorship.

        2. If the BBC has been asked to do so, then who actually asked ? Well, usually, what you have to do is ‘follow the money’ – i.e. ask yourself “who specifically benefits from the event happening ?”

        Now, none of that is ‘proof positive’, but if you think the BBC is even going to entertain the first question, then you must have recently arrived from another planet.

        Welcome to Planet Earth, and can I just enquire as to what’s your interest in this question ?

           7 likes