MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.

Meant to ask you if by chance you saw “Question Time” last night? We had the predictable LOADING of the panel with Douglas Alexander (Left) Sarah Teather (Even more Left) Clare Short ( Very Left) Rod Liddle (Left but sensible on some things) and … yes, the sopping wet as a lettuce Conservative MP Theresa May. Isn’t it amazing how at some point in virtually every edition of QT some lunatic from the audience gets the chance to shout out about the wrongness of the Iraqi war and as in last nights case about the nasty American’s evil desire for oil that prompted the invasion? Where DO they get these identikit moonbats? Has there ever been a QT audience that was reflective of British society and if not, why not?

Some years ago, I was in the QT audience in Belfast, at that time I was representative of the 50% or so of unionists that opposed doing any deal with the IRA. Out of the 100 or so people in the audience, there were three others that shared my view. 97 supported the government driven Belfast Agreement agenda. In what WAY was that programme giving a balanced view of political opinion? Even if one considers that just under 30% of the people in NI voted against the deal, that audience should statistically have had around 29 other people who more or less took the line I put across. It didn’t and they don’t, do they? This is symptomatic of how editorial bias works and shows just how pernicious it is in creating faux impressions of what the British people think.

Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.

  1. Hillhunt says:

    Mr Vance:

    at that time I was representative of the 50% or so of unionists that opposed doing any deal with the IRA. Out of the 100 or so people in the audience, there were three others that shared my view.

    Is it not the case that the UK Unionists, the party to which you were closely allied, achieved a miserable 1.5% at the last Assembly elections?

    If there were truly 4 people in that QT who backed your view, this sounds suspiciously like audience-rigging in your favour.

    Do you want to complain to QT? Or shall I?
    .

       0 likes

  2. Martin says:

    The reason the BBC added the extra slot was to always ensure a left wing bias.

    I can’t think of any QT panel where 3 guests might be considered “right wing”

       0 likes

  3. gunnar says:

    David,

    Could you please define what you mean by “left” and “right”?

       0 likes

  4. Pete says:

    Question Time is OK for dullards, but why should I be forced to pay for it just because I want to watch football on Sky TV?

       0 likes

  5. Zevilyn says:

    Liddle talked alot of sense, and Clare Short, to her credit, was honest about immigration.

    On immigration, there is no policy difference between Labour and the Tories despite what they claim.

       0 likes

  6. Atlas shrugged says:

    gunnar

    Would it not be a wonderful thing if we all had a singular understanding of what the terms left and right actually mean?

    We don’t however, because the terms are now, and most likely always have been, utter nonsensical bullshit.

    Conservatives consider all forms of Fascisms as extreme left wing. Where as a majority of socialists consider all forms of Fascism as extreme right wing.

    This largely establishment inspired confusion gos to the very heart of our problem.

    Fascism is a form of socialism where government secretly or otherwise conspires with corporate national and multi national big business to monopolize the means of production by destroying competition in an otherwise free market.

    Which usually results in seemingly never ending foreign wars. But always results in repression of the working and lower middle classes especially. Which may I add is at least 75% or as much as 95% of the population?

    This now days gos by the name of The Third Way. As no one and certainly no electable political party dares to call themselves Fascist anymore. Not even the BNP if they can possibly help it.

    The Second way, known commonly as communist socialism. Is where the state owns and runs the entire means of production. Which always was of course a absolute non starter. Because governments can NOT create wealth. Only free people operating within a free market can. Therefore this second way, if followed to it full logical conclusion, results in the complete starvation of almost everyone, dieing under its truly evil ideology.

    The First Way being Conservatism. Which is a force of popular reaction based on a foundation of libertarianism and traditional national and private institutions, such as the family.

    Unfortunately these 3 things do NOT naturally form any type of BBC, MSM and educational establishment indoctrinated, linear perspective.

