A B-BBC reader notes..

“If you want a good example of the bias of the BBC, just take a look at the most recent episode of Frankie Boyle’s New World Order (Series 1 Episode 3) – broadcast on BBC Two. Possibly the most unashamedly biased thing I have ever seen on the BBC.

The panel and audience are all left-wing. They insult Theresa May. Insult the DUP. Insult UKIP voters, particularly ethnic minority UKIP voters. Boyle calls all Brexit voters racist and insults British expats living in Europe. Guest Sara Pascoe openly calls for the Tories to be removed from government, to great applause. And they feature a video of a member of the public calling for a revolution, and applaud the suggestion. Honestly one of the most revoltingly biased things I’ve ever seen on the BBC. Easily 95% of the “humour” and social commentary was anti-Tory and anti-right wing. Fleeting mention of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party was generally balanced, compared to endless vitriol directed at the right wing. I assume the previous episodes were similarly biased. However, a breakdown of this particular episode would highlight just how unashamed their bias has become.”

Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to NEW WORLD?

  1. Wild Bill says:

    As soon as I saw ‘Frankie Boyle’ mentioned it was a no- no.


  2. Fedup says:

    Thank you for that post. Never seen or heard Mr. Boyle and by the sound of it never will. I think the age of maturity seems to be getting later as the quality of life increases. Hence some 30 year olds are like spoilt brats. For the record I am over 50 and under 60.
    It’s why al beeb smugly allows so called funny people and their groups audiences air time


    • Doublethinker says:

      Fed up,
      If the age of maturity is rising and I think that you may be correct, then the voting age should likewise increase. But we know that it is far more likely to decrease rather than increase. Just another example of the mad ,mad world and times in which we live.


      • Fedup says:

        Yes double,
        We are in an age of inconvenient truths – e.g. The way albeeb covered Comrade Corbyns ecstatic reception by millennials at Gladsto – as I guess they call it . But now that it turns out that a load of staff were on zero hour contracts al Beeb doesn’t cover that embarrassment …

        I feel we are in the mirror image world that the Americans were when President Trump was running for office. Whatever he said gained popular support whatever the practicality. Corbyn is the other side of that coin with albeeb supporting . Amazing .


  3. Dover Sentry says:

    The BBC have created and support a certain culture.

    This culture states that you are young, edgy and clever if you are anti Tory, anti Brexit, anti Trump and anti Christian church.


    • All Lives Matter says:

      In other words, if you blindly support the establishment and the dominant culture while deluding yourself into thinking you’re an independent thinker or an anarchist.


      • Cranmer says:

        Good point All Lives Matter. The significant part is ‘while deluding yourself into thinking you’re an independent thinker’. The dominant intellectual culture today is as doctrinaire and orthodox as it was in Victorian times, if not more so. The really dangerous thing though is that these people think they are progressive, and therefore refuse to adapt to new geopolitical realities (eg, the problems of mass immigration) because they still live mentally in the 1960s. This was not so in the old days, when the ruling class although conservative were still willing to adapt when required.

        A classic example is the character of ‘Colonel Blimp’ in the 1943 film. Blimp is a ruling-class traditionalist who does not want to ‘fight dirty’ with the Germans. Eventually a young officer convinces him that the world has changed, the nazis are not gentlemen and the only way to defeat them is with force – can you imagine a film made today where the subjects were ISIS instead of the Nazis and someone like Lily Allen instead of Blimp?


      • Tabs says:

        My wife’s nephew has just finished a Degree in Talking Bollox and is going on to do a Masters and PhD so he can teach others the same bollox with no experience of the real world outside of a University. He thinks he is in intelligent thinker and philosopher who “has been taught how to analyse other peoples great literal works”.

        I’ve given up on explaining to him the world has no need for people to analyse other persons work. The irony of being taught how to think doesn’t actually making you a better independent thinker is totally lost on him.


  4. Tabs says:

    I flicked through the video getting the general level of bias.

