Glad to see Sir Neil of Andrew reads my rants here :)

*in the same room.
Wouldn't be a JC post without a missing word!

Always surprises me that comedians don't make more humour about the left movement.Plenty of material just ignored.

has he apologised to carole cadwalloder yet?

And osmond is straight in there with some form of "-ist" allegation/attack against someone who dare voices the truth on something.
What a typical CLASSIC leftie response, a brilliant example of what the the good guys in modern times are fighting.


I'd crack that joke again or I fear I (once again) would have to explain an obvious joke to mr osmond.!

Somebody tell Just humouring himself, that self praise is no praise at all

cadwalloder was telling the truth

neill attempted to shut her down!!




has he apologised yet?

Spiv fans dont like it up em

Actually he did Donny and conceded his comment had been inappropriate.
On the point of the thread then AN is spot on. Wouldn't mind if the 'humour' was good but ……
BTW anxious should do stand up with his spiv Tory fanboys catchphrase a sure fire winner.

what did he apologise for

his long campaign to shut her down when she was proved to be right all along

or just the multiple abuse of her?

rather like when he claimed scottish kids were illiterate it seems
as if the apologies are somewhat forced and inadequate

He's destroyed more egos than any other tv journo and repeatedly banging on about a couple of his mistakes won't change that donny. People like him.

Awww bl00dy diddums boo bl00dy hoo, his tweet (on his own account on his own time) about this guardian woman was not that bad at all, it was I suppose mildly unprofessional but the outraged snowflake lefties who infest society like rats are trying to have him hung for it. I saw her on TV the other day and she seemed to be a doolally angry remoaner who thought this facebook/brexit thing and Arron guy she's been obsessed with were somehow incredibly important and meant the referndum was therefore invalid, and if the tweet image I saw yesterday was correct and from her, she was making completely bat sh1t crazy allegations that BBC were complicit in a conspiracy covering up deliberate electoral fraud.

I think Neil was right on the money. Remoaners and professionally outraged SJWs are of course however trying to say he's a misogynst evil fascist scumbag for a tweet they didn't like. Well of course barely a day goes by the professionally offended lefties don't try and get SOMEONE for a vaguely un-PC tweet. Give it a couple decades we'll be getting done for thought crime.

it has already happened (thought crime)  a woman beeped a black driver the other day and was investigated by the polis

I do not joke - it was said it was racist - ho ho  - pandoras box is now well and truly open

It is simply incorrect to say that any comment that is negative about a woman is misogynst or any comment about a non white person is racist etc etc.
The pattern is clear:
* Someone says anything "bad" about anyone who isn't a white western male.
* The "professionally outraged" will immediately play some "-ist" card. Knee jerk say they are therefore a bigot, one step away from a nazi.

The "mad cat woman" in the simpsons is a culturally familiar example of a mad person. To compare a woman who is acting bat-sh1t to her is not anti woman. If an incompetent white male police chief were accused of being like Chief Wiggum, no SJW would ever say this was misandrist or racist. I'm sure however if Chief Wiggum were black and the incompetent man were black the -ist card would be played before you could say "hypocrisy". And so it goes on...

so he can shut down people speaking the truth as long as it satisfies you

pleased you admit you only want freedom of speech for those that agree with you

funny ole world, innit

the so called leftie bbc continues to give a platform to the taxpayers alliance, the institute of economic affairs, the adam smith institute and all the other tory front groups despite these lobbyists being caught out engaging in nefarious practices and knowing nothing about the subjects they are supposedly specialists in.

the taxpayers alliance has admitted they unfairly sacked and smeared one of their employees, the bbc provided a platform for the hatchet job but didnt give him any right of reply. is neil up in arms about this?

surely giving a platform to propagandists masquerading as think tanks to spread their disinformation on serious programmes is far more serious a problem than allowing unfunny comedians a platform to be unfunny?

of course neil is not up in arms about it

the lady he is abusing is reporter in chief who broke the story
and was abused by neil on multiple occasions in an attempt to
shut her down

indeed jol. Some very unsavoury connections seem to be emerging of late that make the Beeb's claims of impartiality a bit suspect.