    Which is why we the people are divided and terminally weak brainwashed idiots. While the Establishment and the Fascist collectivist interests that control it, are now so incredibly strong, and justifiably confident.

    They are, I am very sorry to say, taking the complete proverbial piss out of ALL of us.

       0 likes

  7. John says:

    Atlas Shrugged,

    “Fascism is a form of socialism where government secretly or otherwise conspires with corporate national and multi national big business to monopolize the means of production by destroying competition in an otherwise free market.”

    You may not be aware, but you’ve just perfectly described the politics of…………Japan!

       0 likes

  8. Terry Johnson says:

    To get a really good idea of what fascism is these days and what it was in the past, I recommend Jonah Goldberg’s
    “Liberal Fascism”. It’s available on Amazon and shows that the real fascists in our midst are the PC liberals who are currently telling us how we must live while they socially engineer our whole society. Al-BBC’s place in this new fascist social-engineering is to tell us
    that the new world order of multi-culturalism, mass-immigration, moral relatively and rejection of our traditions and history is a GOOD thing.
    Read the book.

       0 likes

  9. Bernard Sanderson says:

    Which is why we the people are divided and terminally weak brainwashed idiots. While the Establishment and the Fascist collectivist interests that control it, are now so incredibly strong, and justifiably confident.

    Atlas shrugged | 05.04.08 – 3:12 am

    This must be the most paranoid post I have ever read, what on earth are you rambling on about Atlas?.

    QT is a left of centre show, the political stance of the majority of guests seem to be overwhelmingly from the left, which I think was David’s point, not that the mad ramblings of Atlas shrugged!.

       0 likes

  10. Anonymous says:

    here’s hhow QT says it selects audiences:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4200000/newsid_4202800/4202877.stm

       0 likes

  11. David Vance says:

    Hillhunt,

    Your knowledge of Northern Ireland politics appears to be as lightweight as your defence of the BBC.

    Let me educate you.

    At the time concerned when I belonged to the UK Unionists, it achieved 4.5% of the national vote. Our position was exactly shared by the DUP which had around 18% of the national vote. Then there was the divided Ulster Unionist position with a significant section opposing the Trimble leadership.

    The electorate voted by around 30% against the deal but in BBC world,we got 4 people out of 100. Fair and balanced?

    Now then maybe YOU could share with us how it can be that such an outrageous and disproportionate imbalance took place in the audience? Maybe you SHOULD complain to the BBC as you suggest since the same toxic bias weights each edition for some odd reason?

    PS When you comment on NI affairs, I remind you of the line that sometimes it is best to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you are stupid rather than opening it and leaving them in no doubt.

    Try harder.

       0 likes

  12. Martin says:

    The BBC Newswatch failed to answer two basic questions. Why so many left leaning liberals are on every panel (4 on the last show) and the rather pathetic answer given about audience missed one obvious point.

    People are NOT afraid to voice thier opinions. Every week some prat spouts up about Tory interest rates at 18%, the evil of Thatcher and so on.

    What about the huge numbers of “ethnic minorities” that always seem to be sitting in the front rows?

    Take a look at the back rows of the audience. Almost always white.

    Bias?

       0 likes

  13. Joel says:

    In fairness David, its hard to address your accusations about a programme that was shown ‘some years ago’.

    How do you know there were only 3 others that shared your view? Was it a audience vote? Did they raise hands?

       0 likes

  14. Hillhunt says:

    Mr Vance:

    At the time concerned when I belonged to the UK Unionists, it achieved 4.5% of the national vote.

    Fair cop, Guv. They clearly should have had another half a person there to fully represent your viewpoint.

    Joel:

    How do you know there were only 3 others that shared your view? Was it a audience vote? Did they raise hands?

    It’s like BBC Bias, They just know it’s the case.

    .

       0 likes

  15. Joe (The Netherlands) says:

    David, if you are going to use statistics to highlight your point, it would be expected that you would provide a statisitical breakdown of how each of the 100 people in the audience would vote, not your own less than impartial opinion.