    One bit at 12m20s stood out, Boyle saying about Glenfell, “….social murder….I think it is worse than that…. if you set out to murder someone in a moment of passion that’s something but if you set up a series of circumstance that will probably lead to people dying and you let them die like bugs on a windscreen that’s a definite level of immortality” [sound of loud applause].

    WTF? You mean allowing setting up a chain of circumstances that leads to fridges and tower block to be built which could one cause a fire?

    You mean like Lilly Allen and other Liberal cnuts who call for borderless immigration into Europe are setting up a chain of circumstances that leads to Africans getting into dangerously overloaded boats and drowning?

    You mean Islamic terrorism blowing up 8 year olds at pop concerts?

    No, you just mean the Tory government don’t you?


  5. Oldspeaker says:

    Frankie Boyle should be free to say what he likes only on a subscription based platform, then he could discover just how popular he really is, as a licence payer I thoroughly resent contributing to his upkeep.


    • Kaiser says:

      wasnt frankie persona non grata with the bbc for a while due to his rather cutting humour

      seems the lure of the BBC’s cash has reformed him enough to now be acceptable

      he’s just a sell out like hislop


  6. john in cheshire says:

    To add to the insults coming from the far-left bbc, No.10 is apparently considering appointing a far-left bbc employee to be head of communications ( or somesuch title ). Why on earth would someone from that despicable organisation even be in the running for the job? The Conservative party give the impression of being populated with masochists.


    • The General says:

      Teressa May is an idiot. She will probably approve this Leftie and then give the vote to 16 yr olds as well so that the demise of the Tory party can be well and truly settled.


  7. JamesArthur says:

    I play a game when watching Graham Norton…how many seconds before he insults May, Trump or Brexiteers – usually within 20 secs of opening his mouth. Generally I like his show but this constant bias should be banned…

    However just read summary of the Cross Party report that concluded the BBC was bias against Brexit (just Brexit?)…particularly a series of programmes on Radio 4….did they really need that report? At least it confirmed our views here…
    But guess what? The BBC replied..” News remains committed to covering developments in a fair and impartial manner”
    How I laughed…


    • Roland Deschain says:

      I put a complaint in after a particularly bad episode. Naturally, the BBC didn’t think Graham had done anything wrong. Officially, anyway, but I did feel the anti-Trump rhetoric was toned down after that.


    • Joseph says:

      My first TV encounter with Norton was years ago when he made some nasty, gratuitous comment about the Queen Mother.

      If I’d been in the same room I think I would have ended up in court. Avoided him like the disease that he is ever since.


  8. lojolondon says:

    Ye, pretty disgusting. In a just world, Frankie Boyle would be a beggar in a Glasgow tenement. But with the BiasedBBC handing out taxpayers money as a reward to subversive ‘comedians’ who are willing to be thouroughly disgusting and offend Conservatives and Christians, he is a millionaire. Just one point – replace the name ‘Jesus Christ’ with ‘Mahommed’ in the first two minutes and his head would have been on a spike by now. We are far too good to these traitors.


  9. Alex says:

    Cannot stand that loudmouth speccy ginger turd Boyle. Obnoxious prat. He needs a slap.


  10. Fol-de-rol says:

    The BBC don’t get satire. They should look back at the satirical shows of the mid 1960’s. Their power was in their subtlety. Gentle jibes caused more damage to the establishment than the souless abuse we hear now, masquerading as comedy.

    Paul Merton was brought up in Hancock and a love of the silent films of the 1930’s. What went wrong? Perhaps it’s pure cash. As with Frankie Boyle, a honed performer has sold out to the lure of the Marxist Pound. Just before they retire. How convenient.


    • Manxman says:

      No whats changed is their audience, their only performers, so they give them what they pay to hear.

      They all do, thats why they sometimes fall flat, wrong style wrong audience.

      Pay merton enough and he would take the piss all year long out of the left.


  11. Lobster says:

    Boyles are very often a pain in the arse ……..


