Category Archives: BBC bias

Trump’s imposing tariffs on steel and the world implodes…we’re going to have a trade war and the wondrous globalisation enrichment programme will come to a shuddering halt….the BBC tells us. Trump is just so stupid and ignorant.  How soon they forget….

EU raises import duties on Chinese steel, angering Beijing

If a country dumped its excess steel at rock-bottom prices that is just the opposite of a tariff….it is ‘trade war’ by other means…it’s unfair competition…which is why tariffs are imposed…to produce a level playing field.  As we know the EU imposes tariffs on imports…unless you’re in the single market…remember that?  Curious the BBC/Remainers complain about Brexit and subsequent likely tariffs but don’t blame the EU for those tariffs…whilst they do blame the US for its tariffs.

Once again the BBC carefully selects who the ‘bad guys’ are…and is also pushing hard on the ‘poisonous food’ from America…#duetobrexit.  We will be importing food from America that is produced cheaply and in filthy conditions and the poor will be forced to eat it as they won’t be able to afford the wholesome, healthy and highly regulated food the EU produces.  Hmmm…so how do these ‘poor’ eat now then as we don’t import this cheap toxic beef and chicken from the US now?  Just how do Americans not die in their millions from all that rubbish they put in their mouths?  You’d have no idea that the US has strict food hygiene standards if you listen to the BBC….let’s not forget for 20 years British beef and lamb were banned from the US…and how many food scandals have we had across Europe in recent years?  Pot calling kettle black methinks.

Here’s the Guardian on the EU’s own chicken production standards….

If consumers knew how farmed chickens were raised, they might never eat their meat again

The year 2012 marked a leap forward for animal welfare in the European Union. Farmers were no longer allowed to keep egg-laying hens in barren battery cages smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Instead, the minimum requirement now is that hens are kept in a cage the size of an A4 sheet of paper, with an extra postcard-sized bit of shared space that allows them to scratch and nest. These are known as enriched cages.

Again…this is all hypocrisy…there’s a hue and cry about tariffs on steel but not on the blocking of the sale of products from part of the huge US food industry….a block which is largely political and economic not on health grounds….as proven with ‘chlorinated chickens’ which they EU knows have no health concerns…they are blocked as a protectionist measure for their own farmers.

Is the EU ban on safety or shutting out competition?

The ban is really just one more form of EU protectionism. EU chicken-producers don’t like US chicken because it retails for around 80 per cent the price of European chicken.

The European Food Safety Agency has passed chlorinated-washed chicken for safe consumption. As well, it might, given that it is quite happy for us to drink water which has been chlorinated in order to kill off microorganisms. At the levels used by US producers, the agency concluded, you would have to eat three whole chickens every day to risk exceeding safe limits. Even among regular consumers of US-produced chicken 99 per cent of the chlorine they ingest comes from drinking water rather than food.

The European food safety regulator EFSA looked at the issue of chlorine treatment and found “chemical substances in poultry are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers.”

In conclusion, the review did not identify any likely consumer risks that might arise from the use of ASC, chlorine dioxide or aqueous chlorine (including hypochlorite) when used as decontaminant washes of chicken meat. This also includes the view that there was no evidence that the use of these washes lead to the production of substances with the potential to cause cancer, particularly at the levels of use by the poultry industry. Accordingly there was no need to identify existing risk management options.

The BBC are still peddling that old lie about chlorinated chickens despite chlorine being in our tap-water and of course in swimming pools, ingested by the gallon by our kids.

There is also a lot of noise about hormones in US beef…but it has been shown that they are safe if handled correctly and the right dosage given to the animals…..the EU believes that high dosages will result in cancer and thus bans the import of meat produced in such a way….just in case mistakes happen….which is a bit like banning all cars from a country ‘just in case’ a dangerous fault is introduced due to a mistake at the factory….if that standard was applied to the EU’s own food production then we probably wouldn’t eat anything at all judging by all the past food scandals.

A European Commission directive banning the use of hormones in meat production was introduced in the 1980s. Imported meat from animals with detectable levels of hormonal residues was also banned.

