BBC Queshen Time…

was presented by FioBru to an audience which seemed to be a fair mix of left and right, Brexiteers and Remoaners and the sane and insane. The panel was of course unbalanced in favour of lefty Remoaner lunacy, though a bit less unbalanced than usual.

I will think of it as Queshen Time until such time as Fiona Bruce manages to say the word properly more than twice during the show – usually at the beginning and end. And for me she will be FioBru until then because I’m sure that is what I’ll hear if she ever tries to pronounce her name on the show.

Here are some queshens, um, sorry, questions: does FioBru talk like this because she exists in a soapy ‘liberal’-left bubble and it’s hard to talk clearly through it? Or does she race through sentences cheerfully skipping syllables (and sometimes entire words) because the panelists must be encouraged to spout fountains of lefty indoctrination and the hour passes so quickly? Or is it perhaps a bit of both?

I want to be fair and so I will not claim that FioBru frequently interrupted Melanie Phillips and the Iraqi Tory guy because they are not lefties and let the race-baiting Greer woman talk because she is one. It was probably because Phillips and the Tory are both quite verbose while Greer is more succinct. And it needs to be pointed out that FioBru also interrupted that verbose Labour Comrade as she insisted that her Party was a thing of wonder and beauty. It’s quite rare of course for a BBC personage to turn on her own, but it does happen. I recall that Dimbleby was quite tough at times with devotees of Comrade Corbyn.

Now I would like to see Queshen Time transform itself into a show that accurately reflects the attitudes and concerns of the majority of British people during these troubled times. I’d like to see an EU dictator or two sharing a panel with Farage and another Brexiteer and perhaps Julia Hartley-Brewer, with an audience tilted towards leaving with no deal. The EU dictators would at last be grilled during a BBC show about their arrogance and intent to destroy the sovereignty of member states.

But I realise that is as unlikely as FioBru learning how to enunciate the English language.

Bravery, Beauty and the BBC

Here’s a happy and positive letter from unjustly-imprisoned Tommy Robinson. A short time ago he was finally given his mail after it was withheld from him out of spite by the employees of the police state. He’ll be out in three weeks.

I doubt that BBC corridors will then be strewn with empty champagne bottles. I cannot find the audio of Jane Garvey’s inadvertent admission of BBC lefty bias, but here’s the transcript:

Ah, well – I had been up for most of the night but I was doing this Five Live breakfast programme with our colleague at the time – it was a bloke called Peter Allen so – I had to get a bit of sleep, and I do remember I walked back into – we were broadcasting then from Broadcasting House in the centre of London – all very upmarket in those days – and the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles – I will always remember that (Allen laughs) – er – not that the BBC were celebrating in any way shape or form (Allen, laughing – ‘no, no, no, not at all’) – and actually – I think it’s fair to say that in the intervening years the BBC, if it was ever in love with Labour has probably fallen out of love with Labour, or learned to fall back in, or basically just learned to be in the middle somewhere which is how it should be – um – but there was always this suggestion that the BBC was full of pinkoes who couldn’t wait for Labour to get back into power – that may have been the case, who knows ? but as I say I think there’ve been a few problems along the way – wish I hadn’t started this now…

The most-trusted broadcaster is surely gloating over Tommy’s troubles, in common with so many on the worldwide left. Re the latter, just when you think they can’t sink any lower they prove they can by not only denying Miss Nevada State her rightful place in the 2019 Miss America pageant over her support for Trump, but by stripping her of the Nevada title.

The beautiful Katie Williams, ex-combat vet, explains what happened in this video.

Googling Katie Williams Nevada State title stripped BBC produces no BBC results on the first few pages and by then the results are already irrelevant.
But I learned that another contestant, Kathy Zhu, was stripped of her Miss Michigan title for refusing to try on a hijab last year at the University of Michigan. And, shock, horror, she is also a Trump supporter and a committed opponent of the hypocritical idiocy of the left.

