So, who would have figured that two days after his resignation, the BBC still considers Liam Fox and his associate Adam Werritty to be the lead story for their news portal. Why it’s almost as if the BBC enthused by getting the scalp of the former Defence Secretary, just want to facilitate Labour and keep the story running.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. pounce_uk says:

    The bBC’s sole aim is to attack and attack the present government until a vote of no confidence is called and their leftwing Labour sidekicks can be inserted into Power by the backdoor.  Which is why the bBC has remained very silent on Labour MPs and councillors who find themselves in the dock. You know Child groomer such as John Friary who tried to groom a child over the internet only to find the target of his dick was actually a man who was out to blackmail him. Now type in his name on the bBC search engine.

    Don’t get me wrong Fox had to go, but you’d think for all the coverage the bBC has given him, they could have mentioned Friarys peccadilloes in even passing? 


  2. cjhartnett says:

    Desperate stuff.
    It`s as if the NHS hadn`t been keeping our parents in their own shit after all.
    That was of course then…but this is now!
    So it is that the old folks bedsheets won`t make sails for the political media today…like the Euro catastrophe, it`s not todays issue.
    As for the likes of Derek Draper, Geoff Hoon and Stephen Byers…surely no conflicts of interest there…and again, that was then!
    The BBC seem content to parade their shabby little stories before us all like so many tatty prizes of the Generation Games conveyor belt.
    As long as there`s a bit of blue blood on their studio floors, they`re happy!
    So therefore should we be too…hands off our NHS, and let`s dig up the bones of Southern Cross!
    The BBC have got to go…at near enough any price!


  3. hippiepooter says:

    I’ve caught ITN News on this and its such a refreshing change of tone.  Just reporting the facts, not trying to spin mileage out of the issue to generate as much negative coverage for Fox and his Party.

    News as it should be.


  4. Idiotboy says:

    The BBC hatchet job being constructed around the fall of Liam Fox is following the operational model which proved to be so successful in preventing Rupert Mudoch gaining a meaningful foothold in UK television news provision.

    Keep the issue high in the public conciousness until something breaks.

    In this case the secondary objective during the Murdoch affair – Hurt the Coalition – now forms the primary objective.


  5. Grant says:

    If Cameron had any balls, he would instigate am independent enquiry into Ministers’ conduct during this Government and the previous one.  If he had any balls…………….. 


  6. George R says:

    BBC -NUJ is somewhat confused and confusing in its attitude to FOX; it seems to give a pass to his sexual lifestyle, but disapproves aspects of what it sees as his political insouciance. 

    A nudge and a wink… what the Left are really saying about Liam Fox

    (by Peter Hitchens).


  7. Martin says:

    The BBC are only turning screw on Fox because they believe there was no homosexual relationship now between him and Werrity. When the BBC were unsure that a homosexual relationship might be involved they backed off on Fox.

    Don’t get me wrong, Fox deserved to go, but the BBC as others have pointed out have held back on Labour sleaze.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Actually, Martin, I’m seeing it as the BBC hitting much harder more recently because it’s become clear that Fox broke the rules regardless of the specific nature of his relationship with Werrity.  I think before that they figured it was a homosexual relationship but hadn’t yet gotten enough evidence of rule-breaking.

      But you’ve been right all along that if there had been a female involved, the BBC would have been attacking with force sooner.  And all the Beeboid tongues would be wagging about a sexual affair, whereas in this case they’re all just winking and nudging when they say “best man” instead.  It’s obviously become a euphemism, and everyone knows it.  Even now there’s precious little BBC speculation about the homosexual issue.  There’s supposed to be no stigma, no difference, all equal, right?  Yet…..there isn’t equal treatment from the BBC at all.

      You can bet Nick Robinson knows exactly what’s been going on the whole time, but has kept quiet – as always – to protect his inside access to politicans.

      The BBC has a lot of explaining to do about this double standard.  If I were a homosexual Beeboid, I’d be offended and start asking questions of my colleagues.


      • Martin says:

        It’s a good point David that the media must know about Werrity, if he was turning up at all these events you can bet a beeboid wasn’t far behind, did no one at the time think to ask?

        Yes and as I’ve pointed out before if Werrity were a good looking bird in a short skirt the media would be having a field day, but as we know there’s one rule for hetrosexuals and one for gays.

        Not only that, there’s a rule for left wing hetrosexuals as well, Robin Cook, Prescott and Blunkett who all had various personal sleaze going on and all were given a free ride by the BBC. Of course Mandelson has been given the biggest free ride of all.


        • Grant says:

          Most importantly, what the hell were MI5 and the British security services doing   ?
          Were they aware of what was going on ? 
          On the evidence so far, Fox was a serious security risk .   But, of course, I forget, there is no security in the UK  anymore . 


        • Grant says:

          I have to disagree.  I would guess all of Mandelson’s  “free rides” are paid for, one way or another !


  8. Andrew says:

    When I heard the story continuing after the resignation there was more than the smell of a rat to it.  The “facts” of this story appear to have come to readily to hand and there is the dead hand of something behind it.  Don’t get me wrong – if he’s done something wrong the book should be thrown at him but there’s something else involved here.

    When I first saw the story there was something I couldn’t put my finger on, but pennies started dropping after I read this blog entry.

    The telling piece for me is the question asked in Parliament about Werrity and how the story seems to break and develop quite quickly afterwards.  It’s almost as if the story was bundled and ready to go for willing news outlets.

    My suggestion isn’t that the BBC played a part in this but it plays right into the hands of various people if we ask ourselves Cui Bono.

    I’m not sure where we are with the BBC and the whiff of lavender aspect of the story, in that I’m not sure that they’ve deliberately steered away from it. 

    If this story really is a preplanned stitch up, part of me wonders if the plan was always only ever to allude to the gay aspect as opposed to avoid diving headlong into it.  If it was its really quite clever in that as a propoganda piece it really is a double edged sword.  When you want to position someone as a bigot you put them up against the whole vibrancy of the gay scene, wonderful normal inclusive people.  When you want to paint someone as dark and corrupt, you give a faint allusion to the idea that something seedy is going on that they are hiding.  But you don’t have to say much and in fact to do so would blow it.  You just have to drop the hint, walk away and leave the gossip mongers mind to do the rest.  It’s a bit like the old Les Dawson / Roy Barroclough gossiping women sketches.

    For the beeb however this has proved very useful in that they are along with Labour, only too willing to keep banging on at a story that for most should have gone away.  We see evidence of this with the repeated interviews with the Labour shadow trotting out the same talking points in which one or both parties are willing to entertain the others need and as a result keeping this story running at a time it should be going through a hiatus.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Interesting.  But the BBC would be just as pleased to see Fox go simply because he’s a Thatcherite as much as because their anti-Israel bias would make them want him gone.


      • Andrew says:

        I agree David.  My suggestion about the Beeb was more that I’m not accusing them of playing a part in the collusion and design of the story.  I’m very certain they loved it when it came along and played the role of “willing idiots” as opposed to useful ones.

        For people such as these, the war is everything and any they’re not ideologically opposed to using any weapons.  Ideology is adjustable if it acheives their aims.

        As the Telegraph is suggesting, Fox gone leaves the right of the party weakened and there are some suggestions that people like Gove are by extension weakened so it may be worth watching how he gets chipped away at with his reforms.  Now that is a real prize.