Author Archives: Alan

Should he get to Number 10, he said simply, he would not press the nuclear button.

Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain’s potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.

BBC 2015

Apparently Corbyn has made a massive ‘bombshell’ u-turn on his nuclear weapons policy…once an ardent, fanatical nuclear disarmer and someone who would never, ever press the button he would in fact now use them, he would press the button if Britain were attacked.  The BBC hasn’t noticed.  Apparently this has always been his policy and there’s nothing new here.  Or he’s lying to win votes…and again the BBC makes no comment on his exploitation of ‘fake news’ and post-truth politics’….free ride to No 10 from the BBC?

Corbyn is even anti-nuclear power stations having said so in 2011..

“I say no nuclear power, decommission the stations we’ve got”.

The Conservatives have said Corbyn’s position on nuclear weapons is a threat to national security and thus he is unfit to be in office as PM.  Nick Robinson says the Tories are ‘smearing’ Corbyn with such a claim.  Robinson said Corbyn had a legitimate argument and that the Tory claim was thus a smear….Corbyn is perfectly entitled to his position but then his opponents are also entitled to comment on that…aren’t they?  Apparently not according to Nick Robinson who is obviously suggesting that the Tory argument is thus not legitimate.

Trouble is it’s a claim that Corbyn’s own party must agree with as they back Trident.

And what of that slippery phrase now being used by Corbyn, that he wouldn’t use a ‘first strike’?  He used it on Marr and Marr did not blink, and Humphrys on the Today show, despite noting that Corbyn had previously said he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, quoted the ‘first strike’ phrase without comment on the importance of that phrase and Corbyn’s slippery u-turn….the significance of which can be ascertained by the way the Labour man immediately jumped in saying ‘You’ve hit the nail on the head…he wouldn’t use it as a first strike’...leaving open the suggestion that he would use it as retaliation….when he would not, ever.  Post-truth politics?

Here’s Marr not reacting at all to the ‘bombshell’ u-turn in Corbyn’s position that he now would use nuclear weapons…just not as a first strike…

Why did neither Marr nor Humphrys challenge that positioning by Corbyn?  Corbyn would never, never, use nuclear weapons and to imply he might is utterly dishonest.

The BBC hides the  story about Corbyn’s nuclear stance on the politics page….why is such an important story not on the frontpage, or maybe even just on the UK page?  But no, you have to dig into the politics page to find it…

Speaking to Andrew Marr on BBC One, Mr Corbyn – a long-standing opponent of nuclear weapons – said he would never launch a “first strike” attack as prime minister and wanted to de-escalate global tensions, working with other countries including the US, Russia and Iran.

But hang on, is that a massive u-turn or a convenient lie?…he has made his views quite plain in the past…here’s his own Stop the War Coalition praising his position…

The new leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has sparked a political firestorm by challenging the myths around nuclear weapons and Cold War deterrence. Corbyn announced that he would never use a nuclear weapon.

Here’s the Guardian reporting his stance…

Jeremy Corbyn: I would never use nuclear weapons if I were PM

And here is the BBC itself reporting his ‘never, ever’ position…

Jeremy Corbyn row after ‘I’d not fire nuclear weapons’ comment

It did not take a debate, within Labour or the House of Commons. A few words on the Today programme did the trick.

Should he get to Number 10, he said simply, he would not press the nuclear button.

Think of it this way: Corbyn declared to Britain’s potential enemies that with him in charge they could disregard a multi-billion pound weapon system.

“I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.

“I do not think we should be renewing Trident.”

Pretty clear isn’t it?  Under no circumstances would Corbyn, the terrorist sympathiser, ever press the nuclear button.

Why is the BBC now pushing all that down the memory hole and peddling Corbyn’s new ‘not a first strike’ pose as if this was his policy all along with nothing unusual going on, nothing to see here?

It’s a lie.  A lie intended to con the British public into thinking Corbyn can be trusted to defend British interests and maintain our security when in fact he has no intention of doing so and would happily surrender to the first threat in order to avoid any bloodshed at all.  And the BBC is backing that position by not challenging his lie and the subterfuge that he might use nuclear weapons if attacked….he would never use them, he has said so many times.