So to sum up, political prisoner and journalist Tommy Robinson still has the boot of the police state on his neck – though the pressure has been eased, most probably because of worldwide public shaming of the police state by Ezra Levant and several other Tommy supporters.

And the BBC, rather than campaigning on behalf of this courageous, maltreated fellow journalist, campaigned against him and then slunk away in silence when its propaganda, bigotry and cowardice were brilliantly exposed by the very same journalist.

And the BBC, though filled to the brim with outspoken, campaigning feminists, apparently has no interest in the injustice meted out to US beauty pageant winners stripped of their titles because of their political beliefs.

The left used to be regarded as liberal, but not anymore, at least among people who can think for themselves. Here the eminent Dennis Prager talks about the stark differences between liberal and left.

The lefty BBC likes to think of itself as liberal. That would have a funny side to it were it not for the tremendous harm that the BBC has done and continues to do with its worldwide propagandist reach.

The Arab Spring was not a gently-unfolding bud …

Update 1, August 10:

I stumbled upon a comment I made on another blog back on September 1st, 2012, which included Humphrys’ interview with Hague, probably at the end of August. I see I was wrong about Humphrys being upset about actual attacks by Israel on Iran; his complaint was that Israel was thinking about attacking Iran:

Humphrys ranted at William Hague like a juvenile delinquent denied his father’s car keys over Hague’s inability to commit the UK to an attack on Syria’s Assad along with his inability to denounce Israel for considering an attack on Iran.

It’s hard to believe that 7 years have since elapsed.

Original Post:

… but a coiled spring stretched to breaking point and then unleashed.

The Syrian ‘Arab Spring’ began in January 2011. So it must have been sometime between then and July 2014 that John Humphrys interviewed William Hague, Foreign Secretary at the time, on the springy question. I listened to that interview on the World Service. Humphrys was getting really hot under the collar. He was trying to push Hague to commit to Britain going in to topple Bashar al-Assad. (That would be quite a long way down since Assad is such a beanpole.)

Hague was being distinctly uncooperative, though quite polite about it. In the very same interview, Humphrys pushed Hague to condemn Israel for its attacks against Iran. I forget which ones, but I recall that Hague was having none of that either. I was amazed that Humphrys could insist on an attack by one country on another and then almost in the same breath condemn it because different countries were being discussed. In hindsight, it wasn’t that surprising since the BBC will always side with Israel’s enemies.

But Assad himself is a bitter and implacable enemy of Israel, so why would the BBC be so keen on his downfall? Here are some possible reasons:

*The BBC saw the Arab Spring through its romantic, rose-tinted lens: it emerged like a gently unfolding bud in danger of being crushed by the boot of the state. The budding revolutionaries were engaged in a noble, just struggle against overwhelming odds and it was to Britain’s eternal shame that it would not assist them.

*BBC hacks were looking forward to strutting around in Arab-Spring T-shirts. Ideally the design would be an Arafat lookalike with the typical chequered dishcloth around his head and clutching a rifle with ‘Arab Spring’ prominent in Arabic so the hacks could say, “Look, I speak the language!” This would not work as the revolution was turning into a chaotic, violence-ridden failure with various factions slaughtering one another with extraordinary brutality, with the state at the top of the heap.

*The Syrian Spring was probably started by the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a long history of strife between them and the Assad clan. They slaughtered scores of army recruits and tried to assassinate Bashar’s father, Hafez. He responded by ordering the army to surround the town of Hama, where they were based, and kill everyone in the town. The BBC is very fond of the Muslim Brotherhood, supported them against Mubarak and has nothing but love and admiration for Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood.

This impartial, most-trusted broadcaster will always filter its ‘news’ and ‘interviews’ through its prejudices.

BBC slips up, but bounces back

Update 1, July 28:

I forgot about Republican Louie Gohmert. Here he is bashing Mueller

Original post:

I watched the recording of most of Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress. Not all of it, because I began to skip the Democrats’ questions as they made their loathing for President Donald J. Trump clear, at times referring to him as “Trump.”

