Moonshine
- Thread starter Redprintt
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
No deals yet, but our negotiators have p!ssed the EU off.
We're amending the agreement we signed in a way that contravenes international law. EU threatening legal action.
Its OK though, Dom says its within the spirit of the agreement.
Its being termed the Durham amendment!
'Its being termed the Durham amendment' 
After the Moonshot briefing we had Kuenssberg asking her usual loaded negative question. On the box just now was the BBC Head of News being interviewed.
He had the brass neck to say 'the BBC has the most respected and impartial news output'.
The Mail and Telegraph admit their bias as does the Mirror and Guardian.
Why not the BBC.
After the Moonshot briefing we had Kuenssberg asking her usual loaded negative question. On the box just now was the BBC Head of News being interviewed.
He had the brass neck to say 'the BBC has the most respected and impartial news output'.
The Mail and Telegraph admit their bias as does the Mirror and Guardian.
Why not the BBC.
BBC is actually the only one that should be partial. The BBC, it was built on being partial …. hence the BBC world service was so popular around the world. The BBC belongs to us, every licence holder...compulsory as it is ..we fund it. Like all media companies has royalties [pays royalties]. BBC has changed dramatically over the past 3 decades ...playing catch up it has become more controversial …. and erred on the side of "what sells news"....negativity and controversy ….
All the other broadcasters take sides blatantly [BBC included now] on topical issues. Used to be champions of nature programmes … have been overtaken to a degree by others, but still top 3 … saw a poll once about news programmes ...why do you watch so and so … answers to BBC WAS NO ADVERTS IN NEWS programmes … [ I think it was about 80% or more of answers] On accuracy/ unbiased it was about 40% / 55% / 5% [ accurate/unbiased/… inaccurate/biased … didn't know ] figures from memory... was not a lot in it.
And yet I think the BBC pander to Tory rhetoric and fail to hold them to account properly all the time. Laura Kuenssberg is genuinely one of the most biased 'journalists' I've ever seen regularly on TV.
The fact that you think they're biased one way and I think they're biased another way probably says that they're not too bad.
The fact that you think they're biased one way and I think they're biased another way probably says that they're not too bad.
??? how do you work that out? I am saying they are biased...are you saying they are not?... bias is 2 sided ……….. bias or unbised!..
Well you think they're biased to the left. I think they're biased to the right sometimes.
What I'm saying is that if everyone thinks they're biased against the 'other' side, then in reality they're probably not really that biased.
I can only think that you do not actually watch the BBC, a quick trawl of the antecedents of it's main political pundits will show you how biased they are.
They are currently writing the longest suicide note in the history of broadcasting.
For me the only thing worth watching on their output is gone fishing with Mortimor and Whitehouse, the rest is pap.
I don't even watch MOTD anymore because I cannot bear to watch the sanctimoniously overpaid Lineker get away with murder, 6 years ago Jonathon Agnew warned the BBC that if they allowed him to get away with his social media crap it would eventually catch up with the broadcaster, he even suggested that nobody else would be allowed to get away with it.
Only recently the female head of BBC HR FFS, called Laurence Fox a c*** (but used all 4 letters) online having previously posted she hoped Trump would die, that is unacceptable for a publicly funded broadcaster.
Mr Linker was not supposed to have a political opinion as part of the impartial BBC. He presents a sport programme. That he does displays the bias present in the BBC.
It highlights why individuals and the BBC behave unprofessionally and are as biased as they are. That from HR anywhere should mean dismissal.
Last edited:
I await your same criticism of Andrew Neil then, having been on the BBC for years. With all of his business interests and prior career, his employment was actually far, far worse than Lineker's. Are you going to criticise that?
For all of my disagreements on here, I have on occasion actually changed viewpoint and backed down when shown to be wrong, or not as knowledgeable on a subject as I thought. I'm fascinated to see now on this point if you are actually capable of any sort of impartiality.
We didn't get your opinion on the BBC head of HR calling people (Tories) ****s and saying the leader (a Republican) of the most powerful nation in the world should die.
No. He was freelance. The same as Dianne Abbot sitting on a couch with Portillo. Red and blue = Balance not bias.
Here is Mr Neil taking down a Tory.
You must log in or register to see media
V a American Conservative.
You must log in or register to see media
The BBC hiring a political mind, for being a political mind.
Last edited:
Andrew Neil has a disdain for them all whatever their political bent and anyway the BBC red fascists have already gotten rid of him.
What impartiality like publicly calling a bloke a C***? or wishing somebody dead? and this is somebody who if anyone needs advice on their behaviour, she is the first port of call.
Lineker can have whatever opinions that he likes, but working for the BBC he should not be allowed to push those opinions in public especially in foul mouthed rants.
PS:- Why don't BLM publicly attack the Guardian a newspaper built on slavery, but still attack Churchill's statue, a man who fought fascism almost single handedly in Europe, when virtually everybody else was willing to capitulate, why?, because BLM has been hijacked as usual by white middle class liberals.
Last edited:
Oh yes and pointed out to Abbott, after she claimed that Mao had done more good than bad for the Chinese people, that he was responsible for the deaths of up to 16mil of his own people. That is the problem with red fascists, they ignore the wholesale slaughter carried out in the name of their Marxist beliefs.
they are not always biased but are never totally unbiased which was /is their brief. it makes no difference which way the bias goes. Should I think an opinion is biased and you don't then you believe the opinion is correct unbiased.
eg: .. Should they have a discussion and on one side is 4 members of a party on the other is 3 and the questions are different to each side... say using Q's that highlight the problems encountered by the team of 3 but enhance the successes of the team of 4 then it is biased especially should the team of 4 get 18 mins of a programme the others 12 mins!
JGF2 - your thought process and its' transition into the written word is a worthy subject for a BBC documentary.
Mind you, it would probably be biased....
Off Topic a bit but was anyone impressed by Ed Miliband yesterday in Parliament. I thought it was genuinely funny, overacting or what.
He was just jumping on other loser's, Major, Brown, May and Blair, take on breaking International Law.
I'm well up for the new bill being passed, the EU have played the UK for decades.
F+ck um.
Also off topic, I'd call the police if my neighbours were partying in numbers.
Piers Morgan bleating on this morning about 'snitching', reckons it won't happen.
I bloody well will.
He was just jumping on other loser's, Major, Brown, May and Blair, take on breaking International Law.
I'm well up for the new bill being passed, the EU have played the UK for decades.
F+ck um.
Also off topic, I'd call the police if my neighbours were partying in numbers.
Piers Morgan bleating on this morning about 'snitching', reckons it won't happen.
I bloody well will.
Last edited: