The day BBC died

Thanks for the BBC biased tip. I’ll be sure to have a look.

a reply to: Tulpa

a reply to: McGinty

No worries.

It's Biased BBC.

would've tried to link but this phone is terrible., sorry.

a reply to: McGinty

They probably worked out the demographics years ago, as long as you keep a good percentage of the people happy, you have a voting majority. Thus any democratic nonsense won't interfere with the result. The mere fact that a working man or unemployed for that matter would ever in clear conscience vote for a party that will cut jobs at the drop of a hat prooves it.

a reply to: Tulpa

it was news to me I dont really watch much at all anymore of the mainstream media
or read the websites

thanks for the info though, seems they like having fall guys eh
but i guess thats the way politics works

if you have seen the thick of it with Malcolm tucker you can imagine what its like

originally posted by: sapien82
I mean didnt Hancock give contracts to all his pals and his sister and now he is fired over a affair ?
seems like he took the fall for something less dangerous than being put in jail for theft of public wealth

And yet both are fit and proper Toryland pursuits - theft of public money and shagging someone else's bird.

BBC coverage of these behaviours is so good that despite the sleaze, the bastards still manage to get voted in.

originally posted by: Cymru
a reply to: gb540

Been wary of anything the BEEB have saud for years but a female Dr was the last straw. Watered down woke B# with an agenda.
Can you imagine the backlash if Miss Marple became a dude???

Yeah, can you imagine? The very idea that a time traveling alien would take on female form! Next they'll tell us real doctors can be women too.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Female doctors? You’re crazy, man! 😉

Problem with the latest incarnation isn’t that she’s female, but rather that she isn’t a particularly good actor and the scripts from the new show runner are utterly bland dog sh!te.

a reply to: anonentity

I don’t think at the end of the day that tptb even care that much who is voted in, so long as belief in the system persists. That system ensures their ongoing supremacy in the tier above political factions.

A united populace is probably the last thing they want, no matter what it is we’re united over. Breeding and sustaining division is their MO. Oh, and remaining out of the limelight, of course.

Whether it be Boris, Starmer, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major etc. these kinds of leaders are part of this system and know which side they’re bread is buttered on. When Jeremy Corbyn, a wild card that wouldn’t play their game unexpectedly came close to winning the 2015 general election thanks to the mobilisation of the young vote, there was existential panic among tptb.

The frenzied, relentless personal and political assault on Corbyn that followed, from all quarters of politics and the media momentarily revealed the true partnership of all of these players; that the political paradigm is just a side show to distract us from the rich old money and their corporate leaches getting fat of our slavery. The sham of this paradigm performance fell away and they worked together to sabotage this threat to their gravy train.

Once Corbyn was out of the picture it was back to the staged play of party political antipathy.

Great thread, well written.

Greg Dyke's actions in the dodgy dossier affair were disgraceful and should pay some responsibility for Dr Kelly's murder alongside Blair and Campbell as the first rule of journalism is to choose death or jail over revealing a source.

Gilligan did redeem himself with his next story/hr long Dispatches doc that exposed the CIA's illegal international kipnap, torture and use of secret black sites around the world.

Dr Kelly was by no means the only highly credible source warning journalists that the Iraq War and claims of WMDs were a load of rubbish - intelligence officers in the UK and US were risking their lives trying to get journalists to listen

The BBC as an institution is heavilly on the organic, fair trade coc aine metropolitan elite market - BBC News uses a strict matrix and series of equations aimed to provide impartial, representative coverage of news, views and politics but the quality of reporting has gone massively downhill in recent decades.

Used to watch news 24 religiously, worked for BBC News for a bit but can't remember the last time I watched it as there's hardly any actual inormation presented - more time and effort is spent on making flashy graphics than hardhitting journalism.

The move from London to Media City was made to add diversity and differing opinions to the BBC to tackle the clear london-centric bias and bubble. Instead it seems to have had the opposite effect of causing an even narrower set of views and programming as it's an echo-chamber minature city dedicated to international media with no 'real/normal' people - all the restraunts are vegan, the pubs are 'ale houses/micro brewery's', there's 'nutrition bars' rather than greasy spoon cafes where people eat artisan protein bars and kale smoothies that have been custom made by michelin chefs.

