BBC in mourning for the “moderate reformer” and Saudi King Abdullah. I guess there was never a tyrant they couldn’t find some love for. Anyway, here is a new OPEN Thread for you.
WEEKEND OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- StewGreen Nov 22, 00:09
Midweek 20th November 2024
Libmob don’t know the price of things 1Kg sugar is now just 89p at B&M It is £1 at Poundland… - vlad Nov 21, 23:37
Midweek 20th November 2024
It’s called ‘Unleashed’ – not a word I would apply to BoJo. Like being savaged by a dead sheep. - Sluff Nov 21, 22:30
Midweek 20th November 2024
After watching by accident the fawning sycophancy of the 10 pm BBC news to John Prescott, there can be no… - harry142857 Nov 21, 22:02
Midweek 20th November 2024
The emoluments for the Chief Executive for the year was £154,044. Registered Charity 802052 Children In Need - Philip_2 Nov 21, 21:40
Midweek 20th November 2024
BBC presses ahead with Radio 2 60s and 70s spin-off station despite admitting it will harm rivals The “arrogant” BBC… - Fedup2 Nov 21, 21:39
Midweek 20th November 2024
Plenty on twitter suggesting Reeves will be resigning on Friday – they have no honoure- she won’t - StewGreen Nov 21, 21:36
Midweek 20th November 2024
screenshot [img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gc8E_QvXUAAgfzM?format=jpg&name=small[/img] - Zephir Nov 21, 21:29
Midweek 20th November 2024
FFS this lot should be jailed for treason… “The Biden administration is loosening some key immigration restrictions ahead of President-elect…
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
Re: Today R4 23/01/14
Did anyone else hear a BBC economics reporter tell her interviewee that a Grexit would be ” bad for British business, right?”.
It’s the fault of the Israelis. It’s the fault of the Irish. It’s the fault of ‘Right-wing, media monitoring blogs’. It’s the fault of councils in the UK trying to ban Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ 30 years ago. It’s the fault of Western European countries who don’t worry enough about blasphemy, racist and misogynist speech. But it’s nothing to do with Islam, immigration and the likes of the BBC in stroking up tension. All explained in a long, rambling piece from Owen Bennett-Jones on the BBC website. His conclusion says it all:
But others reckon the brothers were in fact using the blasphemy issue as a vehicle to express the frustration, anger and powerlessness that come with being the sons of Algerian migrants, alienated and unable to get a fair chance in the society they were born into..
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30905543
Was a bit all over the place.
“When a shopkeeper recently told a BBC radio programme that he loved the Prophet more than his children, many of his fellow countryman found that difficult, if not impossible, to understand”
Given apparent concern that messages via the media are creating unfortunate impressions, maybe some internal reflection could be devoted to where the BBC keeps finding such folk to broadcast such difficult, if not impossible understand (to his countrymen, if not a wider audience) vox poppets…. allllll the time.
‘……many of his fellow countryman found that difficult, if not impossible, to understand.’
Did he say which ‘countrymen’?
Yes, best keep those types off the radio….while defending free speech!
The BBC does have an interesting approach to free speech, starting with who it heads for with the mike to speak freely, and who it leaves on the cutting room floor if what they say is not to taste.
You could try and ask what guides this, but their commitment to trust and transparency means that, for the purposes of what they claim to do, it remains their little secret.
Propaganda and censorship can be effective like that.
I rather valued the input of non-loon members of the Islamic faith on the recent Panorama. But that seems to have been a less popular choice to a state broadcaster apparently not concerned by community cohesion as much as snappy sound bites.
Still, in the spirit of freedom, each to their own. It’s not like anyone is forced to pay for it… Oh.
Smooookin’!
A text book example of drivelling liberalism. Read it and weep as they say.
Conflating oppostion to Islamification with being right wing. The usual smear and as usual quite wrong.
An obligatory mention of bad old Israel. The last comment is just laughable. As usual alienation and deprivation make men go out killing.
Whoever he is the writer is one of the body snatched.
Where do they find them? Pod central I suppose.
Many kids where I grew up were ‘deprived’. I always suspected their dads were serial killers rather than proud, law-abiding, working-class blokes always striving to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Good link !
Note this extract:
–Right-wing, media-monitoring blogs are celebrating the shift, praising any programmes and articles that hint that Islam is regressive–.
I’m sure somewhere on the BBC website there’ll be articles written from a right-wing point of view – you know, ‘Britain’s multicultural disaster’ and the like – in the best traditions of BBC ‘balance’.
Not.
It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other on the BBC this morning.
We’re told about Jewish and Muslim communities with ‘acts of violence coming between them’
A school girl with a head scarf can’t help the BBC understand why we have these problems – she looks to her Jewish school mate and says “we have practically the same religion”
Stand them side by side and there isn’t too much.
However, in detail sadly on occasion one will be behind a guardian, and the other will be placed in front of one supposedly doing the same as they launch at the former.
Practically, a significant difference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30947297
For some reason unknown to me and not explained by the BBC ‘the news where you are’ this morning is off air. No BBC London. So the BBC shifts us over to BBC South East. Goodness, what an eye-opener, these bumpkins out in the sticks just don’t know how to properly bang on about Tory cuts. Where’s the diversity – do the yokels really let a whole three-minute bulletin go by without any colour or vibrancy at all? And why no criticism of Boris? Haven’t they heard what a dumb Tory he is? I do hope Rizzla Teeth and the London agitprop Labour supporting community unit are ok. Duvet day?
Probably didn’t press the right button or it’s on the News 24 hour feed. No real difference no matter where the BBc are broadcasting the agenda remains the same.
The Wright Stuff(C5) was a good laugh the other day.
Matthew(presenter) wanted to push the ‘nothing to do with Islam’ meme. All the nodding donkeys on the panel agreed with him, natch.
First caller suggested, not unreasonably imo, that Charlie Hebdo etc. had everything to do with Islam, the Koran, etc.
When Wrighty couldn’t bully and bull-shit the guy(because he was too clever for him) he slammed the phone down saying ‘I can’t talk to idiots like that’.
Second caller, called Mohamed or something comes on ‘ they deserved to die for blaspheming our Prophet’
Wrighty tries to soft soap this guy, for some reason, but asks him why he would think like that.
‘It’s in the Koran’ says Mohamed.
Wrighty’s face. Ha-ha, it was like one of those spoof phone-in shows.
The Wright Show is almost a parody of itself with Mirror ‘journalist’ Wright desperate to get on the BBC not even feigning the role of impartial referee of the ‘debates’. It is farcical nonsense and good only for the occasional comedic incidents where they tie themselves up in knots.
For a student of media political bias it is a good place to spot how vile some celebs really are when they are given enough rope. That they then appear on the BBC as ‘impartial’ commentators is even funnier.
NB Kate Silverton the, not so successful as she’d want, BBC News show pony was a regular on The Wright Show when it started. Her ersatz left views were on full display and she regularly showed her ignorance. She got her slot on the BBC eventually and it is difficult to see how it could be on looks or talent.
Lowry Turner, ex of the BBC was also a regular panellist who has found it hard to come across as sane and then there is the Grand Mama of them all Janet Ellis, ex BBC children’s presenter, confirmed frother and Sofie’s mum – as mad as a box of frogs.
Which is why the bbc spends a lot of effort making sure this type of their wage payers is kept firmly away from the airwaves. Imagine if ‘game show’ had people like this live on air? The poor love would have his gorgeous locks turning grey. The producer would be sent to Coventry, ( literally, bbc Coventry and Warwickshire’s night time show is always available to producers who fail in Salford ). Rule 1, set your agenda. Rule 2 make sure those who you have to use in the production have been either ‘provided’ or are non threatening. Rule 3, remember whose bbc it is, it belongs to the liberal self perpetuating elite, no other viewpoint in allowed.
Pat Condell nails it with the nothing to do with Islam argument.
Hard not to notice the BBC Today program this morning, several times referring to Saudi King Abdullah ascending to the throne.
What a strange choice of words! Almost as if they are ascribing some religious quality to the King and his high status.
I wonder if they’ll use the same term when Charlie ‘ascends’ to the throne. I’ve no doubt a more neutral term like he ‘inherits’ or simply ‘takes over from the Queen’.
Muslims ‘ascend’, white trash ‘unjustly inherits’.
Respect
BBC Breakfast performed a similiar kowtow to the Saudis.
Abslutely no references to him being a ‘controversial leader’
Happily we are told the oil industry there is in the hands ‘of a technocrat’
As far as the BBC is concerned this particular ‘foreign country’ seems to be a ‘past : they do things differently there’
‘UK Prime Minister David Cameron said Abdullah would be remembered for his “commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths”.
If Bro Dave goes I hope he will have time to take in a beheading or a flogging or two. Just to re-affirm his belief that Islam is a religion of peace.
Looking at Guido, it appears the ‘leadership’ of the West operates on the delusion that folk get their information now from sources other than the BBC.
Talk about hitching to a dead, flogged horse headed over a cliff.
For Beeboids: HACKING, by Labour Party-supporting, ‘Daily Mirror’ –
“Hacking by Mirror ‘worse than at Murdoch papers’”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-by-mirror-worse-than-at-murdoch-papers-9996698.html?origin=internalSearch
Interesting to compare the Independent’s report with the BBC online report, where they go with the headline ‘Cilla Black settles hacking claim for ‘substantial’ damages’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30933790
Conspicuously absent from the BBC report are the allegations that
The scale of phone hacking inside Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) may have been larger than at rival tabloids owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to details given at a High Court hearing.
As many as 41 journalists working across the Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People newspapers are now alleged to have used internal office lines to make calls to mobile phones and illegally access private voicemails, a court heard. Fresh details of the “widespread and habitual” nature of voicemail hacking at Mirror Group emerged at a legal hearing yesterday, four weeks ahead of the first scheduled civil law hacking trial against MGN.