The ban was introduced as evidence suggested oestrogenic hormones were carcinogenic at high levels. While animals given correct dosages were unlikely to have high levels, they could occur if there was misuse, such as tissue from an implantation site being sent for consumption.

But the EU was not just concerned about health – the ban was also based on consumer perception that using hormones to manipulate growth is unnatural, unnecessary and a risk to animal welfare.

In the US, where hormones are used, officials maintain there is no good evidence of any health risk from using hormones. The country has long-debated the issue with the EU as it claims the ban is against the spirit of free trade between countries.

Countries that use hormones can export meat to the EU from production facilites that don’t use hormones…thus we could still import cheaper meat from the US post Brexit hormone-free…

Overseas producers supplying the EU usually designate special production units where no hormonal growth promoters are used. The loss of extra productivity is balanced by the high prices received. However, it can still be argued that producers in these countries are at an advantage compared with EU producers because the bulk of their production benefits from greater overall efficiency and can ‘subsidise’ exports of meat from untreated animals.

Shame we never get the context just the anti-Brexit alarmism from the BBC.

‘Any Questions’ fielded the editor of the online ‘news site’ The Canary Kerry-Anne Mendoza without telling us it is essentially a mouthpiece for Corbyn…not a ‘news site’ at all is it?,  good of the BBC to give it a platform…though maybe not as what we got was childish, ignorant, partisan nonsense from the editor…a bit of insight into what you could expect from The Canary itself?

Interesting to hear Dimbleby describe the audience as ‘self-selecting’…always thought they were carefully and rigorously vetted and selected for impartiality and to provide a good balance that represented the full spectrum of political viewpoints from across the country….Dimbleby also suggested that most of the audience would like to eat less meat….is that because he ran a poll or because he knows most of them are lefty sandal-wearing veggies?  The latter I suspect.

Any instances of the BBC ‘self-selecting’ the news that suits it….list it all here….

Astonishing, our national broadcaster working hand-in-hand with the Russians to undermine, damage and impugn the credibility and standing of the Foriegn Secretary, Boris Johnson.

We heard today, on the BBC, that the Russians would actually welcome being blamed prematurely for the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter as they could use this to discredit later accusations.  The above video is one from RT and has been edited to, as best as possible, make it look like Boris was directly linking Russia to the poisoning.

For the last two days the BBC has been happy to oblige the Russians telling us that Boris did pretty well outright point the finger of blame at the Russians in his answer in the Commons.  This, the BBC told us, was highly reckless and irresponsible of Boris to do so without evidence….The Today show, the BBC’s flagship news programme and presumably staffed by veteran, experienced and intelligent people, also fed us this line.  What we have been told Boris said and what Boris actually said are two completely different things…the BBC has invented a narrative that is entirely fake about our Foriegn Secretary…the Russians must be delighted to have such useful idiots working for them in one of the world’s most powerful and influential news organisations.

As said, Boris said no such things [read his comments in Hansard] and was in fact very guarded in making any accusations..the BBC knows this because it reported it, whilst still making the accusation,  on the website….

The UK would respond “robustly” to any evidence of Russian involvement in the collapse of former spy Sergei Skripal, Boris Johnson has said.

Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, are critically ill in hospital after being found unconscious in Salisbury, Wiltshire.

The foreign secretary said he was not pointing fingers at this stage, but described Russia as “a malign and disruptive force”.

How curious that both R4 news and 5 Live didn’t seem to know that…was it incompetence or wilfully feeding us misinformation about Boris?

Boris has been under constant BBC attack for every comment he makes…this no doubt due to the fact he is a popular  political figure who is high profile in the Leave lobby and the BBC suspects to its horror, wants to be PM.

In contrast we have Amber Rudd, a hardcore Remainer, whom the BBC has been praising today for her moderation and unwillingness to blame Russia, the BBC delighting in quoting us this [linking it in contrast on the radio to Boris’ ‘reckless rhetoric’]…

Ms Rudd told MPs it was an “outrageous crime”, adding that the government would “act without hesitation as the facts become clearer”.

She refused to speculate on whether the Russian state might have been involved in the attack, saying the police investigation should be based on “facts, not rumour”.

