Laughable set up discussion on Sunday Morning Live with gorgeous pouting Suzanne Reid. The first topic was the  Human Rights Act and Cameron’s idea we need a British Human Rights Act. We had a feminazi Human Rights advocate on, some guy who kept insisting he was not “right wing” and also “not a tabloid reader” and John Gaunt. Some lady with a serious illness phoned in to say that the Human Rights Act saved her life, in a strange way, as she was looking to see if she could kill herself Dignitas style. These debates are framed to ensure the BBC view always prevails – no one phones in to talk about the gross obscenities the ECHR seeks to provide – such as votes for convicts. The BBC supports all things that undermine our British democracy and the idea that it would ever facilitate a discussion which painted the ECHR in it’s true colours.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. George R says:

    BBC-NUJ pretends this isn’t happening –

    “From human rights to the EU, the tide’s turning against the liberal thought police”

    (by Melanie Phillips, July 2011)

    Read more:


  2. JohnofEnfield says:

    “such as votes for convicts” …or such as we cannot deport someone convicted of absolutely appalling criminal behaviour (one, some or all of murder, terrorism, rape, gbh, massive benefit fraud etc) because of some aspect of his/her character that he/she has possibly just invented that might possibly just put his/her life in danger back in his /her state of origin.

    PS – I still cannot understand why foreigners who were only RESIDENT in Britain seem to be able to get millions out of the state because they found themselves in Guantanamo Bay. What responsibility did Britain have for these people? Please don’t try & explain – it will only depress me.


  3. Llew says:

    I noticed that Suzanne kept interrupting, stopping or talking over John Guant when he was making his points. She also did the same to the other guy (who was the founder of Big Issue). But she didn’t interrupt Julie the feminist, she didn’t interrupt the muzzie human rights lawyer, she didn’t interrupt Adam, the other human rights lawyer and she didn’t interrupt the lady with the illness.

    Also, the feminist was constantly interrupting and talking over John Gaunt forcing him to stop (aided by Suzanne) but wasn’t going to shut up when he started interrupting her. But that’s lefties for you – “only I can be right and my beliefs in giving everyone a fair chance don’t apply to right wingers.”

    Oh and BBC, ffs when will you sort out the sound problems which always occur on that program. It can’t be difficult to give everyone access to a quality microphone which actually works.


  4. George R says:






  5. George R says:

    Stephen Glover:

    “Britain’s future (and his own) rests on Mr Cameron dismantling the pernicious Human Rights Act”

    Read more:


    • ltwf1964 says:

      if he does as well on this as the fabled bonfire of the quangos…..


      enough already!


  6. Llew says:

    Unbelievable. The text vote result on whether we should scrap the HR laws is announced at 11% say yes and 89% say no. Cue shocked faces including mine. Then as time is running out a highly embarrased Suzanne announces the result is the wrong way round and it is of course 89% say yes scrap it. Of course there is now no time to talk about the results.

    An simple accident or a deliberate BBC attempt to shut down a debate most of the country really wants?


    • Martin says:

      The BBC pulled a similar stunt during the last election if I remember. On the BBC news they had the results of an opinion poll reversed on the screen showing Gordon Brown ahead, it was posted here if I remember.


    • Ron Todd says:

      The actual result was what any reasonable person would expect. So why was the BBC woman so ready to accept the reversed result?


    • Demon1001 says:

      It was clearly deliberate in an atempt to cause maximum embarrassment to the Johns, in fact it took the wind out of John the Big Issue’s sails.  It left him less room for manoeuvre when the real results were declared.  I assumed that everyone in the BBC studios must have been on auto-redial.

      I do think that Miss Reid was also kept out of the trick as when she announced the original result the look of smug triumphalism on her face was a sight to behold.  Her look was quite different when she gave the real result.

      I also noticed the hostile (evil eyes) look she gave Gaunty at one point earlier – she should be able to control her features and opinions if she is to be taken seriously as an impartial chairman of this sort of programme. 


      • ltwf1964 says:

        she’s good looking

        but a complete bimbo airhead


      • Llew says:

        “I do think that Miss Reid was also kept out of the trick as when she announced the original result the look of smug triumphalism on her face was a sight to behold.  Her look was quite different when she gave the real result.”  

        I missed her initial smug look as I was too busy shouting to the TV that there’s no way those results are correct. I was even asking myself if I had misread the question. I bet an out of range of the microphones whoop went around the studio when the result was first announced, followed by a “quick get this show off the air” the moment the truth was revealed.


        • tiger says:

          Llew;”as I was too busy shouting to the TV”
          Had to laugh because this is regular occurrence with me and my son always says “you’re wasting you time they can’t hear you!”
          But the MMS here is seriously bad for your health.


          • Llew says:

            Thanks tiger! Shouting is cheaper than throwing something solid at the BBC fed screen.  🙂


  7. London Calling says:

    “I haven’t spoken to my wife in three years – I don’t like to interrupt”

    Men have got to stop being “polite” to women in these political interviews. For these women, being female is just a tactical advantage.  Gilligan was the same. Its no good waiting for the Chair to moderate or ensure equal airtime – the chair is one of them -bent. The BBC is repeatedly setting men up for a fall by pitting them against mouthy left wing women who interrupt.

