1. Steve Jones says:

    Please let the Greens take part in the election TV debates. There will be many voters who will be alarmed at just how dangerously stupid and blinkered these people really are.


  2. Angrymanupnorth says:

    BBC Bias? BBC News 24 Article today. Enrichment and Diversity News? News??

    Evidently the BBC are not gay-friendly. According to this:


    “the definitive list of Britain’s most gay-friendly workplaces” ….

    You could play ‘spot the private enterprise’ in this list, but how the BBC could not make the 100 top gay-friendly employers is beyond me.

    Can you get a job at the heterophobic BBC if you’re a sincere, loyal English heterosexual?

    Scrap the immorality of “positive discrimination”, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

    And scrap the telly tax.


  3. Angrymanupnorth says:

    BBC Parliament Live.

    Our leaders removing our rights now. As we speak.

    Peter Hain labelling UKIP members as racists and far right. That bastion of morals Emily Thornbury MP has just requested that the Home Secretary should be contacting Rupert Murdoch to sort out Fox News coverage.

    As ever in the House. Many sensible voices heard. But none of them are listened to.

    If anybody watching this thinks Teresa May is a leader – think again. Another power hungry fascist who wants to remove my liberty to appease an intolerable barbaric ideology. I feel sick.

    Off switch.

    Vote UKIP


  4. I Can See Clearly Now says:

    Brillo finished The Daily Politics with a story on moves to simplify the English language. (It was OK for 500 years…. what has happened to necessitate a change? Children of English speakers never had any trouble before?).

    They’re already at it, of course. My old Primary School teacher taught me the apostrophe use; ‘John’s book’, but ‘James’ book’. However, the media have killed off the trailing apostrophe. So now we hear ‘Spurs-is goalie’…. I mean… give me a break …..how ugly is that?

    The media co-ordinated that change sometime last year. How was that organised? The common purpose, I mean? Common Purpose common purpose, perhaps?


    • JoShaw says:

      You think that’s bad? “There are” is becoming rare.

      Try teaching German to an English child with no understanding whatsoever of English grammar.


      • GCooper says:

        The correct use of grammar and punctuation require thought. This is not something the BBC would encourage. Who knows where it might lead were people allowed to wander around thinking?!


  5. Guest Who says:

    There once was a time that if the ‘established’ (I guess MSM now) media ran a story, I’d pretty much take it on faith.

    Now I tend to see what they come out with as more of a start point to discover what is really going on…


    ‘According to the Independent, Mail, Telegraph, Express and the BBC sellers are flogging copies of the satirical magazine for insane prices on eBay.’

    Actually I tend to skip the MSM and rely more on free online sources (though still ready to check – have been caught a lot even still) first.

    Those first few papers of course can live or die by their reputation and value as news providers.

    I simply wonder what the value is of all those cubicle groves full of thousands of ‘professional journalists’ (or ‘press release copy-outers’) that require a compelled several hundred million to support to fill the void their hiring created in the first place.

    Note: The BBC piece does include the caveat, but well down the copy.


  6. AsISeeIt says:


    The casualties of Russia’s decline
    By Joe Miller Business reporter

    “If you think about the future of the UK economy, for example, the impact of events in Russia is likely to be of negligible importance”….says Andrew Kenningham, senior global economist at Capital Economics..’

    Or perhaps not, if you are a British dairy farmer…


    ‘More than 1,000 British farmers will not be paid for their milk on Monday because of a financial crisis at the dairy co-operative First Milk.’

    ‘The Russian import ban has also had an impact, as have supermarkets competing over lower prices.’

    I highlight this blowback consequence of our (EU-led) economic sanctions on Russia because the BBC are forever banging on about the negative consequences of our (US-led) sanctions on the people of (for instance) Iran.

    One has to wonder why they go to the trouble of making that first reassuring report telling us not to worry about the sanctions on Russia?

    BBC: Russia the new bad


  7. Steve Jones says:

    One of Harry Enfield’s characters is wading in on the anti-immigration debate:


    I think his argument is that amongst the millions entering the country there are a few decent scientists. That’s OK then, keep the doors open.


    • AsISeeIt says:

      Quite nonsensical comments about immigration – ‘there’s obviously difficult things too – and it’s time we actually started talking about them’ – so he say talk about it/ don’t talk about it!

      Somewhat in line, I notice, with official Labour Party policy.