a reply to: McGinty

The problem as I see it is, that if you have forsaken a reasonably self-righting system. For one of coerced and forced compliance, something else always kicks in. Call it a force of nature or a group consciousness meme or whatever. I am pretty sure it has now kicked in, the leaders have never been more distrusted, and any enforced edicts that they make now are proof that they are scared of what is going down. It would never have been their choice to choose authoritarian measures because it shows their hand. When it gets to a certain point nobody cares anymore and if it means destroying the system in this game of numbers that is what will happen. The Soviet Union just didn't work anymore because the majority couldn't be stuffed anymore. The last twenty years have been based on cheap Asian labor because our products are too expensive to produce. But with AI we can produce products cheap enough but the problem will be nobody will have a job to earn the money to buy said products, and the line of credit is drying up as the Banks drop the amount available on the credit cards.
On the other hand, it's equally valid to say We have developed an economic system that has already destroyed itself. By becoming a command economy it is in the same position that the Soviet Union was in before its collapse. Trillions have been created just to keep inefficient institutions afloat, which can never be paid back. Zero-interest rates show the state of the real economy, wealth will be eaten by inflation caused by the printing and nill economic activity. All the BBC and for that matter, all the other News outlets can do nothing but try to keep order until an inevitable collapse of some sort and the birth of a new system. Which has to have been planned as this was bound to happen. I have noticed massive prices for buying houses, but when it comes to actually sell the house for what is assumed the going rate there does not seem to be buyers at these prices, but according to news outlets it's a hot market. I am assuming the disinformation has reached even this store of wealth, which is not surprising as to who would lend in such a market.

a reply to: anonentity

Well said! Sadly, I have to agree with all of that. Dark times ahead I fear.

a reply to: McGinty

McGinty you get it man

they are all against us and we need to remove them
voting isnt going to cut it when they are all on the same team keeping us divided
this whole thing has played out brilliantly , they keep hitting us with drama and fear and all the while they steal our wealth and reduce our freedoms

a reply to: bastion

Thanks, Bastion! Glad my dyslexia didn’t drop too many clangers 😬

Yep, Dyke should’ve been hung out for revealing his source. However, I imagine he had the security services threatening him with all kinds of genuine and made up nastiness if he didn’t cooperate. Look what they did to Assange. Who knows what we’d really do in that situation!

I’m also affiliated with the industry - a great, but incredibly frustrating one. One that has so much potential to do good and sometimes does, but more and more often is now a part of the problem.

The metrocentralism (if that’s a word) is imo opinion a symptom of privilege. TV and journalism are difficult jobs to first attain. Nepotism abounds and favours those with the privilege of funds to survive on when starting out. That ultimately leads to most of the exec jobs going to the class with a better education, but narrow life experience.

This is particularly rife in the beeb, which in my experience seems to mirror the militaries two-tier structure of upper classes = officers / working class equals canon fodder. I’m sure the same could be said of many industries. Basically it’s all up for grabs until the exec level, at which point there would appear to be a glass ceiling unless you have a ‘proper’ education and well to do parents. Not exclusively, but it’s definitely the pattern I’ve noticed.

All the woke, vegan, ale emblems of assumed superiority over the peasants is the latest badge o that signifies the desperate need to belong to the select. But IMO the fundamental divide - the schism between the programme makers and their audience has always been the class divide. If all opportunities on the greasy ladder to exec status were equal, then we’d see far less navel gazing, bubbled, or metrocentric telly and news and an end to the vegan, ale and kale worshiping. Never been to Media City, but sounds hellish!

a reply to: sapien82

Indeed, but at the same time I don’t want to promote violent revolution. 20 years ago for sure, but age teaches patience and in violent revolution the poorest end up suffering along with the richest and then the power vacuum simply opens the door to the next dictatorship.

So what can we do? If I only knew the answer! But in meantime don’t let the f**kers grind you down.

a reply to: McGinty

well I've been watching Gene Sharp , from dictaroship to democracy
and civil disobedience and his 91 weapons of non violent protest

seems to have worked for a lot of nations who followed his teachings

a reply to: McGinty

I don’t think at the end of the day that tptb even care that much who is voted in, so long as belief in the system persists. That system ensures their ongoing supremacy in the tier above political factions.

Succinct, to the point and very, very true.

A united populace is probably the last thing they want, no matter what it is we’re united over. Breeding and sustaining division is their MO. Oh, and remaining out of the limelight, of course.

Again, very true.
Which is why they play on people's fear's and exploit their differences.

Whether it be Boris, Starmer, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Major etc. these kinds of leaders are part of this system and know which side they’re bread is buttered on. When Jeremy Corbyn, a wild card that wouldn’t play their game unexpectedly came close to winning the 2015 general election thanks to the mobilisation of the young vote, there was existential panic among tptb.