    Anything less will allow Hillhunt & co the opportunity to mock your otherwise valid article about the political leaning of the majority of guests that appear on QT.

       0 likes

  16. David Vance says:

    Hillhunt,

    It is an accurate point I make but your response is disingenous. You ignore the other 25% of the electorate who shared our view back then and who were, quelle surprise, MISSING from the audience. Maybe their invites got lost in the post?

    Political reality back then – 30% or so opposed the Belfast Agreement.

    BBC Reality – the QT audience is stacked 96;4 against that viewpoint.

    Fair and balanced, right?

    Aare you SURE you don’t work for the BBC – you appear to have the right credentials.

    Try harder.

    Joe,

    I don’t have their names, addresses, does Hillhunt? My point remains – I was in the bloody audience, in fact asked a question of the dear leader Master Trimble as I recall, and I reiterate my view that the audience was stacked.

    However, in all fairness, it is not the worst I have ever been in. No, that was ANOTHER BBC audience for thw horrendously bad “Let’s Talk” – then, out of around 100 people, I estimated there were 3 or 4 unionists – unionists make up more than half the population. Yes, fair and balanced all the way.

       0 likes

  17. Jerry says:

    David Vance | Homepage | 05.04.08 – 1:20 pm

    How did you know what the 97% of the audience thought?

    On QT only a tiny minority of the audience get to speak at all, and then mainly to ASK QUESTIONS, not to express their own opinions.

    If you’re going on whom they applauded at the end of some rhetorical flourish – that’s hardly scientific.

       0 likes

  18. Martin says:

    JerrY: Firstly an awful lot of the audience get to ask questions but often the very same people are also allowed to make points (usually before they ask their question – although we don’t know how the show is edited)

    Also, I find that when Mr Dimbleby points ramdomly to people (at least we assume ramdomly) they seem to spout the same anti Tory bollocks we hear week in week out (it’s all the fault of Thatcher, Tories are evil scum etc)

    When the show came from Liverpool recently, I don’t think one person in the audience was a “Tory”

       0 likes

  19. Atlas shrugged says:

    Bernard Sanderson

    This whole site, it could be argued, is an act of paranoia.

    People ask questions here, but do not often try to answer them.

    Contributors here are not paranoid, they know in their bones something is very deeply wrong indeed.

    IMMHO They just don’t quite understand the real problem yet. However I do get the impression that they are getting there, albeit far too slowly.

    It you really do not understand what I am going on about. May I suggest you read it more carefully. It was written as simply as it could be, so that even people like yourself could understand.

    Trying to sum up the way the whole world works in a few sentences is never easy.

    One way of cutting out all the crap is to sum it all up in the following manner.

    Our long planned corporate FASCIST New World Order future is here, and there is sod all you or me can do about it, it seems.

    What is it about that last sentence that you do not understand?

    Instead of sticking your head in a BBC inspired pile of sand. It would be interesting to hear, WHY YOU believe that what I have written is paranoid nonsense.

    Northern Ireland is a perfect example of how our own establishment have used the BBC to create a divided frightened and therefore repressed British community. Which therefore has to look to that same British establishment for protection.

    There simply is no other logical explanation for the actions and words of the BBC over generations. Any ex member of the IRA will tell you, that the BBC has always been one of its biggest assets.

    Second only to the millions of pounds worth of finance contributed from American citizens, over many years. Finance that post our current War on Terror, we should now KNOW, could easily have been cut off within a week by the American governments CIA. If the American Government wanted to, or was instructed by for example the British establishments secret services, so to do.

    WHY was the BBC ALLOWED to support the aims of the IRA, when MI5 and 6 CLEARLY and VERY LOGICALLY INDEED control every important thing the BBC does and says, and have done since the 1930s?

    Please try not to attack the messenger. Please try to answer the points.