Shame the BBC has forgotten….a massive apparent policy u-turn by Corbyn in order to fool the voters and win an election…where is the BBC’s famed ‘Reality Check’ where are the cries of ‘Fake News’?  There came none….just as there came none when Corbyn completely fabricated a story about there being no seats on a train in order to bolster his Marxist drive to nationalise the railways.

Earlier this month we noted that the BBC was giving the views of ex-British ambassador, and pro-Assad mouth-piece, Peter Ford, complete credibility…The BBC…doing Russia’s dirty work for it.

The BBC interviewed him and then proceeded to use quotes from him throughout the day to promote the idea that the chemical attack in Syria may well have been a false flag operation by the rebels…in every news bulletin that I listened to the BBC did not inform us that Ford was in any way a supporter of the Assad regime, introducing him solely as ‘former British ambassador’.

The Telegraph reports Ford has indeed got very close links to Assad…

Revealed: How Britain’s former Syria ambassador appeared on BBC to defend Assad… after quietly taking a job with dictator’s father-in-law

A former British ambassador to Syria who appeared on the BBC to defend the Assad regime had already become a director of a lobby group run by the dictator’s father in law.

Peter Ford, 59, courted controversy this month by claiming that President Bashar al-Assad would not have carried out the chemical gas attack on his own people.

Now the Telegraph can reveal that just weeks before the April 4 attack  Mr Ford had become a director of the controversial British Syrian Society.

This was founded by Fawaz Akhras, a London-based cardiologist whose daughter Asma is married to President Assad, and is closely linked to the regime, frequently accused of acting as its mouthpiece in the west.

The BBC’s response was to claim…

The BBC yesterday defended its use of Mr Ford as a commentator on events in Syria.

A spokesperson for the broadcaster said: “When Peter Ford has appeared on various BBC outlets this year his particular viewpoint has been signposted in the introduction in terms the audience will understand, for example he has been variously described as a ‘long term critic of Western Policy’, or part of ‘a dwindling group who still think Bashar al-Assad is the solution to Syria’.”

Now that’s just untrue, certainly on the day in question.  The BBC was spreading doubt and pro-Assad messages purely to try and undermine Trump and his missile attack on Assad.

The BBC so hates Trump they are prepared to do anything to do him down….including supporting a man who has bombed, tortured and attacked his own people with chemical weapons.

Did the BBC splice together video from one event and add comment about another to make it sound as if Trump supporters were attacking loveable Liberals?…Seems as if the BBC did indeed do that…

The election is on and the manifesto’s are being forged as we wait breathlessly……Nick Robinson has been dissecting the media response, the Tory supporting media response that is and found that the Daily Mail is abandoning its principles and supporting May regardless….but is that true?…here’s what reliable old Nick says…..

‘Striking the leeway a Tory paper like the Daily Mail is willing to give to her…they hate that pledge on aid and yet nowhere is it on the front page and you have to turn to page 6 to find a fond headline…Theresa bites the bullet….as if she is doing precisely what the paper asked instead of exactly the opposite.’

Trouble is that is a load of old twaddle…the Daily Mail in no-way gives May complete unquestioning support over ‘aid’…and the headline was not just on aid but on two other possible manifesto issues…

Theresa bites the bullet: Mrs May risks upsetting Tory supporters saying she will KEEP the 0.7% foreign aid law, DUMP the ‘no tax rise’ pledge and may DROP their commitment to the pension triple lock

And note none of those other issues were ‘on the front page’ either….so Robinson’s focus on aid alone is misleading in itself.

And does the Mail not mention that it thinks the aid budget is bonkers?…[note that the print edition which Robinson is talking about also states that the Mail itself opposed her aid plans]…..

Meanwhile, Theresa May confirmed the Government will stick to its controversial commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on foreign aid, quashing growing speculation it would be scraped.

Speaking in her home town of Maidenhead, Mrs May said the party will stick to its controversial foreign aid commitment which last year equated to more than £13billion of taxpayers’ money.

And this in the same report…

Theresa May insists she will KEEP controversial target on foreign aid spending

Theresa May has said she will she will keep the controversial target for minimum spending of billions on foreign aid at her latest campaign stop today.

The Prime Minister said it was important to ensure the money – equivalent to 0.7 per cent of national income and more than £13billion last year – is spent properly.

But as she returned home to Maidenhead for the first time since calling a snap general election, Mrs May ended speculation she would dump the controversial policy.

