Wow, one of those mornings where I have received numerous emails from you folks mentioning the BBC Radio 4 Today programme hatchet job on the letter in the Daily Telegraph supporting Conservative economic policies. I also see it has been picked up on the Open Thread. I did hear Robert Peston in full “Save Ed” mode and the BBC was doing everything possible to push the Labour narrative that the thoughts of 100 senior business leaders means little and anyway there are academic based economists out there who support Ed! It looks more and more that the BBC are the official opposition to the prospect of a Cameron return to Number Ten!
MISSION – GET THE CONSERVATIVES
Bookmark the permalink.
It has long been the case that in times of difficulty and trouble, when the BBC (in particular) or the lefty socialist class as a whole want to prove their point, they would resort to academics to provide the support they need.
Asking actual practitioners is to be discouraged, since they often go off-piste and cannot be trusted to stick to the narrow mantra of the case in point.
From the viewers perspective, it is often difficult to follow the difference between academic and practitioner, since the interviewee is never properly or fully introduced. This is important though, because academics often get funding from a variety of sources and will never want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Newsnight in particular has sought views of academics almost exclusively on a range of issues for a long long time, but the practice now seems to pervade into all areas of BBC news broadcasting.
Peston admitted that the Telegraph letter from 100+ businessmen actually existed but, of course, according to Peston, the “majority” of economists consider that Labour’s policies are just peachy. IIRC there was no mention of this lot who called it wrongly in 1981. In BBC world, socialist theories are always correct, it just requires reality to be bent a bit to align with it. After all what do businessmen really know about business?
Thanks for the link, Umbongo.
The 360 academics who in 1981 signed the letter opposing Lady Thatcher’s new economic policy, included Robert Peston’s father who is now a Labour Lord.
Quote from the link:
–Furthermore, Labour peer and signatory Maurice Peston has said that there would have been hundreds more queueing up to sign it if it had not been sent over Easter.–
hmmm…
..
“The 360 academics who in 1981 signed the letter opposing Lady Thatcher’s new economic policy, included Robert Peston’s father ”
Ho Ho Ho
How absolutely bloody predictable.
You know the family business, the one where the son takes over from the dad, the dad took over from the grandfather etc,etc. They knew it was in safe hands with people who were trained from an early age to look after that brand no matter what.
I’m just hoping it’s the business that didn’t move with the times and collapsed into oblivion.
I listened to Mr Peston: he found it very difficult to say anything coherent really as if he was really struggling. The fact that some of the names were (ex) Labour supporters made it very hard for him.
Meanwhile radio 5 finds that ZHCs (to their shock) aren’t as bad as they thought – although they quoted one person at the 10.00 news who found them stressful (quell surprise)
Hard not to feel sorry for Mr Peston.
His wife died not long back-and he always comes across as Dave Allan or Val Doonican now-on the wilder shores of self parody, seeking credibility.
Like Marr and Peston…such people who suffer are-IMHO-“square with the house”…and worth a “bit of an old pray” to quote Fr Ted!
Watched 10 Rillington Place last night-and though Christie looked a bit like Nick Robinson!
So pray for him too eh?
BBC TV News and Current Affairs employ people who are pleasant, easy on the eyes, speak clearly, and share their Left Wing outlook.
The Left are generally unpleasant, sneering, bitter, and ugly, and so when the BBC find one that fits the above description (i.e. does not look like a Leftie) they are never off the TV.
The Labour Party used the same strategy with Tony Blair, and given that he won three General Elections, it clearly worked. Gordon Brown was the true face of the Labour Party (ugly bitter arrogant twat) and he lost his General Election.
Andrew Neil is the exception here (he is not easy on the eye, he is snarly and Scottish, and not Left Wing) but as far as I can see he is never on prime time. He is either on in the very early Afternoon, or very late at night.
I once saw Neil present Newsnight (he was excellent) but that was a one off. In peak time the BBC is wall to wall intellectually challenged public school lefties.
The only business the middle class Left know is living off the tax payer, which they justify by making pious sermons about how much they care about the poor (you know the sort of people who watch ITV).
In short the BBC is a soviet of Guardian readers at prayer, and they expect you to keep them in the lifestyle to which they think they are entitled. Their egalitarianism and sense of entitlement does not come cheap.