Let’s have a look at what Boris said…it bares no resemblance to the impression you would have got had you been listening to BBC news on the radio for the last two days…Boris does not blame the Russians and says specifically it is too early to say who actually carried out the attack….most of his comments about Russia are in fact in relation to their other activities around the world…the BBC though makes a sly attempt to suggest Boris has linked Russia to the poisoning with this quote..’The foreign secretary said he was not pointing fingers at this stage, but described Russia as “a malign and disruptive force”.’

• Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards Russia.

    

• The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)

   

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for raising this important matter. Although he asks a general question about Russia, let me immediately say that there is much speculation about the disturbing incident in Salisbury, where a 66-year-old man, Sergei Skripal, and his 33-year-old daughter Yulia were found unconscious outside The Maltings shopping centre on Sunday afternoon. Police, together with partner agencies, are now investigating.

  Hon. Members will note the echoes of the death of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Although it would be wrong to prejudge the investigation, I can reassure the House that, should evidence emerge that implies state responsibility, Her Majesty’s Government will respond appropriately and robustly, although I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate that it would not be right for me to give further details of the investigation now, for fear of prejudicing the outcome.

  This House has profound differences with Russia, which I outlined in the clearest terms when I visited Moscow in December. By annexing Crimea in 2014, igniting the flames of conflict in eastern Ukraine and threatening western democracies, including by interfering in their elections, Russia has challenged the fundamental basis of international order.

  The United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has responded with strength and determination, first by taking unilateral measures after the death of Litvinenko, expelling four Russian diplomats in 2007 and suspending security co-operation between our respective agencies, and then by leading the EU’s response to the annexation of Crimea and the aggression in Ukraine by securing tough sanctions, co-ordinated with the United States and other allies, targeting Russian state-owned banks and defence companies, restricting the energy industry that serves as the central pillar of the Russian economy, and constraining the export of oil exploration and production equipment.

  Whenever those sanctions have come up for renewal, Britain has consistently argued for their extension, and we shall continue to do so until and unless the cause for them is removed. These measures have inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy. Indeed, they help to explain why it endured two years of recession in 2015 and 2016.

  As the House has heard repeatedly, the UK Government have been in the lead at the UN in holding the Russians to account for their support of the barbaric regime of Bashar al-Assad. The UK has been instrumental in supporting Montenegro’s accession to NATO and in helping that country to identify the perpetrators of the Russian-backed attempted coup. This country has exposed the Russian military as cyber-criminals in its attacks on Ukraine and elsewhere.​

  As I said, it is too early to speculate about the precise nature of the crime or attempted crime that took place in Salisbury on Sunday, but Members will have their suspicions. If those suspicions prove to be well founded, this Government will take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms. Though I am not now pointing fingers, because we cannot do so, I say to Governments around the world that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished. It may be that this country will continue to pay a price for our continued principles in standing up to Russia, but I hope that the Government will have the support of Members on both sides of the House in continuing to do so. We must await the outcome of the investigation, but in the meantime I should like to express my deep gratitude to the emergency services for the professionalism of their response to the incident in Salisbury.

   

The BBC claims the mention by Boris of Litvinenko is also a direct accusation by him…..and yet they fail to mention that Labour’s Emily Thornberry makes the same comment in the same session minutes later…

As the Secretary of State says, the incident has disturbing echoes of the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko 12 years ago, and it comes after the exposure last June by BuzzFeed News of the fact that, since 2012, 14 individuals considered hostile to the Putin regime have died in mysterious circumstances on British soil.

As usual with the BBC it is one rule for Boris, one rule for everyone else.  The BBC is definitely targeting Boris in an attempt to discredit him and no doubt with the hope that if they keep on portraying him as a disaster as Foreign Secretary May will one day be forced to sack him.

We don’t half get some rubbish from the BBC.

According to Nicky Campbell Putin’s speech the other day when he was boasting of Russia’s latest missile and its abilities was in fact part of a Trump/Putin conspiracy to boost American weapons sales…..the speech was ‘very profitable for the American arms industry’ Campbell whispered in such a way as to suggest a bit of Machiavellian connivance between the two old buddies.