    If they want to argue over the top of you,  give them 100% airtime and show them up for what they are – fascists in a frock.


    • Martin says:

      Agreed, but women have this trick of ‘claiming’ that they are shouted down when in fact they are just being treated the same.

      The leftist feminists don’t like it, Hattie Hatemen is the funniest, when someone has a go at her her head starts to wobble from side to side, it’s really funny to watch.


  8. It's all too much says:

    I had to laugh through gritted teeth as the leftist woman pourd scorn and derision on “Daily Mail stories” driving the agenda>  Clearly everyone who reads the mail is an imbecile led by the nose.  Too stupid to understans the policies:

    Daily Mail
    Readership refers to the number of people reading a title on an average day over the stated time period.
    Jul 10 – Dec 10: 4,705,000 (Source: NRS)

    Average daily sale
    ABC September 2010 – February 2011

    So, roughly 17 times as many people support the views of the mail. Why does the Left  believe that it is right for them to disproportionately influence policy and why whine and hate the despise mail readers?  Is it because, “just because” they are wrong?

    British socialpolicy has over 50 years brought us to riots in the streets and it has been dictated by the BBc and the Guardian – not a sniff of the mail there yet still the mock the small minded mail and the 4.7 million tax payers it represents


    • Span Ows says:

      “So, roughly 17 times as many people support the views of the mail.”

      You can’t really deduce that it is only ‘supporting’ people that read those links; however, it’s more than that and I’ll tell you why: many wet lefty bloggers etc mentioning no names of course (oh look it’s Sunny Hundal) place ‘safe’ links when linking to DM stories, i.e. it’s a link that doesn’t actaully go to the DM site but does have the article to which he would be linking. Also, many true blues (like me  😀 ) spend a lot of time at the Guardian, I used to make regular comments (sometimes dozens every week) but in the last year have just got fed up with the hysterics. So, the Guardian figure is probably lower in trms of “supporting views” and the DM is probably HIGHER in terms of supporting views. Also, the Mail and the SUN newspapers (paper version) are far away the biggest sellers. This imbalance in interviewees and stories from the avrious media outlets, to me, is the biggest claim to bias at the BBC. 


    • Louis Robinson says:

      Yet Guardian readers outnumber Daily Mail readers on the BBC staff 100 – 0. Explains a lot about the unfair recruitment decisions of the corporation.

      PS The 100-0 figure is not a scientific poll just a statement of the bleedng obvious. 


  9. ltwf1964 says:

    cue leftards whining on about “populism” and pandering to the wishes of the people

    well,pardon me,but isn’t that what the illusion of democracy is supposed to actually be?Government voted in to do the will of the people,not the other way round?

    it’s all a load of crap of course

    as some wise man once said-if voting actually changed anything,they would have abolished it long ago


  10. London Calling says:

    “Daily Mail Reader” Roll eyes. Standard shorthand ad hominem left wing smear, dispenses with any need to consider different opinion to their own. Throw in ” or Daily Express Reader”  – jingoist little-Englander racist old farts. And at a pinch, “The Sun Reader” – someone who would buy the Daily Mail but is put off by all their long words and the absence of tits. But then only ever reads the sports pages any way.

    Always useful to be reminded of the circulation of the Liberal Intelligensia media: Graun and the The Independent.  And of course the traitor in our midst, the BBC.  The Mirror is probably an embarrasment to the Intelligensia, though that doesn’t stop Beeb or Sky fielding Labour attack-dog Kevin Maguire at every opportunity.

    Sky and ITV? Little shade of difference to the bBC, recruited from the same pool of Guardian-reading media folk.


  11. cjhartnett says:

    If the likes of Marcus and jeremy hate “Daily Mail Readers”, then I am proud to be one…and will flaunt it.
    Free copies for school staffrooms for a start…and I`ll be looking to see that it is subsidised in all the newsagants by University newsagents.
    My license fee would be going to a good Trust Fund then…is that tax deductible too?
    WE are all DMRs now!


    • pounce_uk says:

      The reason the left hate the Daily Mail has more to do with it being popular than its rightwing stance. People read it, because it gives them what they want to see rather than been dictated to. Also I have to admit their i-Pad app is really something else. Well designed, so easy to use, and even with the main website free to use, I can see why people will hand over £20 for the app.


      Now contrast that with the bBC which while being funded by the British public, feels it has a service to everybody bar the British. In other words it doesn’t give the British people what they want and which is why people now seek their news (and entertainment) from elsewhere which then boils down to why do we pay to keep the bBC going?


      As to why the bBC rallies against the DM, it’s just them wanting to be different from the mainstream crowd. You support Britain, I’ll support the enemies of Britain, you support the victims of crime, I’ll support the poor people who get arrested for such crimes. You say one thing I’ll say the other. You find this frame of mind common in pubescent teenagers who just have to be bloody different for the sake of being different. 