Nice meaningless rant before the nurse brings round tea. Tell me ,what is ITV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_%28TV_network%29
As the 9am news came up I just KNEW that the BBC would counter their “100 Tory business signatories” with a counter from a ” respected source of independent thinking”.
I`d already heard the Morrisons Labour shill on a few minutes earlier, so was surprised that his soundbites weren`t used on the news bulletin-guessing that the “zero-hour 9am” interns couldn`t work the record button in time.
So-another acronym to negate the business signatures-never heard of them, never will again-but it wouldn`t take too long to find out who`s paying for them and who went to bed or to uni with who.
Basically-private school, Oxbridge, BBC, quango and Labour/IndiGardjian roots and routes for all involved-with an academic sheen from Stephen Fry Universuttee!
As St Philip of Lynott( but they all do Phil!) sang-“Don`t Believe a Word”…go out and vote for this elite hate and fear the most-and grind that scythe that they can only get eejits to draw on a pastel flag of their stitching.
Lies, webs of deceit-but a tangled knot and they`ve not a damn clue where to start to make sense of New Labours Evils…so bin them all!
Vote Tory, DUP or UKIP-before the REAL Right gets angry!
Apparently economists (as opposed to “Big Business”) are Labour Party supporters. Only the Labour Party are interested in raising the living standards of the poor. The “Tories” only care about the bosses. Thank goodness the BBC is an impartial source of information, otherwise I might have got the impression that increased employment was raising the living standards of the poor.
You obviously need to watch the BBC some more to realise that millions are doing so well they are on in work benefits. This means they earning their poverty whilst working hard and doing the right thing.
Since when has Socialism ever been about wealth creation and improving the living standards of the poor? It is (and always has been) about taking wealth generated by others and redistributing it to themselves.
For example approximately a third of the income raised by Council Taxes goes on the generous pensions which public sector workers have awarded themselves, because they think they are worth it.
Now I appreciate that the public sector is a byword for efficiency and good service (it has these special qualities because its consumers are not given a choice) but everybody else can see that high taxes undermine freedom of choice, and make it harder for those who aspire to do better for themselves.
An ideal voter for the Labour Party is a dependent serf who has to ask the permission to breathe. If there is not a dependent underclass Socialists create one, because higher general living standards generates the freedom of choice which is (and always will be) the enemy of wanna totalitarians such as yourself.
A friend of mine is on zero hours and he loves the freedom. He’s an ex-para so would never be interviewed by the BBC. Wrong attitude and not representative.
A zero hour numbers expert was on sneering nicky’s show this morning, he said that around 700k people were on 0 hour contracts, of those, two thirds were happy with the arrangement.
This left around 230k ish who weren’t satisfied, half of them preferred a full time contract and were actively looking for one, this leaves around 115k ish who weren’t happy on 0 hour contracts.
115k out of a working population of millions? Yet the bbc make it sound like the whole of the UK are on 0 hour contracts, a bit like we all live in povurteh..we all are suffering from the bedroom tax..we’ve all had a bad experience at the hands of the NHS…blah,blah,blah.
It’s a saturation of shit, it’s the same on every bbc non music radio programme, every news programme, every politics show, every minute of every day.
I guess those 115k “Unhappy” zero hour workers are employed by Labour:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3022239/Miliband-vows-abolish-zero-hours-forgets-Labour-use-them.html
Ouch.
Anything to add, Mancottagingonclaphamcommon?
Chukka Umunna this morning: “Those signatures represent only 0.02% of the business community.”
So he’s saying Labour’s ad in the FT was even more insignificant!
….and especially when several of them have come out and criticised Labour for creating an apparent endorsement for their policies without their permission – and certainly without their endorsement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3020683/Why-hate-Hampstead-hypocrites-week-PM-attacked-sneering-interfering-know-best-attitude-Hampstead-socialists-ages-worse-says-QUENTIN-LETTS.html
An article that gets right to the cultural cancer that is the BBC and its weekend rebel fellow-travellers.
Bravo Mr Letts!
It came from the mail it must be true. Listen this is his point of view.Why dont you try and do some thinking yourself instead of getting your script from someone else.