The Independent’s ‘Hacking by Mirror ‘worse than at Murdoch papers’ seems much more appropriate to me, and in a hypothetical reverse case scenario no-one will convince me that the BBC wouldn’t have led with ‘Hacking by Sun worse than Mirror Group’.
‘Conspicuously absent from the BBC report’
Tough call.
Either ‘not news’ (c) A. Newsroom Tealady or… it was a different time.
Hang on… no, it wasn’t.
Must be something else.
…and of course, no mention of the odious Piers Morgan who erm, can’t quite seem to remember anything about it.
“Saudi King Abdullah is dead” – a non-subservient, non-Beeboid view-
[Excerpt, ‘Jihadwatch’]-
“Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah is dead. This is not an optimum time for a transition. The Saudis’ massive expenditures to export the jihad doctrine have come back to bite them in the form of the Islamic State, a self-proclaimed caliphate that denies the legitimacy of the House of Saud (and every other government other than its own) and has vowed to conquer it (and every other country, but it is right on the Saudis’ doorstep). The Iranians, meanwhile, are always jockeying to become the leader of the Islamic world, and in that Saudi Arabia is one of their chief rivals. But Iranian-backed Shi’ite Houthi rebels have just won a major victory in Yemen, and Iran has just concluded a military pact with Russia.”
– By Robert Spencer.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/saudi-king-abdullah-is-dead
” A Second Look at the Saudis ”
( Parts 1-4, pdf)
(2008)-
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com/
This morning Radio Five “gets much worse” Live was busily lamenting the death of Ging Abdullah of Saudia Arabia, and bsically following the lead of Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama wh have already praised the late monarch as a peacemaker and force for good in the world! When Nicky Campbell interviewed the BBC’s “Security Correspondent,” Frank Gardiner, he had the gall to say that the late monarch was a liberal, because he made the members of the ruling family pay their phone bills!!! Frank, what about all those unfortunate souls who are going to be either beheaded or flogged after Friday prayers today? He also argued that he was respected by all (??) Moslems throughout the world, which I took to mean all those fundamentalist who believe in keeping women down. When Campbell to his credit tried to raise the issue of Raif Badawi with Gardiner and other correspondent, they basically refused to be drawn on the matter. What type of world do these BBC correspondents live in? The upshot of al this is that the weak leaders in the West, together with their hangers-on like the BBC, refuse to acknowlege that Abdullah was a ghastly old tyrant, who caused misery for many peole both within the Kingdom and other parts of the world. But the West can only contiue to abase itself before the Saudi Eoyal Family in order to be assured of its dirty oil and continue to enter into lucrative defence contracts with it. Where is the real leadership in the West today?
There isn’t any. And unless UKIP make some inroads into this corrupt sphere in May, nor will there be, either. You may as well give up, as they seem to be doing in the USA where the unpopular Muslim, Kenyan POTUS will legislate with his pen, and bugger the constitution, whilst madness reigns. We are stuffed, big time.
Merkel? I’d love to see her kicking poor old Farage about in a parallel universe in which he got elected 🙂
Merkel knows Call Me Dave is a wimp, so she can bully him at will. She couldn’t bully Farage, so she’d have to concede change or lose the vast UK cash contribution. My guess is that she wouldn’t want Germany to be the only set of suckers paying in. What do you think?
‘Merkel? I’d love to see her kicking poor old Farage about in a parallel universe in which he got elected’
Cor blimey, betcha wannet to see St Pauls blahn to bits an’ all, dincha? You Lord Haw-Haw or summink, gav’ nah?
(With apologies to Dick Van Dyke)
Farage would rip her a new one!
Yep! … Al BBC is full Adbullahphile today R4, R5Live, News 24.
Oh … That poor blogger, who won t be flogged, (this week!), as the lashes last time were so deep … soooo
Much to Saud disgust, his wounds will be allowed to heal, just a little … before they whip him mercilessly again.
But as the Blogger’s second lashing was postponed; a woman was publicly beheaded in Mecca
Damn the BBC for its grovelling attitude towards Abdullah the flogger. And damn this government for flying flags at half mast to honour him And damn the politicians in Westminster who have not called Bro Dave out for his grovelling to this obnoxious royal family. But good for Louise Mensch who has spoken out. Fortunately she did not say these things out loud on a London tram.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/louise-mensch-says-fk-you-in-explosive-tweets-about-david-cameron-saudi-embassy-and-the-queen-over-king-abdullah-tributes-9998709.html
“But good for Louise Mensch who has spoken out”
From the safety of her husband’s New York apartment.
Where is the real leadership in the West today?
He died 50 years ago today.
Pro Palestinian anti Israel biased BBC please watch and listen..
A group of anti-Israel protesters disrupted a Council meeting at the exact time a resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz – and the murder of 1.1 million innocents – was being discussed. NY Councilman David Greenfield – the grandson of Holocaust survivors – hit back hard….Very hard…
Must watch at http://tinyurl.com/lufjpox You Tube video
Can we get this guy on question time and any questions ? He’d take no crap from abbot and Ali brown would he ? The poor little beeboids would shrivel up and die in the face of someone with belief in his country and his people.
Shows what a revolting bunch the pro-Pallies are, along with their toxic banner.
Eloquent, passionate and powerful. Well put.
No doubt that things like the £43 billion oil-for-fighter jets deal (see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal) do not influence reporting on matters relating to Saudi Arabia. No sir, not one little bit.
Coalition benefits cuts ‘cost average family £1,227 a year’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30943518
“Low-income working-age [ie unemployed dole aristocracy] households have been hit hardest, losing the most as a percentage of their income.”
1) Well they would wouldn’t they as a modest cut to a small income is a large percentage….
2) This “Income” sems to be the cash handed to them by the state –
3) Working class (yes working class as in people who go out to work and don’t expect the state to pay for their phone bill) and middle class people do not get free cash from the state – they pay for the others. Therefore they will not lose out as a cut of 5% of nothing is still f*ck all.
4) consequently, the ‘costs’ do not affect the ‘average family’ at all and this story is a travesty
“The hardest-hit region was greater London, where households lost an average £1,042” – Note the difference in figures here, the ‘hardest hit’ lose less than the average…. (is there a difference between ‘families’ and households’)
“HARDEST HIT”, Hmmm, we are talking about a cap of 26,000 tax on free income(as in welcome to Britain here is a free house in London -rent utilities and food thrown in – and a whacking wodge of cash. Please feel free to live your life exactly as you would wherever you have come from; no you don’t need to do a single days work or have contributed a penny to the state).
Sorry, as someone who has to pay thousands of pounds to commute several hours a day in a disease laden cattle truck before dawn and returning home way after dark my sympathy bank is empty. I cannot afford to rent far less buy a flat in Pimlico or Westminster or infact anywhere in London which is now primarily populated by two classes of people, the ultra rich and those who have their housing for free – and I pay for it as well as every other aspect of their lives from their toilet paper to their funerals via sky sports or FlyStar Television. The squeezed middle has fled from London because a) they cannot afford it, b) who would want to live there?
So we have a stunningly biased and incompetent piece from the BBC that does not ask the simplest of questions and whose interpretation of selected factoids blatantly supports the Labour narrative. Why am I not surprised? the BBC only has four billion a year to spend as this looks like an intern has been give the report and told to select the bits that support the Labour mythology. The result is a shocking incompetent and misleading story.
As usual
Sorry need to add something….
http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/article/the-effect-of-the-coalition-s-tax-and-benefit-changes-on-household-incomes-and-work-incentives
This was from an “Election briefing note” and the BBC sees fit to miss out some extremely relevant statements…
“Low-income working-age households have lost the most as a percentage of their income from tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition, mainly as a result of benefit cuts. However this changes if we include in our analysis the tax rises
introduced immediately before the coalition came to office (the first element of the fiscal consolidation that began in April 2010): the richest households have lost the most both in cash terms and as a percentage of income from the overall tax and benefit changes that have taken place since the beginning of 2010. Including these tax rises increases the average loss to households to £810 per year.”
Hmm so Labour Tax policy impact isn’t worth noting at the BBC!
“By cutting benefits for non-working families and increasing the personal allowance, the coalition has significantly strengthened average financial incentives to work for most groups.”
Sorry – update – the website story now reads ‘cost average family £489 a year’
So, what happened to the other £738 in the last 10 minutes? The report hasn’t changed.
A totally misleading and factually wrong headline – the rich are the hardest hit in percentage and cash terms IF YOU INCLUDE THE TAXES IMPOSED ON THEM BY LABOUR but that dosen’t fit the narrative so it is excluded.
As most people only skim the headlines ‘coalition punishing the poor’ is all they pick up. This is clearly editorial policy
I share your indignation with the allowing as a sacred premise that people are to be supported by the state – which means productive workers, us – with no requirement to do…anything – just consume the produce of others. The current farcical Universal Benefit, maintains this corrupt premise, and is only concerned with arbitrary limits, not challenging the justification for this transfer payment form the taxpayer to the non-taxpayer. A fundamental principle of a healthy society is that the only people who require support to maintain a respectable standard of living are those who suffer from such devastating disability that it precludes any involvement in employment. If people are concerned with the support of those that they feel should have support in their living standards, they can create a real charity and express their concerns practically rather than lobbying government to increase transfers which only make the taxpayer poorer.
BBC News. 1300Hrs. BBC1.
They ran with a visually displayed figure of £1223 as the backdrop to the main news report on TV, in a nicey-nicey discussion between Jane Hill and Simon Gomphertz (the smaller BBC Gomphertz).
Terribly obvious anti-coalition bias and manipulation of statistics by the usual leftard suspects. They sound as though they are influenced by the prospect of their own unemployment.
Scrap the telly tax.