LOL so funny that the forum genius Osmond firstly comes away with some ridiculous and suitably idiotic strawman that I or Neil are against "free speech", then the post immediately AFTER that is from a leftie who seems to think the BBC isn't biased (though it so very clearly is) because it allows people he doesn't agree with to sometimes get a little slot, the implication being he want's them no platformed as he is clearly against free speech.

You couldn't make it up.

*wants

"attempt to shut her down". Jesus wept.

great thread jc

not going how you wanted it

throw abuse at people with counter opinion to you



q e d

JC - you may want to actually look into the issues rather than just rely on "the BBC is so very clearly biased (against my views obvs)"

LOL. Batting away the rubbish above is effortless, you need to understand the difference between quality and quantity.

"Somebody tell Just humouring himself, that self praise is no praise at allCool"
You'll notice I'm furiously posting while Neil is speaking on BBC2 to prove we are not one and the same

(Hands out of shot )

1.01 landed that you would just shout nonsense at me rather than deal in facts, as usual. i am not a leftie, for instance i believe that all benefits and state pensions should be means tested, i think that might rule me out of membership of any leftie party

in the past i was rude to you just checking and i dont really want to be as its all a bit pointless. however its hard to take you seriously when you talk such utter tosh.  you are locked in your own impenetrable bubble on broadcast mode only, impervious to anything that conflicts with your prejudices.

you havent batted anything away from me, you just attacked me and attributed views to me that i havent expressed.

I was talking mostly to osmond but yes I batted them away. You seemed to be making the argument that because the BBC sometimes allow people on who aren't leftie this means they aren't biased. This is collosally and fundamentally an invalid non argument. It's hardly with pointing this out as it's so obvious but it apparently has to be.

Then you say this:

"surely giving a platform to propagandists masquerading as think tanks to spread their disinformation on serious programmes is far more serious a problem than allowing unfunny comedians a platform to be unfunny?"

Firstly you are, as I say, suggesting people you don't agree with should be no platformed, then saying letting them speak is more serious. WEll is it? Who watches theses programmes? For a large swathe of the population, especially younger folk, they never watch these programs. The viewing figures are tiny. But for the comedy shows, espeically in certain demographics, the figures and % audience will be hugely different. And all that we get from them is a one way assault: Brexit is bad, people who voted Brexit are stupid racists, the Tories and anyone vaguely right of centre is bad, and sometimes, "Corbyn and the far left are good". The latter has quite explicit, from e.g. Frankie Boyle + his awful sidekick, and even worse on Channel 4, e.g. the horrendous Last Leg after Corbyn lost was 1 hour of a funeral wake where they didn't even mince their words they supported him.

Who is their target audience? What are the viewing figures vs obscure political shows.


As Neil accurately says of the Daily Mash, if it was a political program it would be forced to be balanced but it IS A political program.

As I remember the last leg, aimed at a younger audience (as are many comedy shows), they have even used the word WE when talking about Corbyn and Labour, without breaking step. It's as if momentum did a "comedy" show.

batted away

mummy's men tum now exerting more and more control over the party

More  complete drivel  , its the same old song

7 o clock and jonny snow another dangerous leftie according to the fanboys

i am against people masquerading as one thing when clearly they are something else, to say this means i am against free speech is about as stupid as it gets.
i have not suggested no platforming anyone, as usual its all in your mind. and you get to use one of your go to phrases so well done. if the bbc wants them on they should introduce them as what they are, lobbyists not independent think tanks.

you are unraveling your own argument, thank you. you've gone from the absurd claim that they 'sometimes get a little slot' to now saying  'the BBC sometimes allow people on who aren't leftie'. keep going and eventually you'll get to the truth. these groups are actually on a hell of a lot - question time, political programmes, news programmes, paper reviews, they are all over the media (not just the bbc).