Why dont you try thinking for yourself instead of spouting out Labour left wing crap that has clearly been put in front of you by a zero hours intern to try and wind up people who realise the BBC is just a tool of the Labour party.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3019643/Left-wing-group-Turkish-prosecutor-hostage-warn-kill-police-trial-killing-boy-not-confess-live-TV-hour.html
Now we all know that Ed Miliband in a Wolfie Smith beret would never do such a thing-but it`s a good likeness.
Imagine if Ed DID have the fundi zealotry and human instincts that others in his gang may yet have-so be warned.
Yesterday the BBC reported that there had been a massive electricity failure across much of Turkey – and said that a Turkish Minister had said that it could not be ruled out that this was the work of militants.
I bet a pound to a penny that the Turkish Minister did not use the word “militant”. He would have said terrorists. But the BBC, as ever, is scared to use the dreaded T word. Even if that was the word used by a Government spokesman or police chief.
Cringe, cringe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3020725/Chief-prosecutor-scrap-journalists-trials-months-police-probes-costing-taxpayers-20m.html
Unrelated to BBC bias I know but
Doesn`t this “woman” remind you of the one in Royston Vaseys local shop for local people?
Cue twitterstorm from the Kellie Maloney bag ladies and bum bag boys….
I have to say that businesses supporting Tories is like ethnics supporting Labour – why the surprise?
Camoron stands for all that is wrong and cruel though. Business leaders love him because he supports zero hours contracts, and no corporation tax for those companies which choose to exercise this option.
Yes he makes the right noises about doing something about it while doing nothing.
His party chairman has recently filled a warehouse with Polish workers and jobs which were illegally only advertised in Poland, again Cameron did nothing.
Bias concerns me at the BBC. To be honest if they hadn’t reported this letter in the Telegraph then I wouldn’t have even known about it, but the coverage on TWATO has I think been balanced and reasonable.
Businesses will moan about UKIP policies which will prevent them hiring all their staff from Eastern Europe and notionally placing their head offices in countries like Luxembourg which has very low rates of corporate tax. This is the reality. Cameron stands for screwing the British people and the country, for himself and his mates it doesn’t matter to him if no one has a job and the country is stuffed with migrant workers working for nothing, and their employers paying no tax at all. He can always destroy the safety net on the grounds that cuts are needed, and the ones with very little brain will go along with him !
You may be right about business and the Conservatives and FWIW I despise Cameron and the (non)Conservatives almost as much as I loathe Miliband & Co. However, this blog concerns itself with BBC bias.
Peston’s comments on this one and the BBC’s follow-up were manifestly designed to limit damage to their Labour chums. Moreover, the assiduousness with which the BBC found a businessman to parrot the Labour Party line is interesting in itself. I don’t believe that a letter signed by 100 trade union leaders supporting Labour economic policies would have resulted in a damage-limiting exercise on behalf of the Conservatives by the BBC or one of its economic/business commentators. Still less would the BBC have found – or, rather, have on speed-dial – a union boss willing to have a go at Labour or his colleagues in the “movement”.
You’ll have to prove that. Has he misused the data and if so how?
The fact that you have to resort to calling him Camoron means you have lost the argument.Not very thoughtful!
I don’t agree with you! Regardless of this he isn’t one of the signatories of the letter and the argument has little if anything to do with him personally.
Along with many others I don’t believe he is a genuine Conservative, more some Labour lite version.
UKIP have now made a very interesting statement about this letter, and it’s not too far from my thoughts.
Why has he lost the argument then? Please explain.
she ! lol !
Sadly even the Daily Politics with Mr Neil at the helm is showing signs of wandering off the path of impartiality, to the left of course. They had an excellent interview with a woman who ran a small business employing 6 people, asking her about Labour’s plan for the virtual abolition of zero hours contracts. She said that the amount of business she got varied enormously from week to week and she simply couldn’t employ people on fixed hours contracts because some weeks there wouldn’t be enough work for the business to earn enough to pay them. If this law was passed she said that she would go out of business with the loss of the jobs. They then had on the truly slimy Mr Leslie, one of Labour’s shadow treasury team, and asked him about zero hours contracts. Rather than nail him with what the lady had just said they allowed him to ramble on as he does, with little challenge. Why didn’t they use the killer fact presented to them in their previous interview? It wasn’t A Neil doing the interview but Ms Coburn , his co presenter, who is definitely uncomfortable with this impartiality thing.