  12. The Highland Rebel says:

    A boyle on the arse of humanity.


  13. Payne by name says:

    Interesting description of the programme. Sounds like the first 25 minutes of Mock the Week on BBC2 or the News Quiz on Radio 4.


  14. Fedup says:

    I mistakenly hit the wrong preset on the digital wireless and heard the end of Jeremy vine ( wishful thinking ) only to hear the chappy who played Baldrick in black adder – Anthony Robinson- spouting off about how bad the country is . Generalisation without direct reference to the government or Brexit but Mr Robinson – who was on the National executive of the Labour Party – was making a biased political point without challenge. As it happens he spoke of the need for more care for the elderly and dementia sufferers which is a good thing. But the bias was there ….


    • Heisenberg says:

      There’s a story about Tony Robinson. He was filming one of those archaeological programmes he does. This one was from the battlefields of the Somme. One of the cameramen exclaimed light heartedly “I can’t believe I’m on the Somme with Private Baldrick”, at which point Robinson stormed off in a huff. A few minutes later the producer came along and said “Could you please not refer to Tony as Baldrick; he doesn’t like it.” How pompous and misguided is that? If it hadn’t been for his role as Baldrick, wonderfully written for him by more talented individuals, he would never have got to do the archaeological programmes in the first place. Nor would he be on TV every five minutes spouting his lefty nonsense.


      • Scroblene says:

        Robinson has no place in this house.

        He once did one of his ‘archaeological’ pop shows on a site in Hastings, where an established and well-respected retired Headmaster had uncovered an important and interesting find from Roman times.

        Baldrick tried all sorts of ways to belittle the man with his inferior knowledge, and eventually tried to poo poo the excavations to prove something or other, which was entirely fabricated to suit the show.

        The retired teacher was my old Headmaster, and his Doctorate in archaeological work was never questionable. He knew a hundred more times the crap dribbled by Baldrick, and endured humiliation from a third-rate celeb with great calm and dignity.

        Baldrick can piss off as far as I’m concerned, he’s yet another lefty opportunist arsehole yelping bollocks.


        • Al Shubtill says:

          Did you see the recent series he did when he…ahem…”walked” the Coast to Coast path (mainly in cars) across Cumbria and Yorkshire? He didn’t come across well at all, a w@nker and right.


      • Ricks Assessment says:

        Ha Ha Tony Robinson! spends all his life trailing around the country with some hippys digging up the land & finds a few bits of scabby pottery. Along comes a bird with a JCB to a car park in Leicester & with the first scoop finds Richard III – Result. Geofizz my arse you lefty turd!


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Interesting to hear opinions on Tony Robinson. Despite what I think of his political leanings, I generally find his programmes interesting and haven’t noticed too many of his opinions coming over. Perceptions are so subjective and show why bias is so difficult to pin down.

      I do recall his “walks” from one side of the country to the other. No way did that fat belly do the walks! (Not that I’m in any position to throw stones in the fat belly department!)


  15. petebogtrott says:

    just noticed an anagram of Mr Robinson is Prick. Thought everyone knew that,its the same anagram as saint bob too


    • thirdoption says:

      Actually pete, to be grammatically correct it’s “complete and total prick”, but simply using “prick” will suffice ?


      • TrickCyclist says:

        For me, Robinson’s career high-point was when John Wayne chucked him in the Thames in Brannigan.


  16. Up2snuff says:

    David: ” Honestly one of the most revoltingly biased things I’ve ever seen on the BBC. Easily 95% of the “humour” and social commentary was anti-Tory and anti-right wing. Fleeting mention of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party was generally balanced, compared to endless vitriol directed at the right wing. I assume the previous episodes were similarly biased.”

    Do you really mean ‘right wing’ or do you mean anything that is not just full on Socialism, whether liberal, extreme liberal or Hard Left or Far Left versions of Socialism?

    I am not happy with Conservatism and conservatism as being seen as and described as ‘right wing’.