People will consider it harsh to require people to work to support themselves. I would acknowledge this by creating a Basic Income entitlement, an idea from the 1980s. I would suggest £80. You can decide who gets it – citizens or resident or how politically you decide. The sting in this tail is that you eliminate Job Seekers Allowance, eliminate Housing Benefit (which will cause rents and property prices to fall). Oh, I almost forgot, you also eliminate Tax and Child Credits. For children you have a reduced amount that is decided politically. The income tax rate will have to rise and threshold is eliminated. However, you reintroduce Unemployment Benefit – because that is a contribution from NI Stamp and covers people from short term unemployment (as was intended by Beveridge) and recognises that they have contributed and thus are entitled as of right for the money. The upshot of this is, I guess, a cost of at most £100billion for the Basic Income, a big cut in social expenditure and a huge savings in the administrative bureaucracy. Oh, and it is not taxed, so eliminates Poverty Tax because it is not means tested. What’s not to like? The only people that will lose out – from the elimination of all other benefits transfers, bar Basic Income – will solely be those who are able bodied and those who have not contributed. Basic Income will be ethical because we feel good because everybody so deemed can feed themselves. What’s not to like?
Poverty Trap not “Tax”. Also, regarding tax rises, this will not be required because welfare transfer payments will drop considerably, probably by half. Firms will not like this idea because they gain huge advantage of access to subsidised labour through credits. Landlords and property speculators will fume as the £25billion rent subsidy disappears and they face the long overdue property market correction. of course, people will argue that the economy will crash but that argument is based on the odd idea that the state is the producer of wealth rather than its redistributer. Then we will get that proper political relationship between the state and the citizen without the Welfare Blob that requires endless feeding and enriching itself at the expense of the productive citizens. This is democratic expropriation and all we seem able to do is quibble about the extent of exploitation, not whether we should be exploited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_tax_credit
CCE I’ve always been baffled when it comes to the whole family credit ideology. Working for DHSS I do recall the days of it’s predecessor FIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Income_Supplement And indeed the introduction of Family credit. The whole system has been marred by impracticality in implementation and structure which is shown by the massive amounts of overpayments. As I’ve always maintained this is just a taxpayer funded incentive for companies to pay low wages.
Chukka Ebola has a hissy fit and walks off the set when Dermot asks him a question about the Cameron muslim letter !! Chukka needs his handlers to tell him what to think.
Now I loathe the odious Chukkup as much the next man, but he was in the right here. Came on to discuss a topic in his remit, not prepared to comment on something he hadn’t read (a lesson many need to learn). Perfectly reasonable. Dermot was being a complete twat.
And not able to comment on something that was very much in the news.
Not very impressive, IMO, for someone who some describe as a future contender for leadership of the Labour Party. He needs to shape up because this sort of thing goes with the territory.
I agree hadda.
Can`t stand this Obama tribute act-a complete nonentity, but a liberal wet dream because his skin shade brings Beyonce or Benettons vision to life.
No policies, no principles, no purpose except to be a decorative air freshener to Guardian, BBC types.
But I only wish other politicos would deal this Columbo “just one more thing crap”…of course a principled politico could tell you a view if he had one…but the new breed do not.
Murnaghan deserved it-Umma`s still a plonker, but he was right in this case.
Send him up! Case dismissed…and what passes for “political debate” gets further trashed.
It’s regular practice for interviewers to go off topic and ask politicians for their thoughts on significant developments in the news. I’ve seen it many times when a Tory or UKIP politician is being interviewed, rarely does a Labour politician get low-balled. Chucky boy displays petulance that someone asked him a question that wasn’t previously agreed on. Obviously not used to hostile questions. Chucky is a man so far up his own arse I’m surprised he hasn’t turned himself inside out.
He was offered a chance to read it IIRC and if he knew nothing about THE major news story of the day then he doesn’t belong in politics.
The reason he didn’t answer was that he couldn’t – without antagonising either himself, his friends or the British public.
I work on a building site, hadda, and I was aware of, and had formed an opinion, on the letter and the reaction to it. I find it very hard to believe a supposedly professional politician was unaware of, had no opinion, on the matter.
A senior labour spokesman should have been aware and briefed on the “labour talking points” of all the latest news.
It is common for interviewers to ask unrelated questions and the fact that chuka could not handle that proves that he is unfit to serve in Government.
This Week. BBC 1. Late Thursday 22nd Jan. Brillo in good form.
Funny as f&%k.
Andrew Neil and a lovely 25yr old libertarian lady from NI (worth a watch) expose the utter hypocracy and gutlessness of feminazi-ism. Caroline Lucas totally lost for words. Caroline took what I think the youth refer to it as a “good b&?ch-slappin’ “.
Top gear. This week. I might subscribe to them. The rest can go.
Scrap the telly tax.
Laura Lacole…what a splendid woman 🙂
…And!….what makes Laura even more special:
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2013/06/libertarian-ladies-ukip-gains-support.html
I think I am in love.
Yum.
The British Ann Coulter?
Hey, that’s my bird you’re talking about.
Thoroughly enjoyed watching that clip, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Caroline Lucas was exposed as a vacuous coward. Brillo mentioned FGM in the UK and the intelligent and articulate Laura Lacole raised the spectre of the abuse of women in countries where they are sexually repressed. What usually connects those two issues I wonder? Anyway, Lucas mentioned context at one point in order to make her point. So given the context of FGM and abuse of women just how far up the scale is Page 3? Not very far I would argue but then it is a soft target given the whirlwind that Lucas and her ‘feminist’ chums would reap if they tried to tackle the real issues.
While we are on the subject of the Feminazi, how many of you readers can remember the BBC’s comedy series ‘The Two Ronnies’ where they serialised ‘The Worm That Turned’.
Do you think they would re run that comedy?
It was funnier than the rubbish they call comedy these days and It would be very pertinent now.
Had just entered my teens when that series aired. Those ladies of the State Police played havoc with my hormones…much to my delight!
I don’t like Brillo much as a rule, but I thought his take down of Caroline Lucas was hilarious; I especially enjoyed the part where he reeled off all the things which the Greens as policy want to relax the law on: sex shops; prostitution; S & M clubs etc yet somehow Page 3 is simply beyond the pale. She tried some guff about how she didn’t agree with that policy, but it was the policy of the party or some such twaddle; it just made her look a complete fool.
Mr Glodstone,
Watch again the point during This Week where, as you state, Brillo,’…reeled off all the things which the Greens as policy want to relax the law on: sex shops; prostitution; S & M clubs etc ‘. I could be wrong but, from the look on Lucas’ face, it would appear she had either forgotten that bit of Green policy or didn’t know it to start with.
Whichever, it was great viewing and shows why Cameron is right (but probably not in the way intended) to insist the Greens be included in any pre-GE televised debates.
I would have thought Cameron wouldn’t dish the dirt on the Greens – he would probably not sagely – after all – a green vote is not a red vote.
What Cameron wants are the Green’s to take Labour’s vote as Labour want UKIP to take the Tories. He isn’t interested in democracy (or anything so principled) in the forthcoming television debates.
Its worth noting that the big three old parties are hemorrhaging so many votes that four other parties are joining the debates now. Three of them; UKIP, SNP, PC essentially nationalist. Why don’t the LIBLABCON’s understand that people have had enough of them and want a party, any party, to show concern in actively defending the rights and traditions of people of this country and more importantly then leaving them (us) alone to get on with our lives? They just don’t get it and and until they do, the big three will be in the dustbin of politics for a very long time….if not permanently.
In the seventies the SNP were a side show. They essentially run Scotland now. I reckon the same with UKIP however much the beeb , main parties and the MSN vilify them.
If you don’t give the people what they want why should they vote for you? This old line about “if you don’t vote Labour you’ll get the Tories” or “if you don’t vote Conservative you’ll get Labour” is a crock of sh*t. It shows a true contempt for true democracy. I won’t buy it anymore. I’ve had a gut full. I hope my countrymen will vote for the party they want not the one they hate least. I will from now on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0507j4h/this-week-22012015
6′ 30″ start.
9′ to see Ms. Lucas start excavating. She’s often quite persuasive, but… golly.
Alan Johnson also a total shifty nitwit in what he avoided and what he tried to draw equivalence with. Which Brillo to his credit nailed.
14′ 30″ sees her fail to grasp her own party’s stances vs. hers in Parliament… as the only MP. Coherence much? How can she expect to pontificate on this topic but airily try and distance herself from all her colleagues and leader as the facts didn’t suit here?
16′ 30″ sees her gabble to incoherence on being more worried about a paper whose politics she does not like vs. FGM.
Revealed as every bit the banwagon authoritarian classist populist.
A small grain falls on the side of the BBC for giving her the pulpit and for once not letting her get away with preaching.
Great bit of telly.
Laura took her apart, was concise and clear.
Lucas was as desperate and as befuddled as any pinko Brighton Councillor who doggy paddles way above any pay grade, any point of her being in politics.
A pixie-booted naif who sums up all the vapidity and worthlessness of the Greens, the Feministas and the new politics.
I reckon it was at 15.28 when you see the foghorn turned on, poor Lucas abandoning ship and that privileged pedalo of nothingness steer pointlessly into its own upturned shopping trolley.
At least Mr Lucas sold menswear-his simple niece is a worthless tot.
Parp!…Parp!
Oh dear…She didn’t do well here did Caroline…She said she didn’t support party policy on some rather “out-there ” (my inverted commas) sexual practices being legalised but WOULD stop Page 3…eh? And she didn’t have much to say against the disgrace of female genital mutilation either. She was left looking a little daft. And poor Alan John Johnson who “lived through” (his words) seventies sexism chucking up Jimmy Saville as an example…strangely…and then backtracking. He made a poor impression as well.
He was floated as a Labour leader once and she is in the House of Commons as the only Green MP. If these two tits were on page three even a libertarian as my self would have them banned.