Then I had a look at BBC coverage, fully expecting the bias to jump out at me, especially when the name Anthony Zurcher appeared at the top of the first Google result. It didn’t. It was so factual and balanced I nearly fell off my chair. Zurcher even included a few lines on the damning indictment of Mueller’s report by Republican John Ratcliffe who objected to his conclusion that he could not exonerate the president on the charge of obstruction of justice:

John Ratcliffe: … Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

Robert Mueller: I cannot, but this is a unique situation …

John Ratcliffe: You can’t. Time is short, I’ve got five minutes, let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because, I will tell you why, it doesn’t exist. The Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, not in the justice manual and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully Director, it was not the Special Counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, Director, the Special Counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the department policies and you used it to write a report and the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, this authorises the Special Counsel to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel. That’s the very first word of your report, right?

Robert Mueller: Right.

John Ratcliff: That’s correct. Here’s the problem, Director. The Special Counsel didn’t do that. On volume one you did, on volume two, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning and in your report that you made no determinations so, respectfully, Director, you didn’t follow the Special Counsel’s regulations. It clearly says, write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say, write a report about decisions that weren’t reached. You wrote a hundred-and-eighty pages – a hundred-and-eighty pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully, by doing that you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions of prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.

So Americans need to know this as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from this report that volume two of this report was not authorised under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the justice department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary.

I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law which is where volume two of this report puts him.

However, the BBC never disappoints, and the bias was evident in a report titled Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress.

The opening sentences take a predictable dig at the President:

US President Donald Trump’s claim that he was “totally exonerated” by special counsel Robert Mueller was rejected by Mr Mueller in a hearing on Wednesday.

Mr Mueller said he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.

Only then do we get a grudging admission that Mueller did not establish collusion between Trump and the Russians. I suppose an ‘editor’ read the report by Anthony Zurcher after it was published and decided to do some damage control. After all, only in its worst nightmares would the BBC want to be regarded as being fair to Donald Trump.

If hacks from the BBC see this post, they might like to be educated on the outrage from some Republicans over the witch hunt against the president, as expressed during several hours of questioning of Mueller on Wednesday. OK, it’s highly unlikely but hope springs eternal in the human breast:

Jim Jordan

Matt Gaetz

Ken Buck

Guy Reschenthaler

Ben Cline

And here’s Devin Nunes:

Welcome everybody to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

Trump to fight Social Media

This is not strictly to do with the BBC, but there is a strong connection between that most-trusted broadcaster and the Farcebookers, Twattterati, YouFlubbers and others. They all seem intent on destroying the good in Western society and beyond and elevating the bad. They just go about it in more or less extreme ways and with varied degrees of deceit and subterfuge.

The eminent Donald J Trump hosted a group of conservative media personalities last Thursday. Diamond and Silk were there, reminding me of that glorious day in Congress when they fought back, without being intimidated, against mainly-black Democrats who were trying their dirty ‘Democratic’ tricks to discredit them.

Trump invited the two big black women onto the stage, called them “beautiful” and hugged and kissed them. Perhaps that will give the lefty media pause next time they insist that he is a ‘racist’ and a ‘misogynist’ but I doubt they can find the pause button when it comes to insulting the president, even when he isn’t their president. Does the BBC’s Anthony Zurcher even have a pause button when it comes to vilifying Trump?

He was on top form, joking with the audience and proving how quick-thinking he is when he brushed off a fly and then asked how a fly got into the White House.

Here he discusses the fact that people who want to join him on Social Media are blocked.

Here he invites a leading First Amendment lawyer up to speak about the deplatforming and harassment of political opponents so rife in Social Media.

The most important thing to be gleaned from the event is this: he intends to step up the fight against the Social Media censors and propagandists, and when Donald J Trump says he is going to do something ….

It’s unclear exactly how he intends to do this, but I think that is just Trump keeping his powder dry till the right time.