Another technique that I am noting is that when the BBC have a Tory and a Labour MP on and the Tory is speaking there are frequent cut aways to the Labour person who is shown shaking their head and sneering. No such cut aways when the Labour person is speaking though. All part of the BBC’s amoury of leftist bias. But happily events are beginning to move ever more in the Tories favour so even the best efforts of the BBC may not be enough to get the Mad Marxist Milliband into No 10.
To be fair, the connection to the odious Leslie wasn’t of the best , cutting out a couple of times as it did (I’m unsure why that would be when they are simply connecting between studios, albeit in different cities) but the rest of your comments are well taken.
I thought the lady in question gave a very good account of herself and demonstrated very well why (as I said earlier) the BBC are reluctant to involve a practitioner in these discussions, invariably preferring to talk to academics.
Have to say, the Tory representative, Sajid Javid, didn’t come across at all well, earning himself a quality rebuke from Andrew Neil along the way.
Agreed. Additionally, when the labour spokesperson is talking, neither the interviewer or the other party spokesperson interrupts much. When the tory is speaking, the interviewer interupts often and often also allows the labour person to interrupt and talk over the other party person constantly.
except when its milliband.
Only three grammatical errors in four words!
Which university did you study at?
Clapham of course!
Whenever I see Jo Coburn she has a very obvious bias towards the Left, but she laughs and smiles when she asks her questions (instead of scowling like a Leftist) so that restores the balance. I expect Manonaclaphamomnibus likes her, and that (in his world) is all that counts.
The BBC deliberately confuses two types of zero hours contracts. The one that should be banned is where the employee is required to work when called in and is prevented from working for anyone else. This is completely one sided and gives all the power to the employer. I know of several people in the catering industry employed on these terms.
The type that is acceptable is where there are no set hours but the employer can ask the employee to come in and the employee (who has signed up with as many employers is he/she wishes) has the choice to say yes or no.
A classic example of the acceptable type of contract is that for bank nurses. The nurse can sign up with all the local hospitals to provide a choice of employer and each hospital can offer work as there are shifts to be covered – often at short notice when staff phone in sick. With the nurse being free to accept whichever offers the best terms or most convenient hours.
Exclusivity of this sort is now illegal.
Ask 10 academic economists for an opinion and you will get 24 different opinions, almost all of them wrong.
I put more trust in those business leaders that anticipated, reacted and successfully came through labour’s recession than any of the economists favoured by labour who ALL failed to anticipate or project or predict the last economic crash!
actually nobody predicted it because it was based on a fraud. However whilst that was the trigger the fact is that you cant run on funny money unless you want its value to end up meaningless. Hence Thatcher and 2008 are inextricably linked.
As to your other point, you will find that business arent generally expert in macroeconomics. As I have said a million times there is no evidence to back up austerity. So if a party has a policy of just austerity you shouldnt vote for them unless you want to risk becoming poorer.
They all said you were mad, I say you weren’t and we had a wager.
“Hence Thatcher and 2008 are inextricably linked.”
OK I’ll pay up.
I could have added something about something irrelevant and said “That’s why Genghis Khan and Ed Balls are inextricably linked”. It would have made just as much sense as Manic’s mad claim.
Rubbish – loads of people at the time were trying to tell Mr Brown that his spending was out of control and unsustainable. They were even telling the Americans that the lending policies mandated by the Democratic (left-wing) President at the time – Mr Clinton – were unsustainable, but he wasn’t listening – focused on a social experiment that drove these debts into hidden locations.
Mr Brown just refused to listen as well – and instead claimed that he had got rid of Boom and Bust in the UK economic cycle. And the BBC slavishly accepted that as the truth, and promulgated the lie. Mr Brown was wrong on both counts, and we were the western nation least prepared to withstand the global economic crisis when it surely arrived – landing us in the deepest and longest recession since records began.
No party in the UK has a policy of only austerity (hint, UK overall debt is still rising, but only now at a slower rate than it used to). However no sensible party (guess which parties don’t fall under that description) believes that going back to excessive spending will improve our economy into the future.