And of course it wouldn’t be the BBC without trying to tie Brexit into the mix as it claimed our place in the world is so reduced #duetobrexit that we have no allies and no influence to stop Russia killing people on the streets of Britain ….this was again a narrative today…apparently we are so desperate for allies in a post-Brexit world that we will cosy up to any old tyrannical regime…such as Saudi Arabia….never mind we have been joined at the hip to them for decades…for weapons and oil and politics…and that Russia has been killing people on our streets long before Brexit…still, don’t let the facts get in the way of anti-Brexit propaganda on the BBC.

We also had Tony Livesey suggest that there is no such thing as British Values….just values that are universal and which are not the result of coming from a particular place.  Naturally he was talking to Jo Cox’s sister, Kim LeadBeater, who had been running round the country for the BBC asking people what they thought British values were and concluded….

For me one of the most heart-warming and inspirational conclusions that the kids came to was something I feel myself – that the things the lesson covered were not just British values – they were values that everyone should have, no matter where they live or come from.

“International values” as one child said or, as I like to think of them, ‘human values’.

Apparently primary school children’s views were more worthy and sensible than grumpy old people who griped miserably about the loss of values…

The kids also all agreed on one thing – most adults could benefit from the odd British values lesson!

It was interesting to see the differences between the three groups – to hear the disappointment there was in the older generation over the loss of values they held dear compared to the enthusiasm of the primary school children for being part of such a diverse class.

I suppose that’s why their parents fled to this country…for its lack of values…they didn’t come for the democracy, the tolerance, the freedom.

It is of course rubbish to suggest such things are not the product of a particular place, such as Britain.  Such values come from unique circumstances in combination with political, social, religious and economic situations allied to a mindset of the people…they do not spring forth fully formed around the world out of some hole in the earth.  There are indeed ‘British Values’ that are the result of hundreds of years of struggle, bloodshed and thought that produced the unique circumstances that bred those values.

The BBC once again tries to dismiss the importance of ‘Britain’ in its usual narrative of relativity, of a world where every culture is of equal value and no culture or society is better than any other.  Just not true.

The BBC constantly talks of an imminent election and Corbyn as the next Prime Minister, soon-to-be…no doubt the thinking is that if they keep the idea afloat and in peoples’ heads it will become reality.  Indeed Marr is at it just recently in the Spectator….funny how the BBC allows its staff to go off reservation to spread anti-Brexit propaganda so often….

There are two logical British positions. We mostly turn our backs on the EU way of doing things, and become a noticeably different country — less European, less regulated. That is where most Conservatives seem to be heading. Or we conclude that the economic risk is too big and stick close to the EU, ceding freedom to strike new trade deals in order to keep those nearer markets fully open. After his speech, that’s where Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour is going. What is being squeezed is the notion of a middle way — frictionless access to EU markets and maximum ability to diverge. I keep being told the EU will fold and give us this. Hooray if they did. But I see not a fragment of evidence for that. So it’s tough choices ahead; which will be resolved in the proper way — at a general election.

So not only are we due an election but it is one that can be used to reverse Brexit, in effect….the BBC once again trying to float the idea that there is still a choice on Brexit and that we can stay in the EU.

Two for one there for the BBC….a Corbyn PM and no Brexit…the corridors would be littered once again with champagne bottles.

The BBC once again sides with Corbyn and Iran as it attacks Saudi Arabia, once again.

The Today show had on Emily Thornberry today to give us her extensive thoughts on the tricky problem of Saudia Arabia…the BBC thinks we should stop selling weapons to Saudia Arabia because of the war in Yemen and has been campaigning for some time on this issue.  Thornberry also thinks that.  Corbyn also thinks that and is outraged at the human rights abuses that go on in Saudi Arabia.

Curiously the BBC never once asked Thornberry about Corbyn’s links to Iran which is arming and supporting the invasion of Yemen, without Iran the war might well be over.  Iran’s record on human rights, women’s included, is abysmal and yet no concern to Corbyn or the BBC despite of the infamous case of the BBC employee being held hostage there…along with many other BBC employees who seem totally forgotten by the BBC.

Remarkable that the BBC can report Corbyn’s ‘outrage’ on PMQs and yet fail to mention this bit of context from The Independent….

Why is Jeremy Corbyn so willing to overlook human rights abuses in Iran?