The event is on YouFlub, paradoxically, and it doesn’t look like it’s been restricted in any way so we are not quite in dire straits yet.

Panorama – is Labour anti-Semitic

Update 1, July 14:

Thought I’d add a link to Panodrama. For a month YouTube resisted pressure to censor it, but then party succumbed and shackled it rather than removing it totally. By then Tommy Robinson’s powerful blow to the BBC had received about 1 500 000 views, evidence of which was flushed down the cyberspace toilet along with tens of thousands of likes and comments.

A YouTube search for Panodrama takes one directly to the stripped and shackled video, which now stands alone without the customary sidebar of suggested videos. And there is the following caution with an option to continue or cancel:

The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

That’s a touch inaccurate. If it was identified at all, it was identified by the individual who cowed Farcebook (not a typo) into immediately deleting Tommy’s account and undertook to work on other social media until Panodrama would no longer encumber the Internet with its inconvenient and disturbing truths.

So I suppose we should be thankful to YouTube for not bowing in complete submission to those who are uncomfortable with Tommy Robinson’s honesty and courage.

Update 2, July 14:

Here’s Howard Jacobson laying into Corbyn with incisive wit during an Intelligence Squared debate on whether he is unfit to be Prime Minister.

Original post:

Right after Tommy Robinson’s brilliant Panodrama sting on the BBC, it tried damage control and solemnly declared that its Panorama on him, provisionally titled Tommy Takedown, would be broadcast. Well, almost five months later we’re still waiting in breathless anticipation for the promised revelation from this cherished example of BBC investigative journalism.

So I can’t help wondering whether the BBC approached John Ware in desperation to salvage what’s left of its reputation with a hard-hitting investigation of Labour anti-Semitism. John Ware is one of perhaps three fine political journalists at the BBC. Another is Andrew Neil. I can’t think of a third, but perhaps my esteemed colleagues here can help. (Just recalled Tim Sebastian, who did Hardtalk – but I think he left the BBC: can’t be room for more than two who actually do their job at this alleged news organisation.)

Going back quite a bit, John Ware reported on Raed Salah, an Israeli-Arab radical Islamist and anti-Semite at the time that he was appealing his deportation from Britain

In this connection, John Ware shows a clip of Salah and Jeremy Corbyn campaigning for him to be allowed into Britain.

Here’s a description of the reaction from Seamus Milne, a seriously senior Labour comrade, to the suggestion that Corbyn give a speech acknowledging Israel’s right to exist: he laughed.

Comrade Milne has a rabble rousing history, rousing the rabble to hate Israel. So in a way I understand why he would be amused at the idea of Comrade Corbyn defending Israel’s right to exist.

And here’s Corbyn himself with a vile conspiracy theory about Israel on Iranian state TV, no less.

Why then, I wonder, did the indefatigable Ware not delve more into the abundant evidence of Corbyn’s close association with anti-Semitic Islamic terrorists? And why did he not focus more on actual examples of Labour anti-Semitism, as described at length in passionate speeches in parliament by Ruth Smeeth and Luciana Berger?

And why are the main concrete examples of anti-Semitism from Ken Livingstone and an ex-party member who is a white woman and Jackie Walker, a black woman? With the tidal wave of anti-Semitism that has engulfed Labour since Corbyn, an ardent supporter of Islamic terrorists, came to power, is it really not possible to find evidence that Islam is behind much of the hatred?

I have no doubt that John Ware is troubled by the Islamic invasion of Britain and its grim consequences, not least for British Jews. So I suppose either he pulled his punches, knowing the ‘editors’ at the BBC would not accept Muslims being blamed for Labour anti-Semitism, or he punched hard but the BBC edited the punches out anyway.

Still, it was an honest and successful attempt to expose Labour anti-Semitism along with the leadership’s denial of the extent of the virus. Now what really needs to be exposed and discussed is the extent of the unholy alliance between the far-left and radical Islam – of which Labour is such a fine example – and the danger it poses to the UK and beyond.