To be fair, they could have put up a shop window mannequin against Corbyn and it would have been elected.
Corbyn was simply unelectable.
His pro-IRA stance alone ensured that a whole swathe of the electorate would never vote for him regardless of any of his policies.

Corbyn represented the 'metropolitan elite' that are as far removed from Labour's core, traditional base as Boris, Cameron, Bliar, Starmer etc.

If anyone ever takes the time to actually engage with the ordinary, everyday British people, listen to their cares and concerns and put them before the vested interests of big business, bankers, industrialists and 'the establishment' then we may actually have a chance of challenging the status quo.

Corbyn pandered to every single special interest group and put their wishes above those of traditional Labour voters time and time again.
He showed nothing but contempt for our Armed Services, he denigrated British history and culture and took 'Red Wall' constituencies for granted.

Corbyn allowed Momentum to maintain its stranglehold over The Labour Party as they pushed divisive policies, bullied and intimidated good solid Labour Party members and at the very best turned a blind eye to the anti-semitism that has plagued the party recently.

That Labour thought he was electable only served to show just how out of touch they were.

The frenzied, relentless personal and political assault on Corbyn that followed, from all quarters of politics and the media momentarily revealed the true partnership of all of these players; that the political paradigm is just a side show to distract us from the rich old money and their corporate leaches getting fat of our slavery. The sham of this paradigm performance fell away and they worked together to sabotage this threat to their gravy train.

I agree with all of that 100%.
But none of that can deflect away from the fact that Corbyn would have been an absolute disaster of a Prime Minister - for completely different reasons than which Boris is proving himself totally inadequate, incompetent and unfit.

Once Corbyn was out of the picture it was back to the staged play of party political antipathy.

If only we could call on someone with the vision and strengths of Attlee.

a reply to: Freeborn

That’s very true about Corbyn being unelectable in 2019. By then his political nativity had been fully exploited by the ‘axis powers’ of greed and elitism that had rallied to neutralise his threat to their highly imbalanced status quo.

Corbyn’s fundamental principle seemed to be ‘fairness’. This IMO would’ve made him a great leader to redress the imbalances. However, fairness means listening to all sides of all arguments, be it the IRA, or Hamas. I agree with this in the big picture; if you want peace, then the sides need to talk and both recognise the others grievances and be willing to make concessions. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter and all that; there wouldn’t be ’terrorists’ in Ireland or Israel/Palestine if not for the British interfering. So a British PM has to start at a point of recognising that the terror is in no small way of their making and enter talks/negotiate talks with some humility. I think Corbyn accepted this and would’ve made great strides on the international peace stage as PM.

However, sticking to his pious stance on this during a leadership campaign was politically naive, giving those ‘axis powers’ a huge target to shoot at (and to be fair that nativity does suggest he may have made greater missteps of naivety as PM). So, in terms of winning an election, no matter the great ethical merits of his non-judgemental principle, most of the voting public have long made those judgements, are highly opinionated on matters regarding the IRA, Hamas etc. So by persisting vocally with that doctrine (and by not denying that doctrine when repeatedly asked) he was driving a wedge between himself and the voters. By not picking a side he alienated both sides.

I wiser operator might’ve temporarily conceded ground on the nuclear arms question and taken an anti IRA and Hamas stance in order to get into number 10. Then once in reverted to his approach of listening to both sides with respect. A bitter pill that reveals the loopholes in our system of governance, but one that Corbyn should’ve swallowed for the greater good. Having to row back on these temporary stances is preferable to letting the Tories in for another term. Tearing up manifestos is something governments have done since time immemorial and it was not only naive, but perhaps a little hedonistic and irresponsible for Corbyn to think himself above it.

So, while Corbyn was naive in his leadership campaign, and while I like to believe he’d have made a great reform leader if he’d somehow got into number 10, I think ultimately his perfect role might be in the Vatican - with his unflinching principles he’d make a great Pope (even if he probably isn’t Roman Catholic!)


…For me, though I think all the above is a side show in terms of his 2019 election defeat. Imo the country wasn’t so much voting for government, or voting on opinions about nuclear arms, or the IRA, but were instead voting on Brexit. Everyone was sick to death of never ending Brexit debates and wanted it over. Much of the north - the red wall - had been pro brexit in the referendum, so it’s no mystery as to why they voted for the man that’d led the Brexit campaign and now promised to leave Europe straight away. I imagine there was even a few Labour remoaners sick to the teeth with it all, who voted Tory just to get it over with.