       0 likes

  20. Zevilyn says:

    Ben Benanke’s handing out taxpayers money like candy to JP Morgan does not anger people here?

    Why should the taxpayer prop up the fat greedy banks ffs?

    Any decent conservative should be calling for Benanke’s head on a spike.

       0 likes

  21. Hillhunt says:

    Zevilyn:

    Ben Benanke’s handing out taxpayers money like candy to JP Morgan does not anger people here?

    Not yet, but just as soon as we figure out how either the BBC or Islam is to blame, we’ll be right with you.
    .

       0 likes

  22. Peter says:

    “Not yet, but just as soon as we figure out how either the BBC ”

    BBC in one, Tony Blair works for JP Morgan.

       0 likes

  23. Atlas shrugged says:

    JP Morgan being owned by who?

    Well if you dont already know its by those banksters I keep going on about.

    The Fuckafellas and The Red Shields. You know the ones that funded both sides of world war 1 and 2, and got even more mega rich whoever ended up winning.

    The same people that own and bankroll the worlds central banks. Financed Communism during the cold war, The Green Party and every other so called radical socialist organization under their Sun God. From feminism to the Mormon Church, Green Peace, and CND.

    While all but personally financing though tax free charitable foundations almost the entire world major scientific and top educational community in Briton and America. And helped to create the UN as there own personal world government.

    The same world government that promotes the great global warming scam. While our bankster friends own large stakes in most of the companies that seek to benefit from its fascist Hitlerite agenda.

    Along with politicians such as AlGore who work so tirelessly to promote this MMCO2=MMGW nonsense though Hollywood film companies these greedy no good psychopaths also own.

    Then when their co conspirators in the far less important world of national party politics such as John Major and Tony Blair get tired of lying all day and night getting fed bullshit in the dark like subservient mushrooms. They get given a cozy non job on wages that would make Johny Wozz blush with J P Morgan of all people, to keep permanently dumb on the matter.

    If you cant see a conspiracy going on here you must all be as thick as a forest full short planks. Hillcunt the most thick of all. As he seems to think the BBC is somehow independent of the Corporate Fascist System. When The BBC could not be independent anymore then the BofE can be from the people that really own it.

    However its not just these two families that are at playing despotic world control games. There are plenty of others that do almost as bad and just as often. Remember these guys believe it or not are supposed to be on our side. The Red Shields are the Queen of England’s bankers. So its best not to even start imagining what they would be up to if they were are enemies.

    It would be beyond comprehension to believe for even one second that the Red Shields in particular do not have a very large amount of control over the BBC. As you can be totally sure nothing these people get up to will ever be or has ever been reported about, on the BBC.

    All they do is blame the worlds events on brainless puppets like George Bush and American so called Neo Cons as if these people have got much to do with anything much.

    It is money that talks, and the biggest money talks the loudest. Although big money people you never see and generally the public have never even heard of them. Mainly because the BBC and the MSM dare not even mention their names.

    Sorry to show my ignorance but who is Ben Benanke when he is at home?

    And why does Hillcunt spend a large section of his life defending the establishment controlled BBC for no wages, like he personally owns, the blood on its hands, corporation?

    No body else in there right mind would do this?

       0 likes

  24. Roland Thompson-Gunner says:

    I love it when one of B-BBC’s resident four-letter wordsmiths calls someone else as thick as two short planks, but in the same posting demonstrates he or she doesn’t know the difference between “there” and “their”, “are” and “our” and “Briton” and “Britain”.

       0 likes

  25. Mailman says:

    Isn’t that a bit like calling someone hitler when you are losing an argument? 🙂

    I guess if all else is lost, draw attention away from your poor argument and towards someone who has put an apostrophe in the wrong place!