i am not a fan of big government, however i dont like the influence of big money that drives these organisations who are basically one and the same group. the head of the iea was caught pimping access to government ministers, how can they possibly claim to be independent?

just because you say the bbc is left wing doesnt meant it is, you see what you want to see. most mornings lefties are bursting at the seams on twitter in much the same way as you, their complaint? the bbc and the today programme on radio 4 in particular are pro brexit and anti labour. one group thinks of the bbc as the brussels broadcasting corporation yet another thinks of it as the brexit broadcasting corporation

you, like so many, operate in a binary world which is why you incorrectly labelled me a leftie. and i am not a fan of the bbc, i dont think its standards are very good, its just its nothing to do with left or right. the bbc allowed the tpa to besmirch one of its ex employees on one of their channels but didnt give him any right of reply, that is very poor journalism again its nothing to do with left/right.

No reasonable person could read
"the so called leftie bbc continues to give a platform to the taxpayers alliance, the institute of economic affairs, the adam smith institute and all the other tory front groups..."
and not read it as an attempt to say that the BBC is not biased becaused it gives these people a platform to people who it does not agree with.

Fox news is very right wing biased. It gets left wing people one. Therefore it's not right wing biased. That's how that argument goes....

The bbc is ridiculously biased, I'm very tired of arguing the point and I'm not going to start digging up the same old evidence as it gets boring and I've better things do to.

I've foolishly let myself get distacted of course from the overwelmingly obvious and 100% true fact that BBC non-comedy is now a pile of biased left wing toss, with another generalised discussion that has been had many times.

At least jsm you can construct some attempt at a rational argument, so hats off there, osmond and anxious couldn't if their lives depended on it :) You've obviously got some issue with them not labelling lobbiny firms correctly which is nothing to do with BBC "comedy" or their general coverage.

"in spite of brexit..".

But political and satirical comedy has always been left wing. If not left wing, it's always taken pot shots at the establishment and those in power.


Them's basically the rules.


It's not really funny to take the side of Rees-Mogg etc and poke fun at the unemployed, disabled or the poor. There just aren't the laughs in it and the butts of the joke aren't able to defend themselves.



To make out this is some left wing policy or conspiracy is plainly nonsense. It's just that most comedy is anti-establishment and even when the comedians are poking fun at the left (eg when Boyle frequently railed against Corbyn) then it's just conveniently forgotten by the constantly offended.

As long as the BBC carries on annoying both the right and the left (and anyone that thinks they don't is just an idiot) then it is doing something right. 'Antiestablishment' comedy will always be seen as left wing as the establishment party in this country is right wing - brexit is a movement of establishment flunkies (despite how they have portrayed it) and the 'establishment' have right royally fecked it up (as was always going to happen given the way it was done) so if you are anti-brexit you are anti establishment and therefore left wing, whether you are or not of course.

Quite

"brexit is a movement of establishment flunkies (despite how they have portrayed it)"

LOL so all major parties apart from UKIP campaigned against it, albeit with some dissenters, the PM was against it, the previous PM was against it, HM official opposition was against it, the great British institution the BBC and C4 are vehemently against it (I don't watch ITV), most newspapers were AFAIK against it including say the FT and the Times (how more establishment can you get?), remoaners regularly dismiss Brexit leavers as stupid working class racists...

But Brexit is "the establishment". Quite....

how is that?

But Brexit is "the establishment". Quite....