>As I have said a million times there is no evidence to back up austerity. <
There isn't if you look at austerity as the answer in itself. Which it isn't. Austerity is the process that has to be endured as a result of almost 10 years of profligacy and living in a faux economy.
Unfortunately we as a country went through years of living high on the hog BEFORE the financial crash. Austerity is what we must go through to get back to living within our means.
Wonder how long it will be before some plonker comes along and claims – ‘governments don’t have to behave like people, the concept of living within its means doesn’t apply’
The UK hasn’t had ‘austerity’, just a reduction in the deficit but it’s still massive. However who can doubt that under Labour it would have been worse, given the admiration Milliband expressed of Hollande;
“I congratulate Francois Hollande on his election as President of France.
“I know from our conversations in London earlier this year and from his victory speech tonight of his determination to help create a Europe of growth and jobs, in a way that is responsible and sustainable.
“This new leadership is sorely needed as Europe seeks to escape from austerity. And it matters to Britain.
http://archive.labour.org.uk/francois-hollande-president-of-france
The UK hasn’t had ‘austerity’, just a reduction in the deficit but it’s still massive.
The Tories promised to clear the deficit; Darling promised to halve it. The Tories have only managed what Darling promised… and they haven’t halved it in absolute terms – they’ve just halved it as a percentage of GDP, as Guido never tires of pointing out:
Tories stick to deficit halved spin
The prophets of doom who predict disaster in the event of a Labour victory should reflect on the reality of the figures. Vote UKIP.
I keep hearing this argument, and it is a false comparison.
The difference is, despite the continuing world crisis – and if you think it isn’t still ongoing, have a close look at Europe’s economies – the deficit has actually been halved (and for the pedantic, ‘…as a percentage of GDP’).
Darling only ‘hoped’ to halve the deficit – who knows if he ever would have done so, given the prevailing economic conditions over the past 5 years. He was, of course making a huge number of assumptions about global economic conditions (as was Osborne at the time) – which probably certainly didn’t involve the headwinds the world’s economies have suffered and continue to suffer even today.
So again, you can’t really compare a reality today with a ‘promise’ made 5 years ago, extrapolated to today, unless you take into account all the circumstances and assumptions under which the ‘promise’ was made.
Couldn’t argue with anything you say. There’s little doubt the country will do better, economically, under Osborne. But with 625,000 immigrants per year we know about, unknown numbers of illegals, a third of children born to foreign parents, I’d argue that immigration should be the thing that frightens us this time. We’ve had to pick ourselves up after Labour before. It can be done. Immigration threatens our way of life forever. There’ll be no recovery.
Osborne had to talk up what the coalition was going to do in 2010 to maintian a favourable international credit rating, that was vitally important. Nobody in politics seems to talk of that now.
This is an economic issue whatever you want to call it.the fact is there is no evidence to suggest the conservative approach has stimulated growth. The upshot is to continue this will ultimately lead to a rundown of the economy. We can currently see this in the ons stats regarding productivity,the lowest in Europe. The only proven approach to expansion is through government borrowing and with gilts so low not to do so would be a crime.
Productivity …….lowest in Europe ….
So why are we importing labour (and shivers and criminals) from around the world ?
With grammar like this are you sure you are a graduate?
“As I have said a million times …”
Really
Turned to the BBC Red Button service to get the headlines.
As usual-all headlines get two pages of text.
Except the one about Mr Eds plans to ban “zero hour contracts”-this gets THIRTEEN pages.
Unlike any other recent story, Charlie Hebdo…Germanwings…you name it.
A mere scan of it highlights the “it`s not fair” meme in electric blue text-and a plea to share your zero hour experiences with the 24/7 Have Your Say team, should you wish to help nice Mr Ed out-or help cover for Nick Robinson, give Emily Maitlis` dog a rest?
Biased liars-our BBC.
In the report linked below you will find all you need to know about Labour’s unsustainable ‘boom’ under Blair and esp Brown and why GDP and prodducitvity were inflated by 2007 and extrapolating from that year is delusional.
Click to access Tim_Morgan_Report_007.pdf
By the way, it seems that in all comments on Beeb and in Guardian today Labour’s cheerleaders are forgetting that Labour was in office in the period 2007-2010. It seems they are all trying to rewrite history as if conservatives presided over spectecular collapse in the economy following the summer of 2007.
