Can I take this moment to express my sincere thanks to ALL those very kind and generous Biased BBC readers who have contributed towards the costs of the server for this site. Following the recent appeal I can advise that we are sorted out financially and that all will continue as normal. As ever, you all prove one thing to me – YOU are the greatest asset this site has and I sincerely thank you for your support.
THANK YOU!
Bookmark the permalink.
Well done to all those that contributed.
Let the crusade against this threat to the UK remain as strong as ever.
Great news!
May I ask how much you contributed? How much of this came from the BBC? I’m sure you’ll want to be transparent.
What the f*** are you going on about?
Do you mean the BBC donating directly (zero on a likeliness scale where 10 = a cert)?
Or David Vance using his personal BBC appearance fees (scores a perfect 10 for ‘beautifully crafted retribution’)?
Either way, sounds like you’re on a loser mate.
Matt – the answers to your questions.
None of your business, but David has probably paid the full amount for hosting before any contributions and is out of pocket.
None.
Now, have you contributed? You don’t need to say how much, but have you contributed anything?
I doubt if he ever even contributed a sensible (free) post under whatever name he chooses to use.
And thank you David, Alan and all those behind the scenes. I am like a bear with a sore head the occasional times the site is down.
This site goes from strength to strength! Overwhelming proof of BBC bias by the big stinking bucketful, day after day.
And thanks also to the tiny platoon of Beeboids who put in the occasional appearance to share their distortions and nonsense with us (Danny Howard’s ‘conspiracy theory’ post on the Midweek Open Thread was an absolute blinder) but mysteriously go awol when the meaty debates are in full flow – they make our job even easier. Cheers, lads!
I wonder if any Beeboids have donated to this site? As good “socialists” they should jump at the chance of a bit of “redistribution of wealth of £4 billion ,from the “haves” ,them ,to the poorer broadcasters & websites ,”havenots”that try and compete with them ,& hold the bastards to account. I guess thats a “No” then .
Not a penny.
I think its remarkable that no-one seems to think it worthy of comment that the man who runs the Blog makes a living appearing on the BBC, and complaining about the licence fee yet isn’t exactly forthcoming on how much of the licence fee he’s recieving.
‘I think its remarkable that no-one seems to think it worthy of comment that the man who runs the Blog makes a living appearing on the BBC’
Given the BBC fees are not huge and his invitations are not at Abbott/Maguire/Jones/Toynbee levels, that living must be a modest one.
Making it remarkable that you wrote that at all. Or that 11 faithful folk appear to support your demands for commercial information from a private individual that the BBC, ironically, would refuse because that’s what they do. Or that on a free, open, near unmodded blog what the owner can or does impose is basically irrelevant (unlike the BBC HYS, where £400kpa baristas can and do ‘suggest’ when topics need raising or playing down, or discussions going off piste need terminating).
It’s the calibre of the argument that matters here; not affiliations. If Mr. Vance is getting a fee for appearing to critique the BBC, running a BBC-critiquing websiteseems hardly a conflict of interest logically, now does it?
But as affiliations do seem your thing, may I ask if you are the professional or just masochistic option of the weekend duty roster?
It’s a long one, so whichever it is, Happy Easter.
I was not having a go at DV ,its good he can get some cash back from al beeb , its the trolls who infest New Broadcasting House & that Manchester £1 billion bunker I was on about , they pop up as Danny Howard, Dez , Scott & the like.
One post that contains almost every one of your paranoid delusions, 9/10 !
No mention of FOI though?!
If its about calibre of argument, then it fails.
Sorry for the delay in replying. Off again enjoying what Danny has coined ‘a life’ during the break and nice weather with the fam, as you and your chums are again sadly reduced to haunting these threads dutifully.
‘If its about calibre of argument, then it fails.’
As another once coined, ‘If you say so’.
No harm in a personal view of course, but to actual mean anything it may help to add more than your belief it is correct with zero else to explain why.
Very BBC, though.
So full marks to you.
No real need to mention the topic of FOI exemptions as you have kindly done so, but the BBC’s oddly variable use of them to work up a story can often be compared to their use of them to avoid anyone else using the facility with their own little secrets, if not in a good way.
So thanks for bringing it up!
As to paranoia, that’s just for people who know ‘they’ are out to get you. But it is flattering that you seem to be tracking my post history so diligently.
Guessing your forte runs more to noting such things down?
At least you’ve not yet been reduced to rummaging in the bins or doing desperate background checks like some much keener on the playing the person elsewhere than actually addressing the value of their contribution here.
On a forum, some may feel that is erring on the downright creepy.
Though it would most likely be eye-opening if the full histories of those who keep coming here solely to try and discredit or shut down the site were pursued and made known.
Doubting Thomas from Tesco would be too keen if the boot were on the other foot.
Matt, your spelling is as good as your logic. “Recieving” indeed. Nice however to see you still making no contribution of any value. 😉
The i before e thing was never my forte.
Matt = Nick Reynolds
Nick Reynolds = Social Media Executive BBC Online
There may be another reason for David’s sudden need for what is pretty paltry sum of £500.
He company Advanced Marketing appears to be struggling. You’ll note from this online link that it is in fact balance sheet insolvent:
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/NI063084/ADVANCED-MARKETING-NI-LTD
That doesn’t mean its going bust: in fact it appears that AM remains creditworthy, although there is some concern here (check out what an E rating means)
https://www.check-business.co.uk/business/NI063084/advanced-marketing-ni-ltd
One assumes Vance has given sufficient security to the Bank that AM can meet its liabilities. House perhaps?
So what does AM do? There’s a press article here trumpeting a new success:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/food-distributor-seals-benecol-transport-deal-29008194.html
You’ll note that the PR makes great play about its current big name clients:
Major brands include Nando’s Sauces, Pizza Express and Amy’s Kitchen.
But if you go to the current website you’ll note that all of them have gone.
http://www.am-ni.com/index.php?page_id=17
Oh dear. Of course there are many reasons why you lose customers.Crap service, uncompetitive pricing or the products don’t sell. Even incompetent web design, although they used to be there. I’m sure its not that these companies have become concerned that their brand could be in any way be linked to Vance and his views. Of course not.
‘Every little helps!’
I know next to nothing about David Vance (or how he tries to earn a living) but the above post by Thomas S is a textbook demonstration of why the BBC license fee should be scrapped.
Another pathetic drive by troll.
Your comments are typical of the leftist mind set that wished to shut down any site or debate that is contrary to your views.
There may be many reasons why you are a sad tosser but frankly why should anyone care….