    Mostly, because it isn’t.


    • Demon says:

      Mr Snuff, I totally agree with your comment about not calling the Conservatives “Right-Wing”. It’s the equivalent of calling Blair “Left-wing”, just as the BBC did……Oh, hang on! They called him right-wing as well.


      • Up2snuff says:

        Yes, the man of the BBC’s this morning moment, Demon. Blair, I gather, has been spying out the land to see if he can form a new centrist political party in and for the UK.

        I think it may be a small Party and centred very much on one person.


    • JimS says:

      “I am not happy with Conservatism and conservatism as being seen as and described as ‘right wing’.

      Mostly, because it isn’t.”

      Exactly. Left and Right have become descriptions of the the two extremes of socialism, the nasty ‘right’ nationalist variety that killed 6 million and the nice ‘left’ internationalist version that killed 20 million and which continues to define the political battleground.

      Sane people believe that the individual, (that means you!), should strive to achieve and thereby improve the lot of society as a whole. Traditional conservative or liberal opinion argues over where and if change is necessary through the agency of the individual. It does not have a place on the axis of evil collectivism, which is where our so-called conservative (ha!), liberal (you are joking!) and democratic (seig heil EU!) elements supinely allow themselves to be coralled.


      • Wild says:

        Right-Wing is a term from French politics not British politics. It means support for the Ancien Regime i.e. the Catholic church, absolute monarchy, widespread censorship, high taxes, and centralization. Britain in the C17th became a republic (although the monarch was later restored as a figurehead), upholding private property rights, defending free speech, low taxes, free markets, and Parliamentary democracy. This is the tradition which conservatism seeks to conserve in this Country i.e. upholding the Glorious Revolution.

        The term Right Wing (deriving from where people sat in the French assembly) does not translate very well into this our politics. It has only been used (mainly as a term of abuse) in the UK since the 1930’s. Fascism is again French in origin. It derives from the Napoleonic tradition i.e. it is a nationalistic form of revolutionary politics in which a supreme leader and the apparatus of the State suppress dissent via an appeal to collective popular will.

        Communism (again French – in its modern form) derives from those French Revolutionaries who thought that there should be total economic equality via centrally directed economies. In the C19th this excited intellectuals such as Marx who sought to give it a theoretical foundation. Fascism and Communism are rivals not opposites – they are branches of the French Revolution. Hitler and Stalin were (murderous) rivals not (ideological) opposites.

        English Conservatism as articulated by Burke is simply support for the Glorious Revolution and the rejection of the French Revolution. What Communism and Fascism means varied of course from Country to Country. Fascism was more conservative in Spain and more radical in Germany, Communism was more conservative in Sweden and more radical in Russia, but both hate bourgeois capitalism (as promoted by England and the Anglosphere) and believe instead in a (new) version of the Ancien Regime with new leaders (themselves) and new creeds (pseudo-science) but the same old authoritarianism, and the same old supremacy of the collective over the individual.

        The BBC these days hates this Country (especially the conservative working class) because it has been taken over by Islington Leftists who sneer at the concept of a free society, as defended by that grocers daughter Maggie Thatcher. The Labour Party has its roots in Trade Unions and Chartism not Communism. Communism is (rightly) despised by most British people. The fact that Communism is relentlessly promoted by the BBC (although of course they do not call it by that name) shows just how out of touch they are with the Country. But by political indoctrination (particularly via the education system) true believers hope to re-educate the British public so that they will view the current leadership of the Labour Party as the future, as the progressive alternative.

        The multicultural crap is motivated only by the desire to destroy British culture, as part of the desire to destroy (I believe the word is revolutionary) every source of resistance to Communism. People are taught that there is no such thing as truth, there are no such thing as moral standards, there is no such thing as decency, there is only power, and we should progress towards a society in which no discrimination is possible except that which is deemed to be politically correct.