“By the way, it seems that in all comments on Beeb and in Guardian today Labour’s cheerleaders are forgetting that Labour was in office in the period 2007-2010. It seems they are all trying to rewrite history as if conservatives presided over spectacular collapse in the economy following the summer of 2007.”
Drat! You noticed. Nothing happened before May 2010 to set the background for the actions of the government.
And private sector household incomes didn’t fall between 2007 and 2010, especially in those households of the million who lost their jobs in a year as a result of the “downturn” as the BBC often seem to refer to it!
Only self-pitying unreconstituted lefties like Alastair Campbell could make the “Germanwings murders” a cause to defend the psycho pilot.
Apparently we are not to speculate on his mental state-let alone presume that his sick note was for “mental issues”.(Media Show, 4.30pm 1/4/15)
No-the likes of Campbell are honorary Muslims…perennial grievance-mongers who`ll whip up any Dowler moment into a surf board to parade their agitprop common purpose agenda.
As 149 good people-men women, kids and babies- are being found recognisable only by DNA on bits of mountainside detritus-only a self-pitying serial lefty loser like Campbell would make it all about HIM>
Honorary Muslim…surely his own mental problems can be sourced by his porn, his lefty bullying and general attention-seeking and bilious attacks.
A bagpiping streak of misery for Sturgeon. One lamentable lament.
Still-at least the odious Steve Hewlett gave us (for him) unwelcome details of how the BBC own all Welsh media outlets…Steve seemed bothered that we should know so much!
Some of the banks that went bust within Balls’s regulatory framework:
-HBoS
-RBoS
-Alliance & Leicester
-Bradford & Bingley
-Paragon
-Northern Rock
-a string of building societies
-Co-op Bank, indeed the bank of Balls’s sponsors.
Lloyds was a very risk averse bank, doing quite nicely until Brown foisted HBoS onto them over a glass of wine…
>The truth about the influence of Gordon Brown, who is said to have discussed the deal over cocktails with Lloyds chairman Sir Victor Blank in the hours immediately after the Lehman collapse, has not yet been revealed.<
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/07/hbos-collapse-lessons-disastrous-rescue
Jo Coburn’s has been wearing red much more lately,she really is spinning for Millipede. Wild is so correct,you can tell she is impartial ….NOT !!!!
I don’t know Betty. I just think she is a weak interviewer, better than Marr though.
Seen her against Tory and Labour types and all she makes me think is “where is Andrew”.
PM report from Labour marginal in Bolton West. Labour majority 92. Interview score, pro Labour 4 pro Tory 1. How can this be impartial in a constituency with a majority of only 92 there must have been nearly as many Tory as Labour voters. So surely impartiality would require more or less the same number of likely Tory voters be interviewed as Labour voters. But perhaps the BBC are hiding behind the lie that they just interviewed 5 people at random 4 of whom just happened to be likely Labour.
Bias swingometer reading tonight, 7 Left.
But you never know how many were interviewed by the BBC and were not ‘suitable’ in their eyes to broadcast
All you see is ‘the directors cut’ from the BBC.
I could interview 1,000 people in the street, but by omitting those who did not fit my narrative, I could broadcast the only five who supported membership of the EU for instance…. 😉
We don’t know how many were interviewed and what they said. Could I apply under the Freedom of Information Act? Yes, I could apply, but the response would be that it would be far too time consuming for BBC staff. This is the familiar ‘get out’ clause under the so-called Freedom of Information Act.
Tony Blair introduced the Act.
..
Labour introduced that act only so they could reveal secrets of what tories did that otherwise would have remained secret for 30 years. The number of FOI requests into what Thatcher’s government did shot up just before the 2001 and 2005 elections, just to create anti-tory headlines.
Interesting observation from Craig at the ‘Is the BBC Biased’ website this evening. Apparently this morning’s episode of BBC’s Today programme was not made available until 7 or 8 hours later than the usual release time onto the website., and in addition it carries the soubriquet …
“This programme has been edited since broadcast.”
Hmm…. a BBC programme sets off a bit of a ‘stushie’ and it’s held back so that no-one can study it, then when it’s released, it’s been changed, but if you want to know where it’s been changed, you’ll have up to 6 hours of listening to do to compare it with the original…. oh, wait a minute ?
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/