Are we still having this debate -really? You could not wish to find 2 people with a greater sense of entitlement and more fully ensconced  in the establishment than JRM and Bozo for starters. Secondly 'the establishment' is not a single entity and there are different 'factions' - obviously - so while many in it did not want change there is very obviously a large group ( all the tory right wing brexiteers for example) in the establishment that did want it.
The fact all those shadowy right wing 'lobby groups' have been exposed as basically all working as one and sharing a lot of the same funding streams and all having vociferous support amongst the brexiteers shows they know how to work the system at the very least. Sure they got a few un-establishment monkeys to do the dirty work at the coalface of brexit but i think we all know who will be making a packet out of the end result (whatever it is) and it aint Vera Postlethwait from Leeds!

thank you for at least acknowledging that i can construct some attempt at rational argument, i wish i say the same to you but alas i cant.  your continued inability to actually reply to my points is rather telling.  you are busy attributing views to me that i have not expressed or purposely misrepresenting what i say.

and not read it as an attempt to say that the BBC is not biased becaused it gives these people a platform to people who it does not agree with. - i have tried to decipher this. the bbc doesnt have a view that's why they invite on so called experts, sadly all too often the experts are experts in nothing so their lazy research goes unchallenged. that and the fact that these groups are not independent is, imo, more worrying than carp comedy shows.

Fox news is very right wing biased. It gets left wing people one. Therefore it's not right wing biased. That's how that argument goes.... - a particularly weak argument imo. fox news carefully selects the liberals/lefties it puts on its shows, they make sure they get the least intelligent, least articulate people they can. they do this do make the opposing case look as weak as possible. this was revealed by one of their former talking heads (cant remember his name tobyn something i think), he was one of the right wingers who were always made to look good. he eventually tired of the circus and left revealing their tactics. so yes, they use to claim to be fair and balanced but no one thinks they are.

I've foolishly let myself get distacted of course from the overwelmingly obvious and 100% true fact that BBC non-comedy is now a pile of biased left wing toss, with another generalised discussion that has been had many times. - again, this is just your opinion, its not fact. common ground though, the whole exchange is fairly pointless

if there was a labour government and there was a group of supposedly independent think tanks that were all spouting a line sympathetic to the labour party i cant see you being anything but apoplectic if they were repeatedly invited on to the bbc. should the leader of one of these groups be recorded pimping out access to government ministers and he and his organisation continued to be given lots of airtime by the bbc would you see that as another example of leftie bias at the bbc?  that's a rhetorical question, obviously as you didnt answer my previous questions i cant expect you to answer this one, and we all know the answer anyway

of course there was little point interacting with you, your mind is decided, just like the lefties who complain that the bbc is the brexit broadcasting corporation.

have a good evening.

anxious
More  complete drivel  , its the same old song

I found this highly amusing from the man whose posts normally includes the same old tedious phrase of Tory spiv fanboys.

The News finished, I flick switch to c4 to see what the utterly sh1t "last leg" is on about assuming it'll be an attack on Brexit, Trump, or the Tories, and it's a "joke" about Trump's orange skin.

How hilarious. How much do these unfunny cant's get payed for this tired rubbish week in week out?

donny osmond 14 Nov 18 12:23 Joined: 02 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 79,461 | Blogger: donny osmond's blog
so he can shut down people speaking the truth as long as it satisfies you

The only person who has tried to shut people down in the Cambridge Analytica investigation investigation is Cadwalladr herself. She's notorious for the energy she's devoted to trying to stop other people pursuing their own investigations into the matter She even tried to take out an injunction against Channel 4:

The Journalist Who Blew Open The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Threatened To Injunct Channel 4 News And Demanded They Hand Over Their Sources
Carole Cadwalladr hired lawyers to threaten action against her broadcast partner and fell out with the New York Times and BBC in rows over access to sources.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/carole-cadwalladr-cambridge-analytica-injunct-channel4

It's this behaviour which lies behind Neil's frustration with Cadwalladr. Neil's an old-school journalist, who, as editor of the Sunday Times, spent years fighting the government and the security services through the courts as they tried to silence him over the Spycatcher revelations. When he then goes and sees a hack like Cadwalladr doing the exactly the same thing to fellow journalists, you can see why he compares her to a complete nutcase.

so he fights in court and is good

she threatens to go to court and is bad......really? sounds a bit unfair of you


the thing is he tried to shut her down, and she was proved to be right all along,


then he posts abuse, fair enough hes now removed it, but no need.


past good work doesnt mean he is always right, and why would he want to shut
down a fellow journalist? ....why not let her get on with it, as he probably wanted
for his own work when he was producing stuff of merit

Neil didn't go to court. He was taken to court, by the government, as they tried to suppress the revelations that, among other things, the security services had been trying to undermine Wilson's Labour administration.