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        The police rank and file – Labour to a man (or woman) – are only just waking up to the fact that only the Mail covers issues of crime and the degenerate culture they have to deal with on a daily basis.  Yet they still hate it as much as any Beeboid does and wonder quietly why the Guardian doesn’t make a fuss about this stuff.


  12. sue says:

    I agree with some of the comments, but I think Susanne Reid is attractive and quick witted, not stupid. She is opinionated, and doesn’t conceal it, which undermines the programme’s impartiality. 😉

    I think the trick the BBC always pulls in these dumbed-down debates is to reduce the topic to a populist, completely artificial question.  For example anyone in favour of completely scrapping the human rights act seems heartless and unconcerned about the individual-as-underdog, which labels them ‘right-wing nutter’.

    Anyone against, on the other hand, is made to look unconcerned about the unintended consequences that (allegedly) make a mockery of the act, namely in high profile cases where the ‘uman rights of criminals trump those of the victim. Supporting the ‘uman rights act allies one with the rabid lefties.

    Because both arguments were presented so poorly, and the argument for scrapping the act solely consisted of giving sensational examples of its failings, and also because of the unprepossessing nature of the act’s feminist proponent, the lefties lost the ballot.

    The contributors fundamentally agreed that the problem was not so much with the principle of a hypothetical, decently constructed, “British” human rights act, but with the way the current one was being implemented, i.e.  to the advantage of the criminal / to the detriment of the victim. If they spent time addressing that, they’d have probably all got along like a house on fire. But then there would be no fireworks for our entertainment.

    The technology is pathetic. Surely the BBC could do something about that. We know ‘anyone with a webcam’ can’t join in at all. That offer is simply false, because it’s set up well in advance. In any case, who would want to be on it when the pre-arranged webcammers  never get the opportunity to express themselves? They’re a kind of cannon fodder, for the benefit of Susanna Reid’s viewing figures.

    Sermon endeth.
    P.S. I’m surprised DV hasn’t heard of Debbie Purdy.


  13. London Calling says:

    Thoughtful post, but I would disagree that the problem with the HR Act is “the way it is implemented” The principle of Universal Human Rights is fundementally flawed precisely because it is universal. It isn’t suspended because you are an axe murderer who took away someone elses right to life. You are still entitled to enjoy a family life yourself, even if you killed your family, and if the ECR had its way, to choose your MP, even though you may have killed his predecessor.

    Weasly lawyers will always twist anything to their advantage, but this one requires no effort. It is fundementally misconceived – exactly what you expect from the unnacountable superannuated airheaded Euro-lawyers.

    Unfortunately it seems Mr Clegg and his papaya fruit MPs are the problem: yellow on the outside, red on the inside.


  14. cjhartnett says:

    Good title to the blog!
    I find though that it takes at least four Human Rights lawyers and a team of back up solicitors and traineee barristers who will all be wanting paying inorder to save a life such as Levi Bellfields or Learco Chindamos.
    It also requires a few civil partners in associated quangos and campaigning charities(few of which seem ever to have asked ME to put any clothes or CDs out for their collections) inorder to “raise my consciousness”.
    It will also need the retaining of associated spineless hacks who must have the story mashed up and pureed or else it would be too hard to swallow.
    Not-of course-forgetting the tame and approved safe and silver tongues of academics and experts who normally have cross contaminated themselves in the esteemed( and very lucrative) company of all aforementioned “professional and dispassionate” minibus load of slime!
    Not sure what the group noun for this lot would be…but a rolling bandwagon on a gravy train would describe the “direction of travel”


  15. David Preiser (USA) says:

    What a complete joke that Reid opens the programme by stating that the Human Rights Act “enshrines” such rights as education and free elections.  You already have these rights, but the way this is presented it’s as if you don’t and only the Human Rights Act grants them to you.

    And you didn’t even vote for it.  So much for enshrining the right to free elections.  Pathetic pro-EU bias.


  16. Martin says:

    Don’t know how many of you are watching Sky News but how come they have alive broadcast going on from the rebels entering Tripoli but our state broadcaster for starters had a programme on about the London riots, now it seems to have a very sad sounding beeboid talking about Gadaffi doing a runner. No live coverage at all that I’ve seen.


  17. George R says:

    What INBBC doesn’t discuss on e.g. the LIBYAN, and other Islamic regimes, is the ‘open-door’ attitude of successive British governments and British universities to representatives of such regimes.

    Apart from Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi,* who was given privileged treatment at the London School of Economics (where S. Chakrabarti is still on the board of govenors), there’s also this case, of which INBBC sees little to complain seriously:

    “Moussa Ibrahim: How Libya’s voice was shaped in Britain”

    (* He may have been captured today.)

    Gaddafi’s son and Ibrahim get better treatment from INBBC than does English Defence League.


  18. Martin says:

    BBC News wheel out our favourite jew hater (OK they have many) Abdul Bari Twatman who looked like someone had shot his dog. He’s almost in tears that Gadaffi looks like he’s heading for a noose.

    “He will die for his country” or something like that came out of his mouth. I hope so, but not in the way you want Twatman.