 

The Mail makes it quite plain that the aid budget is controversial and that the Mail opposed it [in the print edition].

Robinson just seems to make it up to suit his own agenda…that the Mail is supinely cheerleading for May regardless of what she says.

  Pat Marie The BBC is the propaganda arm of the Tory Party. Watch Newsnight 19th April. Constant bashing and negative comments about Jeremy Corbyn. Not one single voice from the other side. The BBC is a bloody joke.

Oh…and have to laugh at this after Robinson warned his colleagues about badmouthing Corbyn…

BBC journalist Nick Robinson sparked an impartiality row as he appeared to criticise Jeremy Corbyn after his first major campaign speech. 

The Radio 4 Today programme presenter faced a barrage of criticism after posting a tweet in which he accused Labour’s leader of being “long on passion and short on details”.

“No-one should be surprised that @jeremycorbyn is running v the “Establishment” & is long on passion & short on details. Story of his life,” Mr Robinson’s tweet said.

I hadn’t realised he was talking about Corbyn….thought he was actually referring to the BBC…long  on compassion, short on details…and truth.

Oh dear. Merely meant that people should expect Jeremy to do now what done his whole life – ie give passionate anti establishment speech.

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) April 20, 2017

Gina Miller always insisted that she wasn’t trying to stop Brexit, merely interested in the proper democratic process…hence she is now trying to buy up that democratic process and rig the election in order to get anti-Brexit placemen shoehorned into Parliament so that they can vote for her pet project…stopping Brexit.  At least one BBC journo, Andrew Neil of course, called her out on it…

A question Neil didn’t ask was where is all her money came from originally…a type of question that the BBC is often very keen to ask….such as when Leave put that famous wording on the side of their bus….

A stupid mistake to make…how could they not foresee being hung out to dry for such a claim?  However having been taken to task by the BBC in a relentless witch-hunt over this claim in a way that the BBC does not do for Remain’s highly alarmist and exaggerated claims, the BBC then does exactly the same….and claims money coming back to the UK is ‘from the EU’.

Even this morning the BBC were at it as they discussed farming subsidies…Sarah Montague told us, several times, that farming only exists now in the way it does because of the money that the EU sends us, the £3 billion that comes from the EU.

So now the BBC tells us that we do send money to the EU and it becomes the EU’s money, even though we get it back…whereas when the BBC wants to undermine the Leave campaign Leave are lying when they say we give the EU the money…because we get it back…so the BBC tells us it cannot be counted as money we have given to the EU….unless it suits the BBC agenda…in this case farming will collapse without the benevolent EU handouts.

If Leave were misleading people before the BBC is just as guilty of doing exactly the same here.

Trump, Farage, Le Pen etc have all been dismissed by the BBC as ‘populist’ politicians…a contemptuous sneer that says not only are their policies not serious or worthy of consideration but that anyone who votes for them is somewhat stupid and driven by emotion and feelings rather than reason and good sense.

Oddly one politician who goes for the exact same rhetoric and style, Jeremy Corbyn, is not labelled in the same way  by the BBC, they treat him with the utmost respect despite him using the same language of raging against the Establishment…the People vs Power, the People Vs the Establishment, the People Vs the Media and Big Business…..he’s fighting against a ‘rigged system’ and not playing by the ‘rules’.

Remember how Gove was ridiculed by the BBC for saying the ‘experts’ were not always so expert?  What has Corbyn said?…

In his first major general election speech, he said 8 June’s poll was not a “foregone conclusion” and Labour could defy the “Establishment experts”.

No outpourings of ridicule and derision from the BBC here.  Indeed very little in the way of analysis of his speech and its contents…we have been mostly treated to the BBC asking random members of the public what they think of the speech…a tactic which naturally isn’t likely to produce much indepth comment and is designed to avoid any real discussion or criticism of the speech.

There is a difference of course between Trump and Corbyn, Trump wants to bring jobs back to America, he wants to rebuild the manufacturing base and encourage business, he wants to make money for America.  Corbyn wants to take money and destroy the economic base of the country, the same old Labour….welfare not jobs, handouts not a handup.

The other difference is that Trump wants to deal with immigration, to control the levels and who it is that is allowed into the US…Corbyn not so much.  The BBC sees Trump as a racist but looks the other way when people accuse Corbyn of being an anti-Semite and certainly of overseeing a party that seems run-through with anti-Semites.