      Then we have the BBC banging on yet again about drug legalisation – that has me thinking I must be one of the Double Take Brothers.

      I suppose Mr Nice But Dim Nurse has every right to keep telling us You Don’t Wanna Do It Like That – that’s why we pay him Loadsamoney – the Old Git.


    • A Scientist says:

      The ‘Harry Enfield Character’ is……

      Sir Paul Nurse, the President of The Royal Society, a once honourable independent scientific institution, a rock upon which the foundations of our civilisation is built.

      Unfortunately, The Royal Society’s reputation is heading downhill in the eyes of investigative scientists. I wonder why?

      He is correct in his comments regarding politicians and their lack of leadership.

      He makes valid points regarding illegality of drugs.

      Unfortunately, this untimely intervention on the benefits of immigration on science is not backed up by citations to any peer reviewed work on the subject, which when one thinks about it further, would be nearly impossible to measure. And who would measure it anyway? Social scientists in British universities, funded by the state (never works – typically get the answers that the funder desires).

      Scientific advancements proceeded apace in Britain and the US for centuries before the recent (last 20 years) rapid changes in Britain’s demography. I have heard no-one (other than left wing fear mongers) suggesting that productive intelligent foreigners would not be welcome to engage in their scientific work in the UK. The perceived proposition is preposterous.

      Sir P N understands a straw man argument, and a MacGuffin. This is a MacGuffin. He has been used by the BBC to underpin a narrative to close down an open debate about immigration and the control of our borders. He should have declined the interview. It was socially irresponsible not to do so.

      The issue at hand is uncontrolled immigration, and the rights of indigenous populations, representative deficit and uncontrolled government. Not immigration per see.

      The Royal Society used to be independent. Now its primary funding comes either directly or indirectly from the state. The R Soc charges a fee and accepts papers from a limited cabal of scientists and institutions (again predominately state funded) and fails to correct the record when blatant errors of logic appear in their publications (Yes. They publish logically flawed peer reviewed work, and don’t correct it or investigate when the errors are pointed out to them).

      Sir Paul Nurse has recently indicated that the ‘science is in’ on Anthropogenic Global Warming despite the growing mass of scientific papers which suggest that the opposite is true. You can get a few years’ worth of reading material here:


      I feel sorry for Sir Paul Nurse. He has found himself holding a hot potato and it appears to be affecting him personally. This is a good man, out of his depth, manipulated and unable to comprehend the corruption in the scientific establishment that surrounds him, that is damaging our nation and even has resulted in recent expressions of concern from establishment figures such as Lord Ridley.


      Not just the BBC that’s biased. The infection runs much, much deeper.


  8. noggin says:

    Sharia from cowardice media central … UK update
    Never mind Carlie Hebdo … and Mohamhead
    Oxford University Press bans mention of pork and pigs in books to ‘avoid offending Muslims …………….. or Jews, (oops! read Muslims)

    “More abject surrender and dhimmitude from Ludicrous Britannia. OUP says they are avoiding mentioning pork and pigs in books to avoid offending Muslims and Jews, but … Jews have never taken offence at such things”
    R Spencer

    Perhaps they ran, (oui, oui , oui, all the way home) … to Tariq Ramadan, for advice from his Qatari funded seat in Oxford Univ.?
    You can check out BBC Oxford, but … it ain t there
    You would think it would be prescient with all this, freedom of speech/expression? … No1 in the news stories?
    for the “je suis Charlie” Al BBC eh!
    the BBC does have this though
    … “Alice in Wonderland stamps issued ”
    the irony


  9. Old Goat says:

    2015 must be the year in which the BBC go totally and openly political.

    If they lose the election in May, they are in serious danger.


    • GCooper says:

      And the desperation is starting to show.

      On the other hand, it only applies if UKIP gains a huge vote. The Tories, for all that the BBC actively campaigns against them, have proved themselves utterly unwilling to force the BBC to abide by its charter.


  10. I Can See Clearly Now says:

    Israeli Ambassador Demands Clegg Action Against David Ward

    The Beeb furiously jump on the most minor misdemeanour of the most minor UKIP member. Every single time. By contrast, they never report outrageous remarks by ‘progressives’. We have to rely on Guido Fawkes:



  11. Dover Sentry says:

    This should liven things up:


    Election. Pub Landlord v Nigel Farage.