My guess is that for the vast majority of the red wall voters it was always going to be a one-off Tory vote to finalise brexit and then back to Labour at the next GE. At least that was their intention; now they’ve dipped a toe in the Tory jacuzzi who knows how long they might end up staying. Starmer’s insipid, invisible opposition certainly might lead many of those voters to stay in Boris’ hot tub another term.

Btw, I didn’t vote in the brexit referendum as I didn’t believe a word from either side and I like to make my decisions based on info, rather than peer pressure and tribalism. However, though there were things I liked about being part of the EU, I didn’t like the inevitable move to federalism and I’d found the strong arm tactics employed against Greece by the EU and IMF very disturbing. I’ve no doubt that as soon as the EU were ready we’d find ourselves at the business end of gangster tactics with stark ultimatums.

So I can’t say that I was too saddened when the result was announced. But I was saddened by the some of the reasons given and by the small minded twats that went flag waving and by Farage getting that much more of a platform to spout sh!te.

At the end of the day we’re ruled by greedy, elitist twats in Europe, or greedy elitist twats in the U.K… At least with the latter we have a slightest hope of kicking them out… How’s about that for naivety 😉

a reply to: McGinty

As usual a very thought provoking and well presented post.

Corbyn’s fundamental principle seemed to be ‘fairness’.

There's literally millions of people 'up north' who would passionately disagree with this.

He casually dismissed and blatantly ignored valid cares and concerns that were voiced to him time and time again.

It's very easy, and highly inaccurate, to blame this dislike on MSM and some sort of 'Project Fear'.
Sure, I don't disagree that MSM went into overdrive in their attempts to discredit Corbyn.
But as with all good PR and advertising campaigns the FACT that the vast majority of allegations and claims etc against Corbyn were based on truths.

This IMO would’ve made him a great leader to redress the imbalances.

We'll have to agree to disagree there mate....how he could have been allowed to be in charge of this nations Armed Forces when he'd done nothing but criticise and insult them is beyond me.
His decision to unilaterally disarm this country borders on the treasonous and would have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of people being made unemployed.

However, fairness means listening to all sides of all arguments, be it the IRA, or Hamas.

There is a whole generation of British people who will NEVER accept any further conciliatory moves towards the IRA.
Corbyn supported a group of people who deliberately targeted and murdered innocent British people, including women and children.
Yes, the reasons are many - and not quite as 'romantic' as many would have us all believe - and no-one is denying the need to listen to the Nationalist communities concerns and grievances - but NEVER, EVER, appeasement or support for murdering, terrorist scum.

And there are literally millions upon millions of people - including a massively high proportion of traditional Labour supporters - who see things exactly as I do.

And when they read about Corbyn sitting with his 'metropolitan elite' friends singing Rebel songs and Irish it sort of pisses them off.

When Corbyn stood on a podium and refused to condemn IRA terrorists whilst at the same time criticising British Armed Forces he immediately made himself unelectable.

None of that was down to MSM and a cruel and vindictive campaign to discredit him, it was all down to Corbyn and his own opinions.

His belligerent support of Hamas seemed to many be more about his dislike of Israel, the anti-Semitism that was endemic in Labour during his leadership and his pandering to a certain demographic upon which he relied on for a significant amount of support.

I agree with this in the big picture; if you want peace, then the sides need to talk and both recognise the others grievances and be willing to make concessions.

Yes, you're right....but some things are still raw and still too close to home.

One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter and all that;

Blowing innocent people up is ALWAYS wrong no matter who does it and when.

....there wouldn’t be ’terrorists’ in Ireland or Israel/Palestine if not for the British interfering.

With all due respect my friend that is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint, both situations are far, far more complicated than that.

So a British PM has to start at a point of recognising that the terror is in no small way of their making and enter talks/negotiate talks with some humility.

We have done.
The Good Friday Agreement.

I know people on both sides in Ireland....they all dread going back to The Troubles.
They all recognise that Corbyn would have been a massive threat to the continued peace.

Corbyn had some great domestic policies.
These were outweighed and overshadowed by all the other stuff.

He had some nonsense as well.


You talk about Corbyn's naivety and poor decision making.
His loyalty to Diane Abbot defied logic and also discredited Corbyn.
Harsh maybe, but very true.

.... he’d make a great Pope (even if he probably isn’t Roman Catholic!)

There has never been a Catholic Prime Minister - Bliar was told he had to wait until was no longer PM or resign before he completed his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

There's definitely an element of truth in what you say about people being sick of Brexit and just wanted it done.
But there was a massive feeling of voting for the best of a truly awful bunch.
The vast majority weren't Tory supporters, they just thought Boris would do less damage than Corbyn.
Personally I thought they'd do different types of damage.