        All this hatred of the Anglosphere (and whitey) does not come out of nowhere, it is ideologically motivated. The aim is the complete destruction of our society, on the assumption that a (new) society can be created, led by (new) statesmen, who will (temporarily) coerce people into accepting a promised land in which everybody will be equal.


        • GCooper says:

          A very good summation of the current mess we are in, I would say and nicely put into a historical context.

          I might place a different emphasis here or there (the role of German thinking on the far Left and the influence of Gramsci, for example) but this is a good analysis for anyone wondering how the hell we got here.


          • Up2snuff says:

            Then there is this slightly alternative view of Right v Left:



            • Up2snuff says:

              Wild, I’m not sure that view is correct although it is the one found in Wikipedia.

              “The term Right Wing (deriving from where people sat in the French assembly) does not translate very well into this our politics. It has only been used (mainly as a term of abuse) in the UK since the 1930’s. Fascism is again French in origin. It derives from the Napoleonic tradition i.e. it is a nationalistic form of revolutionary politics in which a supreme leader and the apparatus of the State suppress dissent via an appeal to collective popular will.”

              If I recall correctly, the revolutionary socialists, mostly originating in Russia and mittel-Europe in the 19th century were described as Socialists and ‘Left’ was applied to them at that time.

              If you come to the 1930s then you have non-conservative, republican and military usurper Franco fighting Leftists. And this, I think, is incorrect: “Fascism and Communism are rivals not opposites – they are branches of the French Revolution. Hitler and Stalin were (murderous) rivals not (ideological) opposites.” I don’t recall the term Fascist being used until the 20th century although I could be wrong on that. Certainly, Hitler and Stalin were allies at first, not rivals. Both were seeking revolution and both sought their first enemies in the existing establishments.

              I have written in the past that it was growth in media together with ease or laziness during the Cold War that produced the common use of Right Wing as the opposite of Communism being Left Wing and I think that has largely been the case.


              • Wild says:

                Up2snuff, thanks for The Spectator review, I have the book by Jesse Norman on Burke, although I haven’t read it yet. My point is that Burke was a Whig (he supported the Glorious Revolution) but unlike Paine he opposed the French Revolution. The tradition he sought to conserve was what the Marxists call bourgeois liberalism. Paine (like Burke) supported the American Revolution, but (unlike Burke) he also supported the French Revolution. Communists thought that the French Revolution did not go far enough.

                In the USA the term Right-Wing is also inappropriate, given that their conservatives call themselves Republicans. The tradition they seek to conserve is a republican version of English liberties. I was picking up on the Right-Wing versus Left-Wing dichotomy not the Fascist versus Communist dichotomy.

                My argument is that Fascism and Communism are both on the Left, but Fascism is a nationalist and Communism an Internationalist version of revolutionary politics. They both oppose bourgeois liberalism and want to replace it with something more collectivist. Franco was more conservative than the Falangists, who were the Fascists.

                The opposite of a revolutionary is a conservative. I am suggesting that this dichotomy (so long as it is understood that in an Anglosphere context what is being conserved is not the Ancien Regime but the English tradition of liberty) is more helpful as a political distinction than the Right Wing v Left Wing dichotomy.


                • Up2snuff says:

                  Wild, I agree that Fascism and Communism are the same thing and both, in reality (although not observed as such by the media & many commentators – together with all those themselves on the Left), are ‘on the Left’ and are The Left.

                  However, I’ve always understood that the opposite to a Revolutionary is a Reactionary, not a Conservative as such and very definitely not a small ‘c’ conservative. A Conservative may also be a reactionary but then the Tory Party is the broadest of broad churches! 😉

                  A true conservative will seek revolution where rarely necessary but is much more often a constant, careful, quiet and cautious reformer.

                  A capital C Conservative may well be very similar but would tend more, I would have thought, to ‘reaction’, such as found in the excessive privatisations of State owned enterprises in the last thirty years or so. A reactionary Conservative would also not listen to reason among any dissenting voices, perhaps another characteristic of the past 30 years?