Cadwalladr, by contrast, has gone to court herself, to try to prevent other journalists from investigating the Cambridge Analytica story. It makes her primary interest appear not to be whether there was any wrong-doing on Cambridge Analytica's part, but that she alone should get the credit for the story.

As I said if the tweet image from Cadwallder I saw the other day was true, she was making wild accusations about the BBC being part of a pro leave Brexit cover up conspiracy. She herself is to people coming across as a conspiracy nut. Certainly came across that way on TV the other day.
Also e.g.:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/06/26/is-the-orwell-prize-rewarding-conspiracy-theories-now/

The thing about Neil is he is EVEN HANDED in who he gives flack to and he doesn't take sh1t or tolerate idiots. I've lost count of the amount of Tories etc he's eviscerated on TV. Everyone is scared of him as he is very good.

Compare him to the awful Maitless, Brexiteer and leftie to the core. Watching her on Newsnight this week she looked like she's just licked p1ss, crossed with a snarl, such was her distaste when speaking to a Tory trying to talk up Brexit proceeding, and last night she said something amazing like "at what point do we overrule democracy (i.e. the leave vote) and stop brexit for the good of the country"!.

*Gives FLAK to: as everyone who has touched an Airfix kit should know, it's nothing to do with "Roberta", but "flak" comes from the German Flugabwehrkanone!

What about your spiv mates littlejohhny , ferria, kussenberg , all signed up spiv fans , there none so blind as those that cannot see

i think you protest to much tory boy

if neil tries to shut her down and works for bbc then of course it looks like bbc is involved as he trades on past good reputation

bbc invite folk to slander her and do not give her a right to reply

looks like bbc are involved


are they involved ?

who knows

Just a few things about the 'even-handed' Andrew Neil...

Neil was editor of The Sunday Times from 1983 to 1994. His hiring was controversial. It was argued that he was appointed by Rupert Murdoch over more experienced colleagues

After his graduation, Neil briefly worked as a sports correspondent for local newspaper, the Paisley Daily Express, before working for the Conservative Party.

Neil was editor of The Sunday Times from 1983 to 1994. His hiring was controversial. It was argued that he was appointed by Rupert Murdoch over more experienced colleagues.

In 1992 Neil was criticised by anti-Nazi groups[19] and historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper[20] for employing the Holocaust denier David Irving to translate the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.

In 1988 he became founding chairman of Sky TV, also part of Murdoch's News Corporation.

Neil was a vocal and enthusiastic proponent of British military involvement in Afghanistan, deriding those who opposed the war as "wimps with no will to fight", while labelling The Guardian as The Daily Terrorist and the New Statesman as the New Taliban

I don't usually refer to or read the Guardian, but this article explains it nicely.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/bbc-andrew-neil-media-politics

Also

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-bias-jeremy-corbyn-labour-centre-right-robbie-gibb-theresa-may-laura-keunssberg-andrew-marr-a7844826.html

This is interesting, though not about the BBC
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-persuasive-power-of-uk-right-wing.html

Add the ACTUAL affiliation of virtually all major BBC political journalists and you will find almost all are, in some way, Conservative. They're all certainly anti Corbyn.
This has ben proven time and again, over many years, but the perpetual mantra of The BBC is a left-wing mouthpiece is not only a deliberate lie, but it's boring.

I wrote a long thread naming all the people and proving this and describing a meeting in 1966 (iirc) which only 2 people attended and the left-wing thing has stuck since then.
When I did this the post was removed.