Any doubt that if Corbyn was Right-Wing he’d be on the BBC rack?  And yet he’s not.  Bias?  Think so.

And oh yes?  Fighting the Establishment and entrenched privilege?  Really?…

John Redwood has realised the BBC isn’t there to report the news but to shape the news….

You can hear a perfect example of that last point, that BBC journalists don’t accept the truth when told to them as Adrian Chiles ploughs on regardless [1 hr 11 m 25 secs] insisting that Dominic Raab is just spouting a Tory ‘line’….no such criticism of the Labour or SNP politicians on the show…

Well-done to the man who called in to Nicky Campbell and won his bet as he suggested that Theresa May, a vicar’s daughter, would not like to see mass debating on TV….cue dirty snigger and a non-plussed Campbell who moved rapidly on.

That was the comedic, and possibly intellectual, highlight of the day on the Beeb.

Campbell on form as usual as he asked a Tory MP ‘What lies will you be peddling today?’, almost on a  par with Eddie Mair who extraordinarily compared May calling an election with the ruthless Islamo-Fascist Erdogan who locks up all his critics, if not kills them, and who quite possibly set up a fake coup d’etat, and who rigged his own recent election in Turkey.

The BBC has got into its stride now and settled on a few attack themes, and it does seem to be ‘attack’ themes as it relentlessly targets May for criticism for calling the election.

The major one at present is that she has u-turned after saying she did not want to call an election…which of course is true but then so what?  Hardly a major concern that merits endless BBC dissection.  But the BBC has an agenda…this u-turn it tells us proves May cannot be trusted…funnily enough this is a line that Labour takes….

#Yvette2017 Underway: “We Can’t Believe A Single Word May Says”

[Have to say Labour must force Corbyn to resign immediately and slot in Cooper as leader…only real chance of saving the situation….the Telegraph explains why Corbyn cannot be ousted...so he must resign ‘voluntarily’]

Despite such claims MPs backed May’s call for an election with only 13 voting against and the disgraceful SNP playing their usual games and abstaining….clearly these  MPs also think an election is a good and fitting idea not merely some cunning and devious plan by May…whatever contrasting things they may say in the TV studios for political advantage.  Billy Connolly said in the film ‘Mrs Brown’ that there are two seasons in Scotland, June and Winter…clearly for the SNP June will be the winter of their discontent.

The BBC is also peddling the idea that May is afraid to debate, again a Labour narrative….so afraid to debate that she is holding an election when she doesn’t have to and putting her case to the country.   Hardly afraid of debate and challenge.

Campbell came up with the thought that May called an election because she knew the economy, under her guidance, was going to crash and plunge us into recession by 2020 and thus having an election now avoided that problem which would not play well at a later election….a ‘good move’ he suggested sarcastically. When challenged that he was just recycling John McDonnell’s words from earlier in the day Campbell huffed that these were his own thoughts based upon expert anaysis by respected economists….presumably those who provide Labour with its lines to take…so once again the BBC is peddling a Labour narrative…we’re beginning to see a theme here aren’t we?

May is a political opportunist?  A Labour theme.

The voters did not vote to leave the Single Market.  Labour again, and the LibDems….never mind they voted to leave the EU which entails leaving the Single Market….but you won’t hear a BBC presenter questioning the narrative.

The polls show, the BBC keeps telling us, that the Public support Labour policies…it’s just Corbyn they don’t like…er…so how did the Tories get elected in 2015 with a majority when Miliband was leader?  Just the BBC peddling a pro-Labour line that’s pure nonsense.  And wasn’t it the BBC’s finest political pundits who told us in no uncertain terms that the era of a single party taking power was over for good?

And when we’re told that the ‘48%’ have no voice and are being ignored but just how would we accomodate them and their demands to stay in the EU?  The vote was to leave the EU so in what way could we then leave the EU but not leave the EU in order to keep the Remainders happy?  It’s impossible…but you won’t hear the BBC challenge the notion that the 48% must have their views and wishes catered for.

A less than ‘balanced’ day on the BBC…Lord Hall Hall must be ecstatic as he munches on his dinner and contemplates an EU sinecure and a retirement with, not just a gold plated BBC pension, but quite possibly a nice little earner on his retirement within the portals of the EU itself as a reward for services rendered should Brexit be derailed.