                  A further observation on American politics. Until relatively recently, there was very little difference, in practice, between the Republican and Democratic Parties. Both were patriotic with a capital P, endorsed US world-wide hegemony whether military or via business and broadly pursued relatively small government and low taxes for business and high earners. That changed, I think, if not in Clinton’s last term or at the time of 9/11, then soon after and has gathered pace, perhaps thanks to Obama’s lacklustre Presidency.

                  I am with you on the Right v Left dichotomy and the lazy and distorted thinking that goes into its widespread use. It is long overdue for a re-think!

                  And a re-brand of Conservatism and re-energising of conservatists.

                  True conservatism is not a malign influence which it may have attributed to it by a lazy, thoughtless – or even deliberately malicious – LeftMob and liberal Left media.


  17. Joseph says:

    I’m sure I’m not the only one here who is sick and tired of the constant demands on the BBC (and SKY) for more money to be spent on virtually everything. Why do I get the impression that, outside every radio and TV station, there is a queue of people who begin every sentence with “I want”? Why do I find myself quietly thinking “fuck off” to so many people on the screen?

    It would be a good idea if, just occasionally, we could have a debate, a proper one not a BBC version, about why we are not rich enough to afford more in the first place.

    Why are we not the talented, innovative country that we used to be? Why is virtually everything made somewhere else – often in countries that were flattened or mere peasant economies 70 years ago? Why are we so proud of factories making bloody biscuits for god’s sake (I have in mind a news item last year – all the automated machinery was “Schubert”, so I think it’s a fair bet that it wasn’t made here)?

    Why are we not even allowed to want to keep our own fish without someone wagging a finger and calling us names? I don’t want to go to Holland and dig up their bloody tulips.

    Why is our world ranking in Reading, Maths and Science in the 20s? Is there a connection perhaps?


  18. john in cheshire says:

    Joseph, it’s my belief that the EU divided up the economies of the members such that Germany got manufacturing, the French got agriculture, the Spanish got fisheries and we got financial services . That’s a bit simplistic I know but if it wasn’t planned that way that’s how it has mostly turned out. Once we’re out of the EU I think, or rather hope we can resume making stuff, revive our fishing industry and our agriculture sector and relegate the financial sector to the service provider that it should be,rather than the tail wagging the dog that it has been for too long.


    • Scroblene says:

      That’s a sound argument, John.

      Blame Heath for most of this, he put the wind up so much industry back in the 1970s that they just gave up and the unions did the rest to bury the bodies (or not in some particular cases). His dream of a federal state of Europe left him a silly sulking clown when Margaret Thatcher whisked in and picked up the pieces. Of course, much of the trouble with industry was still being fomented by a disastrous Labour spell in office.

      The trouble is, that there’s nobody around who can get us out of all this now. Would you rock the boat and lose such a comfortable income, pensions contributions and expenses to die for?

      (Sorry, just read a headline in one of the online rags, Cameron already is rocking the boat – I wonder what the BBC will say about that! Answers on an expenses form please,…)


      • Grant says:

        It is a big puzzle as to why the British Establishment Elite lost confidence in themselves. I don’t think the British people lost confidence. But , even if Brexit happens, I think it is all too late now. Britain is broken on all fronts.


        • Joseph says:

          I don’t believe that recovery is not possible – IMO there’s no such thing as a broken country if the will is there. How bad things have to become before we accept that there’s a problem is another matter.

          I also blame Heath, and I blame complacency immediately after WW2. We’d done well and the world owed us a living. Except that it didn’t.

          I think that we need to get our education right, and that means producing people with skills we actually need. Artists are fine, but we only need so many, and it has become a soft option along with dozens of other soft options. I’m not a philistine but work and talent must be involved. If people say that it would effectively turn schools into factories, so be it. We can’t have a nursery system for 5 to 18 year olds. Teachers will get upset. Good. Too many crackpot decisions have been made to make their lives easier. Now, of course, schools have become unruly and the chickens have come home to roost.