In fact EVERY time I have disproved the BBC "leftie" statement the post has disappeared. So I'm not going into it again.
The BBC has a dreadful diversity policy, is divisive instead of inclusive and fair. It discriminates, 'positively'. Which is still discriminatory.

The fact that you think the VERY CONSERVATIVE Andrew Neil is moderate is complete explanation of why you think everyone else is left-leaning.
That and the million mentions of the BBC being "liberal", which is almost Trumpesque in it's "If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth" style.

The BBC is NOT left-leaning, never has been, probably never will be. It's proven but it suits them VERY much to keep the myth alive, so they do.

Now I'll repeat myself, Just Checking.
No-one sees what they want to see more than you do.
You also don't want balance, you want to see tacit agreement with what you think, or it's all warped and anti-right.

jollyswagman, I wrote my previous post without properly reading your input.

Basically I'm saying the same thing.

So, well said!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcDIpk3AjmU

AN and TM. Nobody does it better.

Thank you akabula.
I can't remember the last time you posted straight after me without having a pop of some sort.

Not only that but that link probably proves to everyone that they're right.

he was a good journalist way back when, and had some great stories.


he probably still is, but hes gone down a few roads that seem familiar to other peoples agendas
such as iran war,  hiv/aids and global warming that seem to be markers for other peoples influences
and not a journalists investigations.

tweeting abuse to a fellow journalist on a day bbc highlited abuse on social media seems bad timing at best

He is rarely, if ever, found wanting on whatever he is talking/interviewing about.

I really am not sure if this is right, but somewhere in the back of my mind, I seem to recollect hearing that Mr Neil is not at all a nice bloke and that he freely admits this.
Is that right? or did I imagine it?

If every you need an example of someone who can't follow a simple argument or reach a logical conclusion based on facts, exhibit A: "Studyform".

"Here is some examples from way back of why a journalist might be called right wing. Therefore despite all the evidence daily that this journalist is highty professional, even handed, and widely respected for it, I'll say that make him right wing now and biased, and therefore by extension the entire huge sprawling organisation the BBC, the journalists, editors, editorial policy, stated societal propaganda goals, must all not left wing and not biased, despite, again, all the evidence rammed down our throat daily".

Jesus wept. And he no doubt thinks he's smart...

If every you need an example of someone who can't follow a simple argument or reach a logical conclusion based on facts, exhibit B

andrew neil



hiv does not cause aids......

discus

I've never heard anything about that but what difference would it make unless it involved criminality.
I'm only interested in interviewers grilling their subjects and putting them under pressure.
You can only do that by knowing in minute detail whatever you are discussing.
BTW consciously or unconsciously I would think most people would be affected by the bias of their own beliefs no matter how hard they try to fight it.
PS I don't try to fight it  but I'm sure AN does.

what difference does it make , lol

none to you

Yesterday was classic BBC. 6 more men of a certain origin convicted of a horrifying long campaign r@ping and gang r@ping loads of vulnerable girls. If any one normal circumstances or country this would be huge news and on the national broadcaster - it's a big thing. But as expected it wasn't covered at ALL on the 6 or 10 news. but they found time for a long slot where an asian woman was making mere allegations (unproven) against a white old man of "sexual harrasment". THAT got it's own lengthy slot of course. That's right up the BBCs street.

Which is more important? Which is the worst crime? We all know which is and which isn't and which is actually mores newsworthy. This example of delibereate filtering what is and isn't covered and promoting what the BBC wants to cover and blanking out anything that affects their politically correct left wing sensibilities it a classic to sum this sick organisation up. And that was just one big verifiable example, yesterday.

not sure andrew neil was to blame for that just checking

unless you know otherwise.


they were in news as they were sentenced...

their conviction was news as were comments from home secretary

not sure sentencing usually makes the news, unless the sentence is out of line with expected

So what difference would it make Donny.
Facts please and not your normal reply. TIA.

none to you....

facts ...well i wont bother , we both know its true

That's because it doesn't make a difference.

iyo...

people like osmond and porky are the ones who cheer on this editorial bias

If Brexit doesn't happen the BBC staff will do themself an injury partying. If it does happen, I foresee doom and gloom and "I told you so" on ANYTHING they can spin to be negative about Brexit for the next few decades. So basically what we have now, made permanent.

tweeting abuse to a fellow journalist on a day bbc highlited abuse on social media seems bad timing at best

Cadwalladr has managed to fall out with Channel 4 News, the BBC and the New York Times over this story, as she tried to stop them reporting it. She even tried to take out an injunction against ITN (and failed).