Alphabet Soup

– A Brexit Corbyn Dilemma and now A Boris Conservative Dilemma – by Up2snuff

Some time back I was going to write a follow-up to my previous header piece on the obvious post-Easter Recess problem facing Corbyn. He really needed to sabotage the Brexit talks with the Conservative leadership – the talks that he had so publically longed to be part of – because he also needed to see the Conservative Government having to lead the UK into the EU Elections. It was so obvious.

Except to the BBC. They had failed to spot it even two weeks after the talks reconvened. Corbyn badly needed an excuse to pull out and leave the Tories totally ‘at fault’ and vulnerable to an electoral hit but it was obvious that Starmer and May and others involved were not going to provide the excuse, judging by the post-meeting briefings.

That is all history now. As we know, the Conservatives took a real caning from the Electorate in those EU Elections. Labour also took a bit of a spanking but have now managed to make matters worse for themselves with the Alastair Campbell expulsion. They have a new distraction: A Botched Campbell Distraction.

Now the Parliamentary Conservative MPs have a tactical dilemma of their own. The BBC have been assisting with the AbBaCc campaign: ‘Anyone but Boris as Conservative chief’, promoting news of Bojo’s Court appearance, lots of anti-No-Deal-Brexit PR with the Chancellor and pushing Rory Stewart & Esther McVey at us at every opportunity. The Tory MPs, a likely majority of them Remainers, may well now be horribly torn. They really need someone like Bojo in charge to help restore their electoral chances. But once elected, he could be unpredictable.

They know what Bojo is like. Will he sink Brexit for them as the PM has so successfully done? Or will he sabotage a renegotiated Withdrawal Agreement process, if any is offered, or any delay to or cancellation of our leaving the EU? Will he deliberately go for a No-Deal-Brexit or bring it to pass by accident, by Boris ‘bumble and fumble’?

Is Boris Johnson now no longer any shade of Remain remaining. Is he A Brexiteer Confirmed, Definitely, Expressly and Fully?

What they do probably know, or should if they do not, is that Bojo is popular among grass root Conservatives and also among the electorate. Not only that, but the LibbyLeft, Labour and the HardLeft are terrified of facing Boris Johnson at the polls. The dilemma baton has been passed in this peculiar relay from Labour HQ to the Conservative Party Central Office where it will now be stirring their own Alphabet Soup cauldron.

As Fedup2 might say: “No soup, thanks. Pass the popcorn instead, please.”

No shame for Tommy Robinson

As far as I can tell, the BBC is not expressing much glee over Tommy Robinson’s failure to become an MEP. It seems to be leaving that up to like-minded ‘journalists’ at the Guardian and the Independent.

Guardian and Independent of what, one might ask.

As I surfed for UK results of the EU elections, the BBC informed me that the UK European Union Party got 33 576 votes, the Animal Welfare Party got 25 232, the Women’s Equality Party got 23 766, the Independent Network got 7 641 and the Socialist Party of Great Britain got 3 505 votes. All of them were trounced by Tommy Robinson with 38 908 votes.

Then I saw that Independents got a total of 80 280 votes. The BBC offered no breakdown of these votes so I turned to the excellent coverage by Wikipedia to see if Tommy had any close competitors among them:

East Midlands

East of England


North East

North West

Northern Ireland


South East

South West


West Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber

He didn’t. In fact, his closest competitor was an Independent in Scotland with 6 128 votes and all of the 11 Independents who stood in London only managed to share just over 7 000 votes.

No shame for Tommy Robinson. In fact, those who strive to bring him down, including that most-trusted broadcaster, are the ones who should be ashamed.

A questionable time was had by all

Many have seen the powerful indictment of the establishment by the lady in red on Question Time and noted how Fiona Bruce moved on to another question without responding. Still she let her speak for some time about the disgusting attack by the ‘Asian’ gang on Tommy Robinson’s rally with police connivance. I guess we should be grateful that the BBC doesn’t edit comments like hers out of QT. But I won’t say that too loud.