Hello everyone, what a gay day it is.
Do you live in Brighton? It’s always gay, there, oh, and green, too – but probably not for much longer.
Land of the Green Gingers.
Land of Green Ginger is a very short street in Hull.
How very true, graphene fedora. Succinctly and wittily expressed!
I visited Brighton many years ago. First and last time. What a den of depravity it was. I am sure that he is happy as Larry there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30842232
“yelled “white power” before launching an attack on another man at a Tesco supermarket”
Supermarket attack, racism, white power
The BBC had been all over it, 5 different reports, strangely the last was on the 16th and made no mention of the “racism”.
nothing for 6 days? … and tonight
“Hundreds expected to unite in Mold in stand against racism”
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/mold-community-come-together-stand-8483818
… BBC to the hilt?, they should be all over it?
hits all of their buttons, right?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/uk-media-coverup-white-power-supermarket-attacker-is-muslim-wrote-the-wrath-of-allah-is-about-to-come-down-upon-the-kaffir
Is this correct?
“wrath of allah is to come down upon the … kaffir”? , that Zak Davies is … Zak Ali?
A question? … was he shouting powaar, or achbaar?
Today BBC has a much more muted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-30942911
So things are heading into ‘not news’ (c) A. Newsroom Tealady again, having initially been very much news.
And the reason appears to be what now? Have to ask as the UK MSM at least appears to have gone coy again. Surely not another attack of astounding uncuriosity on the investigative reporting and ‘sources say’ speculation front?
Possibly all concerned now hoping it had happened in Glasgow.
Islam Not BBC (Wales) does not correct its report of a week ago,
and indicate the Muslim-Islamic connection.
I am afraid you have me there – what is the story (untold) of the tea lady?
As I recall…..
There was once a contributor here who used the name “A Journalist” ( presumably to confer some sort of authority on their opinion) who told us from upon high that we shouldn’t comment on what made it into the news or what didn’t because we didn’t know how news rooms work. (BTW, I think there are plenty of us who have a good idea of how the BBC’s news rooms work.)
The “(c) A. Newsroom Tealady” creation of GW was his dig at “A Journalist”.
I could be wrong though, it’s not unheard of.
Many tx.
There have recently been claims no one understands my occasional satirical/cryptic teasing forays.
Good to know these may not be as accurate as so confidently asserted.
So they could be wrong too. Apparently.
On a more serious note, editorial by omission is a scourge of supposedly professional newsrooms, especially as watertight oversight kicks in all too predictably when the ‘news’ doesn’t suit the top-down narrative the BBC brass say does not exist… for the purposes of trust and transparency.
why should they? … the, “Islamofauxbia industry” never misses a trick, they re probably contacting “tell mama” as we speak
D Mirror
“The 24-year-old Asian shopper is still in hospital after the attack, The Muslim Council of Wales has …
… expressed fears over the attack”
Independent
“The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was “monitoring unfolding developments in Birmingham” after Muslim-owned businesses were shot at and attacked with hammers on Saturday and Monday”
Sikh Channel UK Terror attack
http://www.sikhchannel.tv/attempted-murder-of-sikh-male-in-uk-terror-attack/
and why not … after all … Eric “clueless” Pickles would?
We have also met with the “Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group” to hear their concerns about responses to the recent attacks and what more can be done … report to the police online on the True Vision website or to TELL MAMA, a service to provide support specifically to Muslim victims of hatred etc etc
Daily Politics.
The BBC can’t help it. Ms Pryce needs an income, and the BBC keep providing her with financial support. Is ‘convicted perverter of the course of justice’ Vicky Pryce the only ‘expert’ available to discuss the situation in Greece?
BBC has actively avoided reporting on the real social and economic problems in Greece, exacerbated by the totalitarian ideals of the EU over the past 4 years. BBC won’t give the core financial facts of the Greeks’ debt, their deficit, ‘the hair cut(s)’, ‘ bail out’ and all the other obfuscatory language to hide the clearly flawed economic socio-political experiment that is the Eurozone. Now there is a Greek election coming, the results of which may have far reaching effects on the stability of the EU and Europe. So we get cursory sofa discussions about Greece.
BBC send teams to Ebola country, teams to channel tunnel fires, teams to Oldham Football Club who may or may not employ a second rate footballer. The trials and tribulations of the poor and vulnerable of Greece? No. Nadda. Don’t want to expose the serfdom that results from unconstrained corporate socialism.
BBC. It’s also what they don’t report.
Scrap the telly tax.
Fair’s fair: Greek property owner John Humphrys was there earlier this week for a couple of interviews (of startling inconsequentiality) which, further to the presumed travel expense regulations at Broadcasting House, probably justifies payment of his airfare by
Todaythe licence payers. I’m sure that between him and ex-con Vicky the little people have now gathered that there’s an election in Greece but not, as you write, much further enlightenment.Humphrys’ output can be variable, but on a good day he can be pretty sharp. Mind you, this was five years ago;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250808/Greece-blame-generous-state-tax-dodging.html
‘Bog standard’ BBC Bias. Boring, but I need to share.
As soon as I post about the near void in Greek economy coverage, we get a main news article on BBC News at One BBC1.
Chris Morris reporting at 1321hrs.
Chris refers to right wing political parties as ‘extreme right’ and left wing political parties as ‘radical left’. It may not cross the minds of institutionally biased Beeboids that some may consider the left wingers in Greece who appear to think it moral to welch on their debts as ‘extreme left’.
I would be content with ‘radical left’ if the right were referred to as ‘radical right’, but what chance?
BBC and their staff. Politically biased to the core.
Scrap the telly tax.
Yes, and for Beeboids, Quantitative Easing = ‘Eat the Rich.’
Video begins as Beeboid economics, but ends up in Greece as propaganda- ‘Eat the Rich’ –
“Quantitative Easing explained – in 70 seconds”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30937023
Beeboid economics == Military Intelligence == Oxymoron
Two Free Schools here in the North described by OFSTEAD as “failing, not up to standard etc.” Parents and staff outraged. Cannot understand why the reports are so negative.
Maybe just maybe there is a General Election immanent?
BBC doctrine for to all OfSted school inspections: ‘Yet Ofsted’s approach to us was negative at every stage, as if the data collected had to fit a predetermined outcome.’ If you tick the wrong box now, your school will closed (message from OfSted).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922619/Daughter-s-tears-lesbian-quiz-Fury-children-branded-intolerant-wrong-answers-Ofsted-questions-sexuality.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
A big OfSted ticks for Birmingham Primary Schools. A roll out across the nation. What fun that is going to be. Goodbye Mr CHIPS.
Parents wishes ignored. Welcome to Cameron’s World of conformity and BBC doctrine. See if your own Chilldren’s school is listed in the Mr CHIPS program.
The odious & corrupt Tony BLiar was interviewed on Radio 4 this afternoon following the death of his Saudi Paymaster King Abdullah.
While the rest of the world are worried about the human rights abuses, Sharia law, oppression of women etc etcm BLiar has (not unexpectedly) nothing but praise for the Saudis dismissing the human rights concerns as something the Saudi money bags fought against, rather than preserved & entrenched.
Mr D was confused that Tony Blair as Middle East envoy was speaking from somewhere that was snowing. I assume it was Davos, but as a has-been, what is he doing there?
I must have missed the class. Not got the memo. Can anybody help?
Just been talking to my imaginary buddy, Winston Smith. The BBC are using the term ’empty chair’ as a verb, [I empty chair, you empty chair, he empty chairs, they empty chair etc] .
Is it in order for the BBC to change the English language? Is it within their remit? Is it in their Charter? More proof that the BBC is an arm of the Ministry of Truth?
Irregular Verb
I am firm with my principles
You are stubborn
He/ she/ it is empty chaired
Everything about the BBC is “irregular”.
Not in any way bias, but I thought it might lighten up the weekend if you look at this photo before HIGNFY use it in next weeks ‘show’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30942714
Believed to be a good shot (sorry) at our next prime minister……..
Boris to star in new Clint Eastwood movie. Sniping at the opposition
BBC Bias.
Evidently legitimised, institutional mass theft is good:
“ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30933515
How the BBC headline the crisis management of a dying authoritarian ideology, stealing the wealth of the prudent citizens in disperate european countries.
Scrap the telly tax. Exit EU please.
Update. Check out the comments to the above, highest rated. I am not alone in my disgust at this ‘ponzi’ scam. Also check out lowest rated comment by ‘Left Libertarian’. Left with libertarian? Wow, psycho-analyse that one.
Anarchists often describe themselves as ‘left libertarian’ as they believe in the common good coming from people being allowed to negotiate their own political spaces with each other [/simplified]. Of course this is simply another way of dividing people into smaller groups which can be more easily picked off by the bigger ones.
First they came for the …. etc
The BBC: not bringing you the news that Hamas doesn’t want you to hear.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5139/palestinians-islamic-state
Apologies if this has been posted already but this amazing interview on Al Jazeera TV ( 2nd video on this site) should be how an interview is conducted on the BBC !
http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/finally-al-jazeera-gets-the-live-on-air-beating-it-deserves/?
The BBC’s campaign to run & run the NHS A&E scare story on behalf of the Labour Party appears to be going wrong if the comments are anything to go by:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30949775
It would appear that the general public, the one the BBC can’t help sneering at, is more intelligent than our favourite broadcaster thinks. Another piece of bias that has been seen through.
“The NHS should be sacrosanct so far as funding is concerned. It is the envy of the western world. However, my problem is that we are having these issues now yet this has not been a hard winter!!! I worry that the various fomulae being applied to funding just masks the truth – that it is falling despite what we are being told.”
No surprise that this comment was written by a indoctrinator – sorry, a teacher, no doubt an NUT member !