    Mailman

       0 likes

  26. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    I love it when one of B-BBC’s resident four-letter wordsmiths calls someone else as thick as two short planks, but in the same posting demonstrates he or she doesn’t know the difference between “there” and “their”, “are” and “our” and “Briton” and “Britain”.
    Roland Thompson-Gunner | 06.04.08 – 8:27 am

    Well, Brainless, we can’t all have the benefits of an Oxbridge education followed by a fast-track to a life of studious leisure, courtesy of the unwashed licence fee paying hoi polloi.

    You also seem a bit behind the curve on modern internet useage. Anybody with a brain would have noticed that people without the advantage of unlimited, subsidised worktime dalliance, sometimes take liberties with spelling, grammar and syntax online – to save time and bandwidth.

    It doesn’t mean they’re illiterate or detract from the strength of the majority opinion that you lot are a bunch of vain, condescending, snobs desparately clutching at straws to try and justify your shameless freeloading on the backs of the less fortunate.

       0 likes

  27. Geezer says:

    It is very easy for QT’s audience to be biased against The Conservatives, simply because of the concept of balance between political Parties and a lack of tribal support for The Conservative Party.
    For example, they might have 10% of guests who voted Conservative, but will have the remaining 90% divided between the major and minor Party’s and political interest groups (mainly left of centre) and floating voters. The BBC can then claim that they have an even representation of political interests, even if it doesn’t represent percentages achieved at the last general election, and is of course, stacked heavily against the Conservatives. But, even if they were representative of the general election vote, the Conservatives would only have about a third of the audience, so the vocal support would still be with the anti-Conservative elements.
    Even if the audience was divided 50% to Left and Right, The Conservative Party, would still suffer because the Right do not loyally bang The Conservatives drum, whilst the Left are always very loud anti-Conservatives. The same can be said of the panel selection, so Nicholas Farage, for example, will be very happy to slag off Cameron, as would someone like Simon Heffer, even though these people are considered “right-wing” and especially if the questions (conveniently) push the panelists in this direction.
    The BBC, very deliberately, stacks the panel and the audience against The Conservative Party, but anti-Conservative voices will always be louder unless they deliberately make it biased for the Tories, but having at least 50% Tory loyalists, something of course, the BBC won’t do!
    e

       0 likes

  28. Geezer says:

    Beautifully and succinctly put John Reith spins in his grave.

       0 likes

  29. QuestionThat says:

    BBC caught rewriting history again (climate change-related):

    http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/04/the_ministry_of_1.html

       0 likes

  30. Play Fair says:

    Once again David Vance is right on target.The left wing bias shown by the BBC in the selection of panellists is nothing less than outrageous, and this programme was typical.

    The Beeb guidelines give a superficial appearance of objectivity by suggesting that there will normally be a Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour representative. Fair enough. But achieving balance is also a matter of personality dynamics – if you have a strident leftwinger like Clare Short – then natural justice suggests you should also have a powerful personality from the right on the panel.

    Theresa May is no doubt very pleasant but she simply lacks the persona to confront Clare Short.This is where an outside personality such as a conservative journalist might have helped restore a semblance of fair dealing. What you cannot do is bring on a former BBC employee and left winger – Rod Liddle and pretend you have thereby restored the balance.(In the event Rod Liddle spoke quite sensibly- but that is beside the point)

    I believe that conservative minded viewers are being short changed by Qusestion Time. As the next election approaches it is somethong that needs watching like a hawk. Please keep up the good work David!

       0 likes

  31. Martin says:

    Geezer: THe problem is you won’t GET three right of centre people on QT together. It just never happens.

    A Tory, Nigel Fararge and say Richard Littlejohn? Never happen.

    But Rod Liddle, Clare Short and a Labour Government minister is seen as OK. Why?

       0 likes

  32. Geezer says:

    Martin, I agree that QT has a blatant and very deliberate left-wing bias. To the typical Marxist Beeboid, that is OK because it is part of the left-wing orthodoxy of the BBC that has been created over 80 sodding years.