To be on the left and pro-Iran now is simply a test of anti-imperialist faith. What price is too high for the death of America? 

Enter Corbyn.

Or from The Times:

The women of Iran have a message for Corbyn

When the next election comes, when my pen is hovering in the ballot box, I know now that I will be thinking about where Jeremy Corbyn was on February 9, 2014. He was in north London celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Celebrating the moment in 1979 when Iranian women were forced out of government jobs, robbed of legal rights, compelled to ask their husbands’ permission to travel abroad. Women marching on the streets of Tehran were derided, beaten and stabbed as they begged men not to take their freedom — men like Jeremy Corbyn who were delightedly crowing that the Shah and western imperialism were overthrown.

How can the BBC possibly miss that vital bit of context that puts Corbyn’s ‘outrage’ into perspective….and the fact that Iran is in a war with Saudi Arabia…so Corbyn shilling for his ‘friend’, Iran, and doing so in the heart of British democracy, should merit some mention…no?

The BBC talks of the human rights abuses in Saudia Arabia, especially women’s, and yet can manage to avoid mentioning Islam completely.

Incredible how once again the BBC provides its audience with a mangled version of events that suits its own political outlook on the world.

When Toby Young was forced to quit hs position it was the talk  of the BBC, when Labour’s Munroe Bergdorf buggers orf it’s buried on the politics page and concentrates on his excuses whilst avoiding mentioning the actual comments that were so offensive such as hairy, barren lesbians and gay bashing.

Spot anymore BBC news censorship…list it all here….

The arrogance, the massive sense of entitlement, the hubris, the total lack of self-awareness…yes, Lord Hall Hall is back on the airwaves broadcasting his subversive messages to Britain.  Next Wednesday, according to the Sunday Times, Lord Hall Hall will give a speech that targets tech giants such as Google, Facebook Amazon and Twitter, portraying them as threats to our social cohesion, identity and democracy….apparently they are ‘stoking  social unease and division….distorting our view of one another, allowing us to live in imagined communities where we only engage with those who share our views’  He tells us that British Public Service broadcasters face a ‘David and Goliath’ battle which ‘we must win because our values matter more than ever.’  The BBC ‘represents a set of democratic ideals that matters greatly to our country: giving a voice to the voiceless, pursuing the truth without fear or favour.’

You just couldn’t make that up could you?  Lord Hall Hall has absolutely no idea of the damage the BBC has done to Britain and the entrenched, privileged, elitist world that he and the BBC represents.

First of course he has gone way outside his remit to attack these companies, just as the BBC did as it lobbied Leveson trying to close down Murdoch, in what is clearly a naked attempt to prop up the BBC’s massively privileged, government legislated and protected, dominant position.  The BBC seems to think that not only should it be allowed to force people to become its customers under threat of legal sanction but that Government should also protect it by stamping on the commercial companies that are rivals to the BBC, thus ensuring the BBC retains market share, not by its own brilliance but by Government edict.

Everything Lord Hall Hall complains of are in fact exactly the accusations that can be made against the BBC.

When he says this…‘stoking  social unease and division….distorting our view of one another, allowing us to live in imagined communities where we only engage with those who share our views’  you only have to think how the BBC has done everything it can to destroy British identity and sense of nation as it tells us we are a ‘nation of immigrants’ and that no one has a right to call themselves ‘British’ anymore than someone just off the plane from Somalia or Afghanistan.  The BBC that supports the EU’s free movement which is clearly an attempt to subvert the nation state, a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in effect, ‘diluting’ and breeding out the natives, as was Labour’s own stealth policy of mass immigration that was intended to ‘brown Britain’ and to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’…the BBC never challenging that nor mentioning the bombshell revelations by Labour’s Andrew Neather that this was a secret plot by Blair to change the face and identity of Britain.  The BBC that mocks and derides Christianity but supports the backward and unpleasant Islamic religion.  Just how that reflects BBC values I’m unsure….are they misogynist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, homophobic, willing to use violence to spread their values, ready to kill those who fail to meet the required standard?  The BBC that champions the highly controversial, and failed, policy of multi-culturalism.  Is this the same BBC that now says the tech giants are the ones who are socially devisive?  I might suggest it is the BBC that is the one stoking social and racial division to a massive extent as it also promotes growing Black racism and racial apartheid in Britain and abroad…quite possibly being one of the instigators of the Black assassinations of police officers in America in response to false reports from the likes of the BBC that white police officers were deliberately killing Blacks…just not true.  The BBC is tasked with maintaining ‘civil society and sustaining citizenship’  but instead it spreads racism, grievance politics, fear and anger…its work divides British society and incites violence, riots and terrorism.