To be fair the article does say things are getting better, but the BBC seems reluctant to ask what happened to the £700 Million which he government gave the NHS to improve A&E, but appears to have disappeared without being spent as intended.
Well you cannot expect the populace to approve a medium of health to be used in an effort of mass destruction.
Strange thought that!…Abdullah in his body bag at the pearly gates as Leon Brittain fronts the queue.
Imagine Judge Maggie deciding if they were “one of hers” or not, as Peter lets her decide on the thermostat settings.
How come no-one has ever developed my game “Hot or Hotter”…where the great and good are weighed and then set for heaven or hell.
Jade Goody-100% angel….Tom Driberg…the exact opposite.
Saudi Arabia has spent billions ‘educating’ people in the west about Islam according to the BBC.
To be fair they did say that they have a brutal interpretation of Islam which has led to Al Quaida, ISIS and other terror groups.
Whabbism was not mentioned, nor the possible bribing of Western leaders.
Just turned on the BBc for the first time today. Oh it’s a recruitment video for the green party. Oh no it’s the 18:00 hour news. Why did I bother?
Notice they referred to them as the UKIP of the left
Will they be giving them the same treatment I wonder, trawling the internet for any connection between current and former members and ‘extremist organizations’ or leafing through back issues of local newspapers for any hint of heresy from any one remotely involved with the greens?
Well they could start digging behind the Greens’ obsession with ‘climate change’ and whether it conceals an alternative agenda.
No, hang on…..
Exactly right Dave, it was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Green Party. Big sisterly smiles all round, lots of “green surging”, no challenging questions about policies or candidates, and nobody – not one single dissenting voice – to suggest that maybe they’re just a bunch of bourgeois socialist Luddites who believe in fairy stories about global climating (or whatever they’re calling it this month). For the BBC, there was really only one thing to be concerned about – were a “Green Party surge” to continue, it might stop their beloved Eddie baby become Prime Minister.
Compare all of that with their relentlessly hostile and negative reporting of everything to do with UKIP, despite its many “surges” over the last couple of years.
The BBC’s blatant and shameless bias warps the democratic process to such an extent that true democracy is no longer possible.
Did you see QT last night? Dimbleby tried to ambush Paul Nuttall with a question about Nigel Farage’s views on the NHS. It seemed the perfect ambush, but the audience didn’t do what was expected of them. Instead of a knee-jerk shriek, they treated it as a question worth asking. Hopefully, the public are starting to think for themselves. It’s hard, for the propaganda is relentless.
I think that the public can see Question Time for what it is – Propaganda and bias. All the men in my pub are of that opinion . More votes for UKIP
That sounds like my local – and they’re all first language Cymraeg. hwyl fawr girl.
Sorry for the Wenglish!!!!
Croeso! Number 7
I utterly hate the BBC, it’s bias, its activism but in this instance Dimbleby did nothing than I would expect of anyone seeking to clarify or challenge a party’s position. It was in no way an ‘ambush’, at all.
UKIP has aspirations for government or at least a role in influencing government and one thing that the Kippers are going to have to get used to is that UKIP will face legitimate challenge.
So, when UKIP are asked awkward questions don’t throw your hands up in the and cry ‘foul’ – some question have to be answered – it ain’t always a conspiracy .
Going into UKIP victim mode isn’t attractive, anyway that the job of the lefties and the Feminazis.
North West tonight an article about fat & sugary foods and obesity. The song continues to remain the same.I’m turning it off to go and make myself a cup of tea with the 3 spoonfuls of sugar I’ve always put in with my tea.
I usually only take 1 sugar myself but thinking of upping my intake just to spite the BBC!
Sugar is the next tobacco. There is no control freak bandwagon that the collectivist BBC won’t jump on.
The awful Suzannah Lipscombe, the lightweight ‘historian’, was banging on about it in her latest BBC 4 Tudor hidden dangers programme the other day.
The irony of a woman presenting a programme about hidden household dangers when she is wearing inch thick foundation which contains heaven knows what untested chemicals, seems lost on her producer.
The anti-sugar campaign is little different in its aims and ambitions to the anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol campaigns of the past. It is about reducing the costs to the NHS not about making peoples lives any better. Even if there is some health angle being pushed then that is more about the tax payer than the health of the fatties themselves :
fat = unemployable = no tax = no wages for NHS staff.
NB reducing costs does not mean reducing payments to the NHS it means generating wealth for the state to be spent on the state and not the people. In other words, socialism in action.
Of course there is a argument to say that if you accept the notion of a free health service paid for by the state then each and everyone of us has a duty to ensure that we and those we are responsible for are as healthy as possible so that we do not become a cost to the rest of society. Yet that does not seem to be part of the NHS ethos and that is because the NHS is now no longer about the public but about itself. It exists for its own benefit and as such is a betrayal of the British public.
The Sugar Action group and the Salt Action share a web site. So some sort of common purpose (or do I mean Common Purpose?)
Thank you, I didn’t know that. It confirms the mad cardiologists’ dietary advice: If it tastes good, spit it out.
Hair shirtism is very much part of the Green/Left psychology and is often to be found buried in a wide variety of BBC programmes. It is particularly insidious when they do it in dramas, using fiction to, um, ‘sugar the pill’.
C4 News pro-Jihadist bias seems to have reached a new intensity tonight. Essentially, C4 has given two “returnees” from Syria a platform to issue threats to the British public. If we are not alloewd to return to Britain, we will be become “radicalised,” we then will become enemies of Britain and the usual Muslim atrocities will be performed on the streets of Britain.
Why we put up with this crap is beyond me.
ID,
“Essentially, C4 has given two “returnees” from Syria a platform to issue threats to the British public.”
‘Essentially’, as in, neither of them did any such thing. One of the people interviewed said he thought stripping people of their nationality might, in some cases, be counter productive.
Studio guest David Kilcullen (Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. State Department) agreed.
Are you going to accuse him of issuing threats as well? Essentially?
The interview with the two “returnees” was fascinating, not least because (as noted) their experiences were so similar to those who went to to fight in the Spanish Civil War. To dismiss it as “crap” just highlights your own ignorance.
As far as I know nobody volunteering in the Spanish Civil War – certainly on the side of the anti Franco forces- was hostile to the very existence of Western civilisation and desiring to replace it.
Strong political views yes but an entire civilisational conflict no. Once again a false equivallence.
Sorry Dave, couldn’t be more incorrect.
Major components of the Republican forces were various forms of communists and the Anarchists who intended to complete undermine Western values.
Of interest is the view on the left that the fight against the EDL (seen as fascists) is comparable with the Spanish Civil War Brigades who went to fight Franco. Hence the UAF supporting muslims as victims of fascism is the same as those who fought fascism in Spain, even to the chanting ‘No Parasan’ on UAF/Anarchist demonstrations against the ‘far right’. But they could never accommodate the fact that between 70 and 80 thousand Moslems fought quite savagely on Franco’s side.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/06/30/2003447443
The ironies of the Spanish Civil War seem unending. If Franco had not won then Spain and ultimately Portugal would have fallen to communism. The UK would have intervened in Portugal as we had a protection pact with them and that would have put us against the Soviets. Would we have allied with Hitler against Stalin or would Hitler have invaded with Stalin’s blessing? Hitler and Stalin were, after all, allies in the ’30’s. A war against both Germany and the Soviet Union would have been unwinnable. A war against the Soviets and the Nazis separately would have been inconceivable. Either way we would have had a bloody hard time of it as it would not have been a re-run of the Peninsula War. We would probably have lost Portugal within the year.
If we had reneged on that pact then you can guarantee that the Nazis would have rolled over the Iberian Peninsula just as they did the with the rest of mainland Western Europe. That would have excluded us from the Med as Gibraltar would have been not have been defendable. Not being in the Med would have cost us the Empire and the vital oil fields we depended on to keep the Navy mobile. That would have lost us the war by the end of 1941. America would have been at war with Japan without us would, as a consequence of not having Japan fighting on two fronts have lost the war in the Pacific. Without British scientists there would have been no bomb to force Japan into surrender and, in fact, the Germans would have got there first. Goodbye USA and hello a whole new evil World.
So, Franco’s victory led to an Allied victory against fascism.
Now that is irony!
News to me that the left is opposed to the existence of Western civilisation. Change the economic and social sytem yes and that has always been a perfectly normal left wing aim.It led to the formation of our Labour party. Marxism has it’s roots in our culture.
During our Civil war there was a very strong element that I would call left wing- the levellers. I do not think they were aiming to destroy Western culture. You might as well accuse Martin Luther of aiming to destroy the west in an earlier time.
Militant Islam is intent on creating a theocratic tyrrany sanctioned by the unchanging words of the Koran with no dissent unless you accept a dhimmi statusand know you are a lesser person.
Unlike Communism it is the antithesis of our civilisation. Marxism and Islam ? certainly nowhere near the same.
I believe that two political enemies of left and right – Jack Jones and Edward Heath – both fought on the side of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. I would swear that neither one sought to destroy western civilization
This is all sounding like “Life of Brian” , “What did the Romans ever do for us” .The International Brigade on one side , ie, Socialists . The ” Right” or “Fascists” on the other side . Franco`s fascists won ,simples .
And I would put it to you that both did a great deal to achieve precisely that. Both, in fact, were traitors.
“Why create enemies?You are now pushing them into a corner”
“You’re an enemy, you’re an enemy – there is going to be a point where one of these guys says “Fine”, I’ll be your enemy”
Typical Muslim threat. Do as we say or there will be “negative consequences”. Usually a beheading.
As usual C4 cannot verify veracity.
Strange that C4 should choose MPACUK as the mouthpiece for “Peace loving Muslims”. Didn’t one of its founders Asgar Bakhari give a infamous Sky News apologia for the Lee Rigby atrocity?
There are some pretty strong arguments why the country would have been far better off without those communist dupes having been allowed back in.