          I look at kids in the Far East, the priorities of the schools, the way that even kids who live in shacks turn out smartly dressed, and the value that their parents put on traditional educational values.

          It’s often said that kids in India are good at Maths and English. Why? Because the schools never abandoned the subjects in the first place, that’s why.


          • MarkyMark says:

            Watching Indian NDTV TV News [2017-06-06] only a month ago, top stories … an insight into India (not sure how pervasive or deed this is) …

            Story 1) Girl aged 14 raped by 2 drivers and conductor (public sector workers)
            Story 2) Religious man says “God Shiva” will appear if we dig up a hole. Village (20 people maybe) believe him and dig big hole, police come and take him away after digging 15 feet into ground and stopping all the traffic. Spoiler … the villages did not find the God.
            Story 3) India spends 2 years with 185 committees producing new school books which have blank pages and lots of spelling and incorrect answers. (2015-2017)
            Story 4) New Delhi – power cuts every day for up to 8 hours

            Notice the BBC title in the following article, I would have changed the word ‘Bizarre’ to ‘Incorrect’ or ‘Misleading’ or ‘Lies’ …

            Five bizarre ‘lessons’ in Indian textbooks [ 2015-09-23]
            “A national textbook for 11-year-old students created uproar in 2012 when it was discovered that it said that people who eat meat ‘easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes'”
            “A donkey is like a housewife…”
            “…Japan had launched a nuclear attack on the US during World War Two”
            “…’Sewage Canal’ is one of the most important shipping lanes…”
            “…and got a number of important Indian historical dates completely wrong.

            “The NDTV website which reported the errors said that it had not been able to contact the officials responsible for the textbooks.”


        • JimS says:

          John Redwood recently wrote about a young constituent who wanted to ‘make a difference’.

          Essentially the youngster wanted to be ‘an activist’. Dr. Redwood pointed out to him that we have more than enough ‘target setters’, what we need are ‘doers’. The former just need the ability to stay awake in meetings, the latter actually need to use their brains.


        • Up2snuff says:

          Grant, in a way I would be eager to agree with your conclusion. But as I read your post I was immediately reminded of how many times I have heard ” .. I think it is all too late now. Britain is broken on all fronts.” in the last forty-eight years.

          Despite all those questionings we are still here and in at least one way, or others, have at times thrived.


        • Rob in Cheshire says:


          You are right, the British people never lost their confidence, the liberal elite did.

          I remember hearing David Owen saying once that at the time of Suez in 1956 he was canvassing in Plymouth. As a keen young socialist, he expected the working class to be up in arms over Britain’s aggression and failure to observe that nebulous concept, “international law”.

          To his surprise, the workers he spoke to were overwhelmingly patriotic, and supported Sir Anthony Eden in his plan to give Nasser a good bashing. The young Dr Owen was shocked, shocked I tell you.

          The response of the Labour Party was to import a new electorate!


  19. Up2snuff says:

    Another thought on this that is BBC related. The BBC, at present, make a fuss over ‘divisive politics’ and anything that ‘divides a nation’.

    They appear quite happy to broadcast Boyle’s TV programme that, from the sound of it, was heavily biased in one fairly extreme direction and only took potshots at those it claimed were on the opposite extreme.

    Is that not extremely divisive?


    • Wild says:

      Don’t pay attention to what Leftists say, pay attention to what they do.


  20. Manxman says:

    On the humour front there is so much material to mock the left with that even a half talented stand up could bring the house down.
    They would auto receive the alt-right tag, as if the right are in the minority, because thats one fundamental belief these people have is that their world view is the consensus view.

    But ofcourse you wont see them on the target that humour is based on, the lefty media and the lefty snowflakes.

    Not their kind of funny, severing trumps head thats cutting edge pun intended lefty humour.
    2 gay comedians, chalk and cheese humour wise, julian cleary talented funny man, the gobshite irish guy, vulgar little runt, and they love him.


  21. StewGreen says:

    …as funny as a boil.