As for being a promoter and defender of Democracy and a voice for the voiceless…the BBC that silenced, and still tries to, the voices that question the holy grail of the liberal elite…open borders, the BBC that labelled such voices as fascist, Far-Right and Nazi, not forgetting ‘populist’.  The BBC that is even now trying to help subvert the democratic vote for Brexit and supports the unelected Eurocrats who want to crush the democratic voices and the nation state.  The BBC that works relentlessly against any Tory government whilst being prepared to prop up any Labour candidate for No10 even if a liar, a terrorist [I make no distinction between those who cheerlead for the terrorists and those who use the bombs and bullets], a misogynist, someone who does little to stamp out rising anti-Semitism in the Party and who has dumped all his previous conviction politics in order to win an election.  A man who is a clear and present danger to this nations democracy, security, culture and economy…and yet the BBC cheerleads for him.

I fail to see how the BBC in any shape or form ‘represents a set of democratic ideals that matters greatly to our country: giving a voice to the voiceless, pursuing the truth without fear or favour.’

The BBC is the biggest danger to our society, culture and democracy, bigger even than Corbyn, who will come and go, the BBC goes on for ever it would seem and seems inclined to do everything it can to bring about the downfall of Western Civilisation.

.

Mrs May does a speech about what we can  expect from Brexit on Friday and it’s ‘hard facts for both sides’ says the BBC.  Hmmm…just plain common sense and a realistic view of what the outcome of negotiations might be?  Yeahhh…and anyone with an ounce of common sense and no axe to grind could have told the BBC that a year ago.  Which raises the question as to why the BBC for the last year  has  been giving us a very one-sided and alarmist view of what is happening, not only giving us the Brussels view as the ‘gold standard’ that Britain must aspire to reach but painted an extremely negative view of the British position, expectations and hopes…one example is the EU’s constant mocking of British negotiations as ‘cherry-picking’ not to mention the sneering ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’….both of which the BBC adopted as their starting point when discussing the British approach…which the BBC portrayed as chaotic, weak and wildly over-expectant.   The BBC seemed to prefer we just rolled over and accepted whatever the EU could dream up to humiliate us.  Perhaps if the BBC spent less time pandering to EU fanatical Remainders and spreading EU propaganda we could have had a realistic view of Brexit from the start from our national broadcaster which would have allowed May to establish her position months ago, rein in the Remainder pro-EU ‘stay-behind’ subversives and present a united, strong and coherent position in negotiations…instead of which the BBC has constantly fed the Remainder’s dream of a second referendum and the reversal of Brexit which has also given the EU the idea that this might happen and therefore they do not need to negotiate seriously.   Thanks BBC for the backstabbing.

Spot anymore BBC backstabbing?…list it here…

Just listening to Blue Peter’s Radzi Chinyanganya [described as TV presenter…not ‘BBC’] on Question Time…a bit of a Corbyn fan-boy….Guido asks…

How does this work then? The Question Time panel tonight includes Blue Peter presenter Radzi Chinyanganya, who is bound by the BBC’s strict impartiality rules. Question Time is a political opinions show. Radzi won’t be able to give any political opinions. Not sure they thought this through…

Yeah right…I think they have thought it through as the radical Radzi tells us Corbyn has dealt with the criticisms with…

‘honour ,dignity and nobility…that’s real leadership’

Aiming for the youth vote?  By the time the election comes all those Blue Peter viewers may be able to vote.  As for Corbyn’s honourable and noble reaction….whitewash springs to mind as well as sinister threats to silence the Press…never mind his little problems with Jews and women, his endless lies and his cosying up to terrorists and collaboration with the EU to sell out Britain and Northern Ireland….forget possible past betrayals just watch what Agent Cob does now…not on the BBC of course!