Boris has done a woeful job of managing this pandemic....I'm not sure Corbyn would have done any better.

If Labour return to their core, traditional values and actually listen to people from the 'Red Wall' instead of arrogantly thinking they know what is best for people then people will return in droves.....Boris has done himself no favours.

Most people saw/see the benefits of a Free Trade Association but they didn't want political union....certainly not with something as rotten and corrupt as the EU.
We had little chance of reforming it so the best choice was to leave.

Anti-EU is not the same as anti-European.

At the end of the day we’re ruled by greedy, elitist twats in Europe, or greedy elitist twats in the U.K… At least with the latter we have a slightest hope of kicking them out… How’s about that for naivety

And never has a truer word been spoken.

Unfortunately all this divide and conquer only serves to maintain the status quo.
We need a full system reboot.
Deconstruct the whole amoral system and rebuild it as it both could and should be.

a reply to: McGinty

Everyone is being forced into politics and the economics game. Like trying to get a good government that actually addresses the needs of the people. The sad fact is that this has never happened. Guess what it never will. This has to be done on a local level and has to bypass the current societal setup. The currency is labour and organisation, which simply utilises the existing talents of the community. The needs are adequate nutrition shelter and leisure activities. Which for varied reasons cant be done in a city with a constant demand for payouts like rent to a point where the individual is time-poor. It also requires everyone to participate to the best of their abilities. If you do a structured analysis of what makes a satisfying life without fillers and bunting. The produce needed is fairly simple In fact it is so simple I wonder if this isn't already going on in some forgotten part of the country. Going on under the radar. Where Spuds are exchanged for Vino, the vino for Tabacco, the tobacco for eggs. A hundred people making a lot of one item preserving that stock of wealth at an exchange and the rest of the world could just look on and wonder. Just a thought smaller manageable communities that exist as a parallel and addition to the highly inefficient system existing now. It's not rocket science.

a reply to: Freeborn

Always a delight to chat with you, Freeborn. Very much appreciate the points you put me straight on with your informed insight. Being a southerner I wouldn’t dream of patronising you, a northerner I’ve gleaned, with my assumptions about the political feelings rife in that part of the country. I humbly take your experience of this as an education and can see why Corbyn was unliked in that region, regardless of the press assassination.

You’ve explained very clearly why many would’ve seen a Corbyn government as just doing a different kind of damage to a Boris government, and that makes a lot of sense. But for all these undoubted shortcomings I still think that Corbyn’s pros and cons were preferable to Boris’, and his greedy bastard cabinet. With Boris I simply don’t see any ‘pros’, apart from finally ending the brexit debate. That’s indeed a major turn, but I’d rather still be suffering the omnipresent whining from both sides of Brexit if it meant that right now we’d have more and better paid nurses, police, care, less financially incentivised education, rent caps to burst the completely frakked up housing market so that working class people can afford to have a roof over their heads. And throughout coivd I’ve no doubt he would’ve genuinely listened to the science, locking down far sooner which would’ve made the spikes smaller, lockdowns shorter, and caused many thousands less to have died.

That’s the way I see it - it’s not equal, but instead Corbyn is the far lessor of the evils - and that anyone that voted for him deserves everything they get. But that’s just my opinion, and opinions are like r-solls, everyone’s got one.

Just today there’s yet another story about Boris’ bottomless venality; soirées open only to individuals that have donated 250k…
Elite Tory donors club holds secret meetings with Johnson and Sunak
Not does cash for questions persist, but Boris has parties to take his orders from the money.

Oh, and Diane Abbott… yeah, there’s no defending that! Loyalty to a fault, another example of Corbyn’s political naivety, or embarrassing photos form the early days in Diane’s ‘lock-box’? Anybody’s guess! There was a picture doing the rounds a couple years back of her at a bus stop wearing a different, ill fitting shoe on each foot. Not only were they different shoes, they were also both left shoes (or maybe they were right shoes! Left seems more appropriate in this context). I’m not one to take the piss out of anyone with the issues that lead to this kind scene, but I definitely don’t want them leading any aspect of the country.

For me the core of Labour are the unions - the representation of the working class to prevent exploitation. Of course the unions are no less prone to greed and corruption, but for Labour to get back to its roots, which I’d also welcome, imo the unions are always key. Right now Company man Starmer seems to be moving in the opposite direction, back towards New Labour, the red version of soirées with corporate donors to do their bidding. When Starmer’s first act in charge was to get rid of Rebecca Long-Bailey I knew that party was frakked for the foreseeable.