In this story the BBC see their opportunity to ‘kill 2 birds with one stone’.
Their usual doing what they can to diminish Christianity, while at the same time promoting another PC public service body – OFSTED.
Here first is what the BBC tells us about 2 Christian schools damned by an Ofsted inspection and likely to be forced to close.
Grindon Hall and Durham free school inspectors defended
While the article does provide a link to the letter written by the headmaster complaining about this inspection, it certainly doesn’t go into any of the reasons that illustrate why. So to understand this ‘hatchet job’ here’s an article from Breitbart London. Bear in mind the BBC have the same access to the children and families concerned to get their side, but they clearly chose not to.
SCHOOL INSPECTORS REDUCED TEN-YEAR-OLD TO TEARS BY INTERROGATING HER ON HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSSEXUALISM
Since 10 year old’s are not supposed to be learning about sex matters, the fact that an Ofsted inspector questioned one on this is highly suspect, as well as subsequently finding their own actions above board, shows a clear agenda.
But one the cancerous BBC is happy to go along with.
The illiberal left took control of education -sorry propaganda- many years ago. It was and remains the greatest obstacle to restoring this nation to sanity and health.
Ofsted is an enforcement arm of the liberal morality free state. Nothing more. Body snatchers all of them.
Expect this sort of thing as the illiberal elite starts to panic and lose it’s grip.
Nothing is more arbitarily vicious than an enraged screaming liberal.
From Pegida to Gert Wilders to UKIP the elite is frightened by them all.
This media and political elite just cannot understand what real conservatism is about . Never will either so this elite is finished..It is just a matter of time.
So screw the BBC.
If you had to make a guess on how the BBC would cover the government’s plan to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes, how do you think they’d lean?
Would they be balanced, would they be pro, or would they be con?
While this specific instance doesn’t have much previous form to examine, there are a few elements that would pretty much determine how the BBC would go.
Which one makes them appear caring and concerned, regardless of facts or truth?
How is Labour using this proposed policy?
Here’s a few short articles on the BBC website, most that include a video that I’m not going to bother to watch, but just paste a few telling sentences that the BBC tells us in the article.
The headline and first sentence of the first tells us:
Cigarettes in ‘plain packets by 2016’ according to government
Cigarettes will have to be sold in standardised packaging by May 2016, according to the government.
But since the next sentence states
Public Health Minister Jane Ellison announced that a vote would be held on the matter before the next general election.
so why are the BBC stating it already as a ‘done deal’?
In the next:
Cigarettes could be in plain packaging by 2016
The government have announced that a vote will be held on putting cigarettes in plain packets before the general election.
Labour has already pledged to ban images on packets if they win the election.
Most Tories and Liberal Democrats are also expected to back the measure.
At least this time we are told immediately that it’s only a proposal at this stage, but notice Labour are pushed to the front despite other parties also appearing to support it too, though not all of them.
The only article from the BBC that I can see expounds further on this issue is this one, meant to be read by children on the CBBC website. You can know already from the above that it’s going to be pure propaganda, designed to brainwash, as you can see already from the headline.
Plain cigarette packets to become law in England
Then there’s a load of BS to tell us that the reason is to protect kids, and the only ones who deny it are those with a personal interest like the tobacco companies or pro-smoking group.
But what’s the real evidence about plain packaging for cigarettes? Funny that what Australia really experienced as a result of going that route is not mentioned by the BBC.
Which is how we know they have a real agenda with this crap.
THE TRUE COST OF PLAIN PACKAGING: REVENUE LOSS, JOB LOSS, AND YOUTH SMOKING RATES UP
Teddy Bear,
“Cigarettes will have to be sold in standardised packaging by May 2016, according to the government.
But since the next sentence states
Public Health Minister Jane Ellison announced that a vote would be held on the matter before the next general election.
so why are the BBC stating it already as a ‘done deal’?”
Erm, they’re not, hence – “according to the government”
“The government have announced that a vote will be held on putting cigarettes in plain packets before the general election.
Labour has already pledged to ban images on packets if they win the election.
Most Tories and Liberal Democrats are also expected to back the measure.
At least this time we are told immediately that it’s only a proposal at this stage, but notice Labour are pushed to the front despite other parties also appearing to support it too, though not all of them.”
Erm, Labour are mentioned after the government (that’s the Conservatives & LibDems if you didn’t know).
“But what’s the real evidence about plain packaging for cigarettes? Funny that what Australia really experienced as a result of going that route is not mentioned by the BBC.
THE TRUE COST OF PLAIN PACKAGING: REVENUE LOSS, JOB LOSS, AND YOUTH SMOKING RATES UP”
You’re not going to get the truth from that article in Breitbart; it’s nonsense. For example:
“…youth smoking rates have actually risen by 36 percent between 2010 and 2013.”
Even if that statistic were true (it’s already been debunked), plain packaging was only introduced in December 2012.
Is this one of your colleagues Dez?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/23/more-greenpeace-death-threats.html
Rhetorical question. – Obviously Sarc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/23/friday-not-so-funny-off-with-their-heads/
“Bluecloud turns out to be another Guardian author, Gary Evans, whose day job is as a boat-driver and translator for Greenpeace. The Guardian and Greenpeace: sick, sick people.” Ref:- The venerable A. Watts – See above
Probably paid by the Beeboids as well (at our expense)!!!!!!
Number 7,
“Quick, change the subject“
He is only following you examples, Dez.
Dez writes: “You’re not going to get the truth from that article in Breitbart”
A bit early in the day for comedy, isn’t it?
When an apologist for the BBC starts slinging mud at a rival on the grounds of accuracy or impartiality, it’s time to break out the party hats and streamers.
Dez, if you really are unable to understand the difference between:
Cigarettes in ‘plain packets by 2016′ according to government
and
Cigarettes could be in plain packaging by 2016
then I suggest you ask one of your friends with a little more intelligence, or Mummy and Daddy, to explain it to you.
What is ‘according to the government’, is that a vote will be held on the matter, not that it will or can be put into force until then – SO NOT A DONE DEAL.
See the difference?
If you had a grain of intelligence you might wonder yourself why the BBC headlined two of their articles in that way, especially the one designed to be read by children, instead of trying to defend it.
IT’S DECEITFUL – and therefore contravening its charter!
But at least you’ve highlighted the mindset of those who come on this site and support the BBC.
As for Breitbart – did you see the links they provide and the evidence that shows it might not be a productive route to take – or do you just dismiss it because it’s not the way you’ve been brainwashed by your thought master to believe?
Obviously ETHICS, HONESTY, INTEGRITY have no place in your judgement as to what is right.
You should be ashamed of yourself to display it here any longer.
Teddy Bear,
“I suggest you ask one of your friends with a little more intelligence, or Mummy and Daddy, to explain it to you… If you had a grain of intelligence… you’ve been brainwashed by your thought master… Obviously ETHICS, HONESTY, INTEGRITY have no place in your judgement…”
There you go again Teddy Bear. Perhaps you should listen to yourself sometimes:
“Also, do try to stick to intellectual debate instead of resorting to personal insult. I understand it is because your point of view is indefensible that you do so, but you might find the attempt to be civil will raise your sights somewhat, and perhaps you will find a fairer and more equitable perspective yourself.”
As for Breitbart, they only provide two links; one is a polemic in Spiked (devoid of evidence), and the other “A scenario-based quantification of the economic impact of plain packaging for tobacco products in the UK”, or complete speculation in-other-words. Published just three months after the introduction of Plain Packaging in Australia (so also devoid of any evidence).
I notice you’ve ignored the quoting of statistics from before the Australian legislation was passed as if they were relevant to what happened after. What was that about ethics, honesty & integrity again?
I’ll leave it to the intelligence of the reader to see who’s who here. Debate with somebody who continually wilfully ignores the points made, and the validity of the research done on the subject, is impossible.
eveileb eht CBB – eveileb eht CBB
You’re not wasting any more of my time.
Teddy Bear,
Hilarious.
“Debate with somebody who continually wilfully ignores the points made, and the validity of the research done on the subject, is impossible.”
Which points would those be Teddy? That I should ask Mummy and Daddy, or the fraudulent use of dishonest statistics?
“You’re not wasting any more of my time.”
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Teddy Bear,
“But at least you’ve highlighted the mindset of those who come on this site and support the BBC.”
That presumes that all those who come here to criticise the BBC are 100% accurate, 100% free of bias and never, ever, merely express a feeling or an opinion all of the time, every day, every week, every year.
That is a very high standard.
Does it strengthen or weaken this site to try to rule out any corrections, contrary opinions or opposition, whether thinking or unthinking, unreasonable or reasonable?
“Obviously ETHICS, HONESTY, INTEGRITY have no place in your judgement as to what is right.”
Glasshouse?
Are you that stupid that you don’t see the points that were made and were ignored?
There’s a reason for that – you fit in the same category as Dez et al.
You manage to appear both utterly unreasonable and fabulously dim. All three of the largest parties are signed up to this measure, and are likely to be whipped accordingly. It is near inevitable that it will become law. That fact notwithstanding, the article caveats its headline with the key phrase “according to the government”. And as Dez points out, the “data” cited by the Breitbart article is not data at all! Your post is blinded by prejudice and flat WRONG. Go and have a lie down and stop getting unreasonably angry with people who point out your childish errors.
‘All three of the largest parties are signed up to this measure, and are likely to be whipped accordingly. It is near inevitable that it will become law.’
Really?
So what do you make of this then?
TORIES REVOLT OVER PLAIN PACKAGING FOR CIGARETTES
Hmmm!
Ooh, something written on Breitbart, it must be true. You are almost as pathetically credulous as somebody who believes that all articles on the BBC are inherently trustworthy.