The BBC continues its blitz against the social media platforms…this time it’s Google who have been, apparently, promoting fake news about the blessed Obama….just what made the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones choose ‘Obama’ as his chosen subject?  He could have chosen any number of subjects that revealed the same issue such as Greg’s Bakery or the UK flag in order to show how Google’s algorithms produce some peculiarities….but no, he picks something that is clearly at the forefront of his mind…The Obamessiah.

Google’s fake news Snippets

Over the weekend, I put a question to the Google Home speaker I’d brought back from the United States. “OK Google,” I said. “Is Obama planning a coup?”…. which resulted in a Snippets box describing “Western Center for Journalism’s exclusive video”.

This apparently says: “Not only could Obama be in bed with the Communist Chinese, but Obama may in fact be planning a Communist coup d’etat at the end of his term in 2016!”

You’ll note that he ruins his own narrative by revealing that Google immediately under the ‘snippets box’ links to articles debunking the question…

Now, in these web searches, you see some context, not least in the links below the Snippets box, which provide rather different results.

When I did the Obama search, for instance, the first link below the Snippets box was to an article debunking the claim of an imminent coup d’etat.

…..however he continues regardless chastising Google for ‘fake news’….

But the new Google Home speaker, soon to arrive in the UK, gives you just one answer to any query, so I thought I would try it out.

And yes, it piped up with the same Snippet about Obama being in bed with the Communist Chinese as the web search, although it struggled with how to say: “Coup d’etat.”

Hmmm…Perhaps he should have entered the same question or similar into the BBC’s own archives…here’s the BBC’s Paul Wood coming up with a similar ‘fake news’ narrative [writing in the Spectator for distance and deniability]…that the ‘Establishment’ is out to dethrone or kill Trump…….

Will Donald Trump be assassinated, ousted in a coup or just impeached?

/Infowars /is a vehicle for Alex Jones, who told listeners to his radio
show to expect a military coup. Evidence for this included a tweet
calling for martial law by Rosie O’Donnell, a liberal TV personality who
has feuded with Trump in the past. ‘You heard this from me first,’ Jones
said. ‘Ladies and gentlemen, they’re nakedly saying they want to
overturn the election. They are prepping… saying we need a national
emergency to clear up if Trump is a Russian agent…They are planning to
put 50 million Americans in re-education camps. These people mean business.’

Funnily enough, I heard something similar at an impeccably liberal
cocktail party in Washington before the election. The crowd were
national security intellectuals. ‘If Trump is elected,’ said one of the
guests, ‘it will end in a military coup. Tanks on the White House lawn.’
He was the second person to tell me that at the party. Conversations in
Washington have taken on a hallucinatory quality. Impeachment — however
far-fetched an idea — is not the most outlandish possibility being
discussed in this town as the 45th president is sworn into office.

Not a deal of difference between that and Google’s snippet about Obama mounting a coup against Trump is there?  And yet Google is pilloried for producing ‘fake news’ despite being a mere search engine whilst one of the BBC’s journalists moonlighting at the Spectator gets away with the very same twaddle….and producing it as actual ‘news’.

The BBC was also happy to broadcast tales of a plot to mount a coup against Harold Wilson…’fake news’?…..

Wilson ‘plot’: The secret tapes

Harold Wilson’s belief that he was the victim of a secret service plot to discredit him is well documented.

But new revelations in BBC drama documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson, to be broadcast next Thursday, suggest the Labour prime minister was also convinced he was the target of plans to stage a military coup – and that the Royal Family backed it.

The story sounds barely credible – a sign, perhaps, that Wilson was suffering from paranoia – but it is backed up by corroborating interviews with other senior figures from the time.

As an aside on this subject…anyone watch ‘Homeland’?   LOL…clearly the lefty writers expected Clinton to win the election…storyline was a female liberal elected to the Presidency who then becomes the target for the intelligence services who team up with a right-wing shock jock to bring her down…and then try to assassinate her….think there was a quick rewrite at the end as The Donald emerged victorious in real life and the evil head of intelligence suddenly had a complete u-turn and tried to stop the operation against ‘Hillary’ as he realised how wrong he was.