    My point is, that a partisan bias toward the Labour Party, would always exist to a greater or lesser extent, due the tribal loyalties or lack of them, on people from the Left and Right. The BBC excerbate the problem by weighting the panel and audience with left-wingers, but even if everything was perfectly balanced between Left and Right, The Conservative Party is most likely to come off worse than Labour.

       0 likes

  33. Jerry says:

    Geezer | 06.04.08 – 8:30 pm

    I saw this QT and it seemed, if anything, rather loaded AGAINST Labour.

    The Tory and the Lib Dem were there to balance the government minister. Fair enough.

    But both Short and Liddle were critical of the govt on every issue.

    As a result, the party that won the last general election were outnumbered 4-1.

       0 likes

  34. Kraftwerker says:

    Re the various comments on QT panel bias in the week of the all-party peers confirmation that the UK is sinking to its knees under unprecedented and unwelcome waves of immigration. The real scandal came not with Dimbelby’s panel, but on News 24’s QT Extra right afterwards. A ‘balanced’ review of their Lordship’s findings in the studio was conducted by Julia Hobsbawm (former PR partner of Mrs Gordon Brown) and the execrable and monosyllabic Hugo Rifkind. Both with a history of recent Jewish family migration to the UK in the 20th century, so no surprise for guessing where their sympathies lay.
    My post to the QT forum, suggesting the Editor’s resignation in shame, unsurprisingly fell foul of the Moderator.

       0 likes

  35. Anonymous says:

    Kraftwerker | 07.04.08 – 12:04 am

    Didn’t think it would take long for the anti-semites to crawl out of the Biased-BBC woodwork.

       0 likes

  36. BaggieJonathan says:

    “Didn’t think it would take long for the anti-semites to crawl out of the Biased-BBC woodwork.
    Anonymous | 07.04.08 – 9:18 am”

    That is an unfounded and disgraceful slur on most Biased BBC commentators and posters (we are not a single monolith with a policy).

    On the contrary the history of this blog is to reject anti semitism even when those in the mainstream such as the BBC apparently do not.

    I am frankly amazed David has allowed this shocking post to remain and poster to remain unwarned.

    To be sure I find Kraftwerker’s post highly distatsteful and unacceptably anti semetic.
    I am perturbed it too was allowed to stand.
    I reject the logic of it totally.
    To dismiss as bias people because they are Jews, the grandchildren of Jews and no other reason is vile.

    But the response must be to that post and poster, not BBBC as a whole, that is monstrous.

       0 likes

  37. p and a tale of one chip says:

    “That is an unfounded and disgraceful slur on most Biased BBC commentators and posters (we are not a single monolith with a policy).”

    Indeed not, and while the person making that comment clearly is antisemitic and deserves no sympathy for their disgusting inference that being Jewish means one has nefarious sympathies, the Anonymous poster wasn’t saying that everyone here is antisemitic. Self-evidently many posters are polar opposites of antisemites.

    That said, it’s interesting you’ve jumped on this comment with such vehemence. Previously, several posters have gone on record here to say or infer that they do consider both the BBC to be an antisemitic/islamophile monolith, they consider all muslims to collectively responsible for Islamic fundamentalism, and that there is no such thing as a moderate muslim.

    And yet the voices declaiming this behaviour are at best quiet and at worst non-existent.

    Rampant islamophobia apparently gets a free pass. Blithe declarations that all BBC employees walk in some quasi-Marxist, dhimmi lockstep are the stock in trade.

    I can’t see in the first instance that it is any more acceptable than antisemitism or that someone saying that [all] posters here are antisemitic is any less a slur than someone declaring all BBC employees to be dhimmis/antisemites/Marxists.

       0 likes

  38. BaggieJonathan says:

    P and a tale of one chip

    I conclude you agree that the original post was very wrong indeed but that any suggestion that B-BBC is antsemitic is absurd.