What do I make of it? They’ve cobbled together two named MPs and one unnamed one, a member of a thinktank, an LBC presenter and a former MSP and turned it into Mutiny on the Bounty. This is hardly the stuff of Maastricht-style rebellions, is it? It’s a desperate attempt to confect a meaningful rebellion where none exists.
Perhaps you are too dim to appreciate this, but the Conservatives do not hold a majority. Even if the entire party rebels it is possible that the motion would carry. The reality is that there will be a small rebellion and it will be carried by a substantial majority because the Lib Dems and Labour will both back it by some margin. Now get back in your toybox, Teddy Bear, and stop bothering the adults.
You are almost as pathetically credulous as somebody who believes that all articles on the BBC are inherently trustworthy.
You’re describing yourself and other mates perfectly. Strange analogy to make here though, but I’m sure the irony is lost on you lot.
Even if the entire party rebels it is possible that the motion would carry.
Get it moron – IT IS POSSIBLE is very different than a DONE DEAL?
So you’ve had to change your tune haven’t you?
In the meantime you’ve only confirmed how so far up the BBC arsehole you and your mates are.
Now piss off – you’ve had more than enough of my time.
“Get it moron – IT IS POSSIBLE is very different than a DONE DEAL?”
Jeez, are we looking at the world’s first case of negative IQ? You would have to be tremendously stupid to think that what I wrote above amounts to admitting the possibility that the government will lose the vote.
I said *it is possible* the motion would carry *if the entire party rebels*.
Now, see, the reason I wrote that sentence is that it is the most absurd, outlandish scenario, one which isn’t going to happen because it has never happened, in 750 years of parliamentary democracy. A government proposing a bill, and then every member of the largest party, including the minister responsible for the legislation, and all the whips, opposing it. And even in that outlandish case, I pointed out, it is POSSIBLE that the government would win the vote.
This is a device known as reductio ad absurdum, which you apparently have never come across and don’t understand.
Now stop getting splenetic and using swearwords and insults like “moron”. They are most unbecoming in somebody who repeatedly accuses others of incivility and moreover is three spanners short of a picnic himself.
…You manage to appear both utterly unreasonable and fabulously dim……Go and have a lie down and stop getting unreasonably angry with people who point out your childish errors.…You are almost as pathetically credulous…Perhaps you are too dim to appreciate this…Now get back in your toybox, Teddy Bear, and stop bothering the adults….eez, are we looking at the world’s first case of negative IQ?…Now stop getting splenetic and using swearwords and insults like “moron”….and moreover is three spanners short of a picnic himself.
And you have the cheek to try and lecture me about respect and civility? I’m glad you did though – you’ve shown your ignorance and your twisted hypocrisy perfectly.
As for trying to squirm out of your admission that IT IS POSSIBLE is different than presenting it AS A DONE DEAL, which was precisely my initial point – GOTCHA
You’ll also be pleased to know the story has moved up in the world – now carried by the Spectator
80 Tories could reject plain packaging
As for the epithet MORON – and ‘BBC ARSEHOLE CRAWLER’ – YOU EARNED IT
“80 Tories could reject plain packaging”
Oh, so the measure could be carried by a majority as small as 500 then?
You are an utter cretin.
It’s interesting how, for years, the media have campaigned for Anglican women priests but have given the Roman Catholic Church a bye. However, that seems to be changing. Christina Odone in the Torygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11359529/For-the-sake-of-the-priesthoods-future-Catholics-need-to-talk-about-women-priests.html
It can only be a matter of time until the Beeb get on the case.
I wish someone from UKIP would insist that fairness requires the media to apply the same rules to all; I look forward to the first lesbian ayatollah.
After watching Manchester United bumble to a draw vs the mighty Cambridge United, i was then treated to the Muslim news…..well, it’s the BBC news, but it might as well be this:
Anyone watching the Sky News paper review , there is a man on their who looks spookily like Scott ,using the name Vince, someone, or other . On the News 24 ,version its all pc & Hideously non White . Mr Brims would not be amused .
Wavey Davey Camoron, will vie with Buraq Hussein
… to who can bow lowest quickest
… As the BBC lap it up
… there literally are no words
oh Dave……….
your my wife now Dave……………………………..
BBC News …
Viewpoints: King Abdullah’s legacy
Regional media express grief
Analysis: Frank Gardner
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah
Why Saudi matters – In 90 secs
Watch In pictures:
King mourned
Turbulent times for King Salman
Reformer or conservative?
Obituary: King Abdullah
New Saudi king promises continuity
What next for Saudi oil?
Archive: The King speaks to BBC
Saudi king – A Life
Ex-ambassador on king’s legacy
… on and on it goes
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was a loyal ally to the global jihad and the war on terror.
is that what they call a win-win situation?
Friday’s Newsnight discussed the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. A talking head was introduced as Anas Altikriti, of the “Cordoba Foundation”, supposedly dedicated to ecumenism.
In fact, the “Cordoba Foundation” is a front organisation for the muslim brotherhood. Its American sidekick was behind the Ground Zero mosque project.
Entirely unchallenged in the interview, Altikriti was allowed to rant about the “democratic” elections in Egypt which brought the muslim brotherhood to power, and the Saudi intervention which supposedly brought about the military coup. This was presented as if Altikriti viewed the Egyptian events dispassionately, thus completely overlooking his status as an obvious brotherhood mouthpiece.
I wonder if Altikriti knows “Anas” is the Latin for “duck”? If it looks like ikhwan and it swims like ikhwan and it walks like ikhwan, I reckon it is ikhwan, however much it pretends not to talk like ikhwan.
I’m going to have a very gay Saturday.
Good for you. Anything which gets you out of the house, instead of staying in and pretending to be gay on a website riddled with homophobes for the purposes of – what, exactly?
Don’t feed the whining troll
Bless. Poor John, whose only substantive contributions to conversation s are demonstrating that a) he doesn’t understand what a troll actually is; b) doesn’t understand that he is himself one; c) never answers a simple question about why he ignores genuinely trolling behaviour from other people.
Have a great Saturday, the pair of you (if you aren’t the same person, which is always a possibility).Why not try going out into the world and learning how to behave like adults, instead of emotionally stunted adolescents?
If I was in a fight, I’d want you watching my back.
Takes two to be in a fight. Don’t be so presumptuous in assuming I wouldn’t be backing the other fella.
Why does Ed Wood’s classic Glen or Glenda come to mind ?
I wonder which one gets played by Mr Wood, which by Bela Lugosi ?
So how many other identities do you have here as you post within a few minutes of Scott?
Reminds me of the slug in Monsters Inc. ‘always watching’.
Sad
I am gay, I am a life member of Kylie’s fan club, so I must be 100% gay.
You are clearly a very sad and disturbed individual with esteem issues.
Oi! That’s enough of that.
Say what you like about Scott but lay off Mrs Pah.
SHE’S MINE, ALL MINE DO YOU HEAR?
‘…and pretending to be gay on a website riddled with homophobes…’
Popular definition of a ‘homophobe’ = anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the gay rights agenda.
Some gay people disagree with same-sex ‘marriage’, but presumably that’s ok because you can’t be a homophobe if you’re gay.
Funny old world, eh?
Popular definition of a ‘homophobe’ = anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the gay rights agenda.
There you go again, believing that “popular” is a synonym for “thought up by some no-mark on Biased BBC”. Just because you think it, doesn’t make it true, I’m afraid.
Some gay people disagree with same-sex ‘marriage’, but presumably that’s ok because you can’t be a homophobe if you’re gay.
There’s more to being a homophobe than disagreeing with some legislation and/or its implementation, you dolt.
But do carry on exposing your ineffectual grasp on basic concepts. The more people on Biased BBC realise how little you comprehend, the more I imagine it catches up with the rest of the world on that score…
yo Scott,
when you first saw the pics of the muslim mass murderers in Paris did u get an erection?
Haha. Just Sayin’ trying to play the schoolyard bully yet again. And, yet again, failing.
What a pathetic little man he must be to get a thrill from raging against me. How frustrated he must be that it’s water off a duck’s back.
Still, at least his trolling won’t get the attention of John Anderson, who’s too much of a scaredycat to go after the real trolls.
Just Sayin’, I’ll let you get back to whatever it is you do when the rest of us are being adults.
im a pathetic little man? pmsl @ u, just reread your tweet you sick little wimp of a so called man
Bless. You get awfully riled when people stand up to you, don’t you? Almost like you believe you’re not being a complete twat when anyone else can see the opposite.
Run along. Come back when you’ve learned to behave like an adult
Bless. You get awfully riled when people stand up to you, don’t you? Almost like you believe you’re not being a complete twat when anyone else can see the opposite.
Run along. Come back when you’ve learned to behave like an adult
Is Scott an Ofsted perv?
Ah, Scott, you’ve just reminded me of the reason I stopped replying to your posts – you just can’t stop being offensive towards anybody who disagrees with you, can you?
That was a reasonable argument I put forward based on the less than tolerant position you have adopted on gay issues ever since you first appeared on here of which ‘‘…and pretending to be gay on a website riddled with homophobes…’ is just one example.
Anyway, it’s good to hear I’m not a homophobe for disagreeing with gay ‘marriage’. Progress has been made.
So please cut out the offensive remarks, eh? Whilst it might be a bit late to rescue your own reputation think of yourself as an ambassador for the wider cause and start behaving accordingly.
That was a reasonable argument I put forward
Yes, I’m sure you think it was. Biased BBC commenters have this habit of having more faith in their own pronouncements that’s unsupported by facts.
Anyway, it’s good to hear I’m not a homophobe for disagreeing with gay ‘marriage’.
Not for that, no. You really aren’t very bright, are you?
So please cut out the offensive remarks
Somebody thinking you’re making an arse of yourself is offensive? Tell me, how do you cope every day?
‘Somebody thinking you’re making an arse of yourself is offensive? Tell me, how do you cope every day?’
Oh dear, the irony.
Why I thought it was worth one more try engaging in rational debate with you, I don’t know.
I just hope that when you finally do grow up you don’t feel too much remorse about your tiresome, offensive and childish outbursts on here, though I’m sure either way a sense of acute embarrassment will be unavoidable.
Bye bye……
Scott is not a troll; at least not the normal type. A real troll has no interest in a subject, they just take a contrary position to amuse themselves making mischief. Scott seems passionate about his cause. You just get the feeling he is unable to offer effective arguments and manages to get far more mileage kicking off an exchange of insults. At least, that way, he can force a draw.
You just get the feeling he is unable to offer effective arguments and manages to get far more mileage kicking off an exchange of insults
If that was really your beef, why do you ignore behaviour matching the above from numerous other Biased BBC commenters?
Is it because you’re a sad little old man who is desperate to feel superior to somebody – anybody – due to your own sense of unending inadequacy? Or is it just that you’re a pathetic hypocrite?
Don’t feed the stupid Scott troll – as a jihadi fancier he should crawl away under a rock, disgusting sick creature.
Ah, another whining person who ignores appalling behaviour from Biased BBC’s residents, and won’t – maybe can’t – answer the straightforward question of why that is.
Poor John. You and all the other Biased BBC commenters who act with such breathtaking hypocrisy have my pity.
‘Scott seems passionate about his cause.’
‘Passion’ or hateful bigotry?
See his reply below yours and decide.
When are ITV going to learn? Again and again they ‘steal’ bBC ‘talent’ such as Susanna Reid and Christine Bleakley only to find out that away from the cosseted luxury of the telly tax payer funded bBC, they’re not the ‘talent’ they thought they were. Adrian Chiles being the latest ‘victim’
It’s claimed that Chile’s was paid £4.5m to make the move, a silly figure, but one that the bBC has to be blamed for in setting such stupid rates to begin with (remember Jonathan Ross) but hey ho they can because they have a bottomless pit of ‘free’ cash to do so.
One has to wonder what the bBC are paying the likes of the talentless vacuous types that have replaced Chiles and Bleakley on the One Show sofa (Baker, Jones and Evans) stupid money no doubt and to make sure they can keep paying these wages will be prosecuting a few more penniless old ladies for non payment of their wages…
Still the bBC always look after their own and Chiles has been welcomed back to the bBC with a cushy job on 5Live, well they would wouldn’t they, after all like them he’s no friend of Thatcher, Carol that is….
Unfortunately the usual double standards in TV mean that Susanna Reid and Christine Bleakley were hired for their looks not their talent. If they’d been munters they would have had to find other employment.
Now that both are losing their looks they will soon find that they are shunted to the exit door faster than they can say “L’Oreal”.
Very surprised to see this story appearing without any obvious spin stating this is against all the tenants of the ‘ R O P ‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30961345
Did some senior beeboid have a fright whilst shopping leading to this story getting such unvarnished reporting ?
Note the crossover twerp who has previous is at the bottom of the list.
They should be deported!
Simples.
And the crossover twerp has previous previous, too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10823517/Its-easy-to-recruit-extremists-in-prison-notorious-convert-claims.html
Did anyone catch the BBCs latest attempts to ferment feminist outrage again yesterday, from it’s chosen position as champions of the oppressed and all things wimmin?
Awake early morning, I blearily heard something about a stadium interviewer asking some female tennis player, or other to, ‘give us a twirl’. As the morning progressed this climbed higher up the news agenda and by mid-morning it had, become according to the BBC, ‘Twirlgate’.
I jumped back in the car early afternoon and the very first thing that I heard was even more, ‘Twirlgate’, the Five Live stirrer quickly moving her invited guests along from what they were there to discuss, to comment on the outrage. This by now, of course, had the making of a serious international incident.
Sadly though, the BBC’s would-be mind altering / society influencing / value loaded schtik hit a brick wall;
‘NO’, not an issue, the guests replied in unison – to varying degrees. Guarded unison, it had to be – the BBC does have some implied rules about how you will answer these questions (if, that is you want to be invited back and not, if you’re a man, to have your balls removed and your career ended). But worse for the Beeboid, apparently it was quite natural to want to look good, one (female) even implied. NOTE TO BBC – people like to look good and feel good and, male or female, enjoy being complemented on their appearance. It’s part of the human condition..
And with that, PUFF, the BBC’s attempt to continue their campaign on female equality, their feminist activism, their stirring it up, hit the buffers. The interviews ending abruptly. Just like that.
Now only if those Beeboids stepped out of their hive and lived in the real world, understood real people and understood what real people think…
Most if not all women find the idea of the twirl to be insulting. As patronising as being patted on the head for a man.
Go and ask a girl her view.
Maybe I should ask ‘a girl’ like the eloquent Laura Lacole who made feminazi Caroline Lucas look a complete amateur here..
Feminists must hate women like Ms Lacole…
http://youtu.be/-Jm_9-WN55U
Please don’t allow Caroline Lucas, Lyse Doucet, Orla Guerin from EVER appearing on page 3 of The Sun newspaper………..Oh, yes and that other woman called Alex something or other who reports for Sky News………..and Diane Abbot
Now that IS an issue I am botherred about…………. surely that could be classed as male cruelty
That would be enough to make one change sides….
don’t allow Caroline Lucas, Lyse Doucet, Orla Guerin from EVER appearing on page 3 of The Sun newspaper
… Newspapers are struggling right now
… they don t need the death nail, of three scroats
to hasten any demise.
I think the old term … “silk purse and sows ear” comes to mind …
oops! sows ear, erm is that “Islamofauxbic”?,
I do hope so
I would like to see the lovely Carol Kirkwood appear.
And another thing, why do all feminazis look like they are sucking a lemon?
If Diane Abbott was to be pictured, the Sun would need pages 3,4,5,6 and 7 to get her all in.
Don’t forget Janette Krankie looky-likey Nicola Sturgeon
How do you know? Have you asked them?
I don’t know who you are or where you live (Hampstead?) or where you work (the BBC?), but clearly you are not of this world. Utterly gobsmackingly out of touch, ignorant, deluded and arrogant. You need to get out more.
The girl concerned (did you read the post?) WAS asked and NO she didn’t care a toss, like most people who live in the real world and not your introspective bubble.
For what it’s worth, we were speaking about your post tonight. The most polite commentary, from the WOMEN that read it, was a roll of the eyes and a sorrowful shake of the head. The less polite included the words f****** and idiot.
But that’s the trouble with feminists (male or female), they don’t understand relationships; how men and women have related to each other, ‘twirled’ for each other and made music with each other over the millennia.
Get a life.
BBC radio 4 14:30 Saturday “The Song of Hiawatha” by Longfellow.
How could the BBC be so ‘Waycist’? Everyone knows that since the day it was published Longfellows Song of Hiawatha has attracted hysterical cries of ‘Waycism’ !
So for that matter has Porgy & Bess which the BBC has often broadcast.
“The noble savage stereotype is generally considered racist, ethnocentric, or culturally insensitive at the very least due to its association with a long history of imperialism, colonialism, and scientific racism which attempted to “prove” that indigenous peoples were biologically inferior to whites. ”
So why is it that the BBC is so keen to force it’s leftist agenda down our throats with threats of legal sanction if we don’t like it, and yet the hysterical fantasies of their ancestors who cried wolf just like they do are conveniently forgotten.
“Bullying, management and recruitment processes flagged up as areas of ‘real concern’ in BBC staff survey”
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bullying-management-and-recruitment-processes-flagged-areas-real-concern-bbc-staff-survey?
Replied in error.
Not sure on what bBC News platform this appeared, but this seems to be somewhat edited. So refreshing to hear a woman talk in this way and great to see a female two fingered salute to the Feminazi’s.
http://youtu.be/VOHHELiCDSw
I just turned the sound down and watched the video Woof Woof!
Down boy Down !
Louise Mensch savages Kim Howells on Radio 4s PM this evening.
Howells yet another middle class middle aged overfed overpaid white male is hugely in favour of fudging the issue of Saudi Arabia, while Mensch was spitting blood !
The BBC are Royally pissed with the Saudis as they haven’t been allowed to send any reporters first class to stay in those rather nice Riyadh 5 star hotels in the winter sun to provide 30 minutes of coverage of a rather hurried Muslim funeral. Instead they’ve been forced to carry the Saudi TV output.
So now the greedy bastards at the BBC are affected, their attitude to Saudi has markedly changed.
Interesting that the US President has been called to heel by his Saudi Masters, and has cut short his tour of India to attend the funeral, missing out the rather nice jolly to the Taj Mahal.
Today I enjoyed this quote about the Ukrainian conflict:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30901753
That message is hammered home daily by state-controlled television, which portrays patriotic rebel warriors alongside helpless civilians under attack by indiscriminate Ukrainian artillery. The fact that insurgents frequently fire from residential areas is never mentioned.
Reported to BBC watch. I find this almost painful considering the BBCs reporting of Palestinian attacks on Israel (or lack of reporting on the matter).
Saudi Masters?- Funny you should say that but I’ve just been watching a couple of video’s on youtube by investigative journalist Jack Cashill (His book Hoodwinked is a fantastic catalogue of leftist lies) in which he sites evidence that the Saudi’s used their wealth and influence to get King Barrack into Harvard,despite his not being qualified
Beyond the respect for editorial integrity quoted, there is a poll:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/bbc-axe-frankie-boyle-comeback-5036991
Ashamed to say I had forgotten other lives were lost, young ones, in the extreme politics played out to such success back then.
Not much changes.
The poll question is; ‘Is Frankie Boyle too edgy for the Beeb?’
Edgy? Perhaps the Mirror (the paper where phone hacking ‘exceeded’ that of News International – but the CPS wasn’t interested) should have asked: ‘Is Frankie Boyle too much of a c*** for the Beeb?