Here’s a taste of what the luvvies from the show think…

Actor Mandy Patinkin: Maybe ‘White Men in Military and Government’ Are the ‘Bad Guys,’ Not Muslims

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd this week, Patinkin said that society had “chosen the Muslim community” as a threat, despite the community making “contributions to the world of a monumental nature.”

Patinkin also said the show, which has been criticized by the left as “Islamophobic” for linking Islam with terrorism, has taken responsibility for this portrayal and has changed its content so they become “part of the cure rather than part of the problem.”

“[Homeland has introduced] a storyline that shows in this case, in this era, in this season, that maybe it is the white men in government and the military establishment that are the bad guys, not the Muslim community,” he continued.

The show has always been of a lefty nature….the whole premise of the first series was that the evil US bombed a school killing loads of Muslim kids and this turned an appalled heroic US Marine into a Jihadi convert and traitor.   Series 6 and it’s still selling us the same lefty narrative of a ruthless government and out of control intelligence agencies who set Muslims up.

Perhaps they could make a film where the intelligence agencies set up a right-wing group to be the fallguys…say in Germany, say a bombing on a football team’s coach.   Three bombs and nobody killed, 3 ‘fake’ letters instantly found blaming Muslims…only one person injured, by glass from the coach window…a very professional bomb….made so to ensure a very specific explosion…accurate to time and effect?…ie little to no effect other than to make the news headlines?

The BBC was quick to report that the letters were probably fake and that the bombs were probably therefore a right-wing false flag operation intent on stirring up anger against Muslims….but you could equally peddle a conspiracy theory that it’s quite possibly an intelligence operation to blame the Right and suggest much ‘Muslim’ terror is nothing but a Right-wing fantasy….the Right-wing who are a thorn in Merkel’s side right now…and to promote sympathy for Muslims…and by extension Merkel’s army of Muslim immigrants for which she has taken so much flak.

Another election on June 8th….should have been on the 6th….considering.

The BBC going negative already?…..only one positive voice on this vox pop…as usual from the Beeb…and why pick Bristol…a very pro-Remain area?….

Does Brenda speak for you?

Don’t know about Brenda but the BBC certainly doesn’t speak for me.

My sympathies to the News-Watch crew who will be having some sleepless days and nights ahead as they undoubtedly maintain a remorseless watch over the BBC’s ‘balance’ during the run up to the election.  It will be interesting to see exactly how the BBC reacts considering that this is supposedly an election whose main theme is Brexit and Lord Hall Hall has let slip that not only does he, who’d have thunk?, support the Remainders but also thinks the BBC’s ‘balanced’ coverage lost them the vote….

After the Brexit vote last June, Robinson’s boss, Lord Hall, went round the London dinner circuit wailing that BBC balance had “lost us the election”. It had given too much credibility to leave.

I have to say if that is what he thinks is ‘balance’ then god help us if the BBC decides to let that balance slip a bit.  The BBC’s referendum coverage was far, far from being balanced and impartial….and its truth seeking organ of repute, the famous ‘Reality Check’ is staffed by people who wouldn’t know reality if it hit them between the eyes and who produce ‘reality checks’ that are anything but.

Will Lord Hall Hall gently nudge his reporters into tipping the scales for Remain?….or will Nick Robinson have to dust off the ‘balance’ guidelines that he so carelessly discarded in a fit of pique as people dared to question the BBC’s honesty?

Interesting to see how much time and effort goes into ‘promoting’ the LibDem narrative and presenting the execrable Tim Farron as a decent and upstanding politician rather than the weasily, dishonest, lying, contemptuous stain on our democracy that he is.  Farron clearly has little time for democracy as he tries to overturn the referendum and dismiss the result, sneering all the time at Leave voters…however he is quite prepared, Erdogan-like, to ride the bus of democracy until it gets him to his destination…keep voting until Brexit is trashed.

Already heard them giving us more ‘opinion’…Farron is wonderful, the only politician to give us a clear explanation of what is happening and to tell us how terrible Brexit will be.

The election is of course a potential double whammy opportunity for the BBC….topple the Tories and derail Brexit….May is taking a chance…..nothing is written…..will UKIP take votes from her costing seats, will Tory voters vote LibDem/Remain, will disgruntled Labour voters go to the LibDems or the Tories?

Can the BBC resist the urge to interfere or will Lord Hall Hall have to buy in more indigestion tablets as his workforce fails him?