There was a bunch of notable comments against government deception and failure here – concluding with a passionate denunciation of Cameron by the guy in the blue jacket.

There was a weird reaction from Fiona Bruce to this pertinent question:

Can the European elections today be seen as the referendum on Brexit?

She sighs in response before turning to a panel member. Perhaps the sigh shows her weariness with a question she’s heard a lot lately. Perhaps it also shows her feelings about the likelihood of The Brexit Party demolishing the government and the opposition.

As usual it was a Remoaner or Brexit-in-name-only panel on the impartial and most-trusted broadcaster, but many in the audience supported a genuine Brexit. I imagine that was a small concession to balance during the elections.

“Let’s not overstate it,” says Jo Coburn…

…when a guest gets enthusiastic about the rallies for the Brexit Party.

That’s at 0:40 minutes in on this clip on Politics Live, uploaded to YouTube by the eminent True Brit.

That made me curious about the lone voice of sanity on the panel. He is Tom Harwood, award-winning journalist and commentator, who writes for Guido Fawkes.

Then I checked his opposition out:

*Sam Gyimah, Conservative MP and a Remainer.

*Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP. Here’s a tweet from her:

Today is #EuropeDay. A day when we celebrate our continent in all its richness and diversity And when we celebrate the European Union which is, at its heart, a project of peace and unity …

(That made me feel quite ill.)

*Grace Blakeley, journalist and economist. Here’s a tweet from her:

A Green New Deal isn’t enough – we need a Global Green New Deal And that means we need new international institutions built on genuine solidarity, not the imperialist faux-internationalism of the ‘liberal rules-based order’…

(Somebody pass me a bucket.)

Tom Harwood continues enthusiastically, and when he says, “I’m staggered, really, as someone who isn’t naturally predisposed to the cheerleading for Nigel Farage…” he’s interrupted by one among the female opposition, with, “You’re predisposed to it now.”

It’s so typical of the left to make snide comments when they don’t have a valid response to a valid point – which is most of the time.

At this stage the Peterborough rally is being shown.

When Tom Harwood encourages everyone to look at Margaret Thatcher’s rallies in 1953, at 1:40 in, there is a gasp of astonishment, followed by, “Oh my God,” and then Jo Coburn asks Glace Blakely whether she will be looking at clips of Margaret Thatcher. The question is no doubt flippant and the answer is naturally in the negative.

Grace Blakely then makes it clear that she believes there will be a rise in popularity of the Brexit Party, but only because of its “populism,” in the absence of policies.

Then Molly Scott asks Tom Harwood what the Brexit Party can offer, “other than being angry,” demonstrating, for the nth time, the left’s inability to debate in a civil fashion.

Tom responds politely, but of course his support of the Brexit Party is dismissed by Grace who believes it is “far right,” Molly by pouring vitriol on its Italian equivalent, a smiling Sam Gyimah with his assertion that any other politician could arise and also “muster huge audiences” and by Jo, who feels obliged to add her opinion by pointing out that Jeremy Corbyn “also did that.” (Not sure what kind of support Corbyn could currently rally.)

Meanwhile, someone named ‘Vera’ has been trying to interject, with Jo asking her to hold on. Finally Vera appears on a screen from an outside feed to proclaim that the ‘people’s vote’ rally attracted over a million supporters (which Tom then disputes) and goes on to fiddle with other stats to try to diminish Brexit.

I’m not sure who Vera is or why her opinion should matter, but by my count that makes it 5 blinkered Remainers to 1 Brexiteer, since Jo Coburn, representative of that most-trusted and impartial broadcaster, must surely have nightmares at the prospect of the EU being undermined by Brexit.

The clip only lasts 6:22 minutes. Yet it’s bursting with enough anti-Brexit bias to make any reasonable person turn away in disgust before the end. So here’s a question, esteemed colleagues: what on earth can be done to oblige the BBC to represent all shades of opinion on all subjects in a fair and responsible manner?