    You attempt to say that the poster was not suggesting B-BBC was anti semitic, I beg to differ, unless that poster comes on clarifies it as such it is not how it reads to me.

    You attempt to move the goalposts, I have never declared ALL BBC employees to be dhimmis/antisemites/Marxists.

    Some individual posters may have said that, I do not agree with them.

    It has never been the position of the monolith B-BBC (such a thing does not exist).

    Having said that even if erroneous to suggest all are Marxists, it is in a different league to suggesting all are antisemite, I think you know that.
    Or perhaps you are of the view that comparing Israel to the nazis who systematically butchered 6 million Jews is an equivalence – it is not!

    “Several posters have suggested something about…” that is NOT B-BBC but some individual posters, I thought you understood the blog system by now.

    If the posters make comments on the BBC that is one thing, it is an organisation and quite capable of having the prejudices claimed for it, it is then a question of examining the evidence.

    If posters comment on individual BBC employees that is also valid, it refers to that individual.

    Where comments are aimed at all BBC employees, save for something directly related to the BBC (such as the fact they are all paid by the BBC and hance out of the public purse), then I would not agree with any such sweeping statements and I think you will find few that do.

    I’m not saying its never happened, I don’t pretend to have read everything on this blog, or approve of everything on it – after all you are a B-BBC poster I certainly don’t approve of all you post.

       0 likes

  39. p and a tale of one chip says:

    “You attempt to move the goalposts, I have never declared ALL BBC employees to be dhimmis/antisemites/Marxists.”

    Why is this always about you? Why the need to make clear that you aren’t part of the masses?

    We get it. We got it the last time you got all in a huff when someone on B-BBC grouped you in with everyone else.

    “Having said that even if erroneous to suggest all are Marxists, it is in a different league to suggesting all are antisemite, I think you know that.”

    Now you’re being a little obtuse. Your big schtick is about individuals being generalised as a homogenous group.

    My point was that posters here [NOTE: NOT NECESSARILY YOU JONATHAN] regularly declare that

    1) employees at the BBC are a monolith, all holding marxist/antisemite/islamophile views
    2) all muslims have a collective responsibility for extreme islam, or that by being muslim they support the most barbaric excesses of islam, which is a direct parallel for the kind of antisemitism rightly loathed here and elsewhere.

       0 likes

  40. Bryan says:

    You really should try another tack, p. This attempt to smear this whole blog as anti this or that is such a tired old ploy. Reith and other BBC apologists regularly come up with it for want of better arguments. In fact, this is one of the few blogs I’ve experienced with people from so many different backgrounds, political persuasions and points of view, all united by an abhorrence for what the BBC has become.

    Got any evidence that more than one or two posters on this entire blog follow the line of your points one and two? If so, let’s see it.

       0 likes

  41. p and a tale of one chip says:

    “In fact, this is one of the few blogs I’ve experienced with people from so many different backgrounds, political persuasions and points of view”

    Then get out more. I’m serious. If this is your idea of some kind of political melting pot you’ve led a sheltered life.

       0 likes

  42. Bryan says:

    Evidence p, evidence. Point us towards other blogs that have a greater variety of contributors. And I’m not talking about general politics but about blogs. You are big on the rhetoric and the moving of goalposts and the personal insult but very weak indeed on the proof.

       0 likes

  43. BaggieJonathan says:

    p and a tale of one chip

    if you ‘get it’ why do you keep repeating the same bull.

    we are not homogenous, you accept it, then repeat its true in the same breath, whats the sense of that

    i used ‘i’ as an example not as in its always me your attempts to change the goalposts again fail stop playing the man and play the ball

    bryan is right, provide your evidence, I am yet to see it, talk is cheap, you do not convince me one bit.

       0 likes

  44. p and a tale of one chip says:

    OK, baggiej and Bryan.

    If you can provide some examples of the BBC being criticised for being too right wing, even in a single article or report, I’ll retract.

       0 likes