Do you see the significance of this? A court injunction is what you use to silence an investigative journalist. It's the enemy of free journalism. Yet Cadwalladr tried to use it against journalists themselves.

To call her 'mad' isn't the half of it.

but she didnt need to take legal action, and she was proved to be right.

of course those she has exposed , ans some yet to be exposed want to discredit her.


which makes those that abuse her look odd

AN didn't abuse her on twitter.

Nov 17, 2018 -- 10:18PM, Just Checking wrote:

Yesterday was classic BBC. 6 more men of a certain origin convicted of a horrifying long campaign r@ping and gang r@ping loads of vulnerable girls. If any one normal circumstances or country this would be huge news and on the national broadcaster - it's a big thing. But as expected it wasn't covered at ALL on the 6 or 10 news. but they found time for a long slot where an asian woman was making mere allegations (unproven) against a white old man of "sexual harrasment". THAT got it's own lengthy slot of course. That's right up the BBCs street.Which is more important? Which is the worst crime? We all know which is and which isn't and which is actually mores newsworthy. This example of delibereate filtering what is and isn't covered and promoting what the BBC wants to cover and blanking out anything that affects their politically correct left wing sensibilities it a classic to sum this sick organisation up. And that was just one big verifiable example, yesterday.

You have no idea about who is and isn't smart.

You are obsessed with the BBC and are completely confusing very many issues, to the point of saying that the BBC is a left-wing, muslim, paedophile supporting organisation.

Mostly, Just Checking, you persist in the completely wrong assertion that PC = Leftie. It doesn't.
You're wrong.
In fact you are almost entirely wrong through this entire thread.
You've let your obsession overtake reality.

Just for the record.
The BBC is possibly the least biased media outlet we have. Which isn't saying much.

It's still a pretty useless organisation.

Switched "Mash Report" on by accident.

First "joke" = Brexit. Then a big pile of "jokes" about Trump. Then "jokes" at Boris.

End of first segment. Exactly what anyone familiar with this excrement would expect.

If it's a parody, it's a parody of unfunny left wing **** "comedians" given what is nothing other than a policital platform at license fee expense.

Could these morons explaing to me why the BBC should give an observer journalist a "right of reply" for a tweet by Andrew Neil?
Surely the "right of reply" is to reply to the ****ING TWEET you smug morons?

because bbc invited on to bbc somebody she was exposing, giving them a chance
to speak without giving her a chance to speak.

so you have mixed up two situations to produce a post that suits you.

but hey ho , why change your style.

Do you understand ANYTHING that goes on around you?

yes

what else can i put you right on

Ok once again I'll explain things at a DO level.
Andrew Neil put a tweet out using a snowflake unfriendly name for the lunatic conspiracy theorist remonaer leftist at the Grauniad on Sunday.
The Sh1t Report then went on about this specific tweet.
They then said that (despite the fact it was Neil in his own time making a tweet on the public platform Twitter) said that the BBC had not given her a right of reply. Which is stupidity at an olympic level, but this is after all The Sh1t Report. The right of reply existed, it was to reply on Twitter, which she actually already had done anyway.
They then to give her a laughable "right of reply" read out a patronosing statement from her.

Do you need anything else explained?

yes but the right to reply does not concern that tweet

it concerns a person invited onto bbc

so you are mixing up two situations

i already explained that

hey ho

I give up.

i doubt you will, but if you do, its great news