The Mainstream Media

Do you mean the debate where two of the eight ‘random’ members of the public were a Labour activist and a rabidly anti-Semitic imam? That debate you mean?

There has never been a plant on BBC panel shows before

I take no notice of the media, just sitting back relaxed while they all kill themselves. Who actually takes them seriously?

Hopefully Boris wins in a canter, goes on to deliver brexit, and then trump secures another term. The dummies will be going in all directions.

The one on the BBC, you mean? You know, our state broadcaster who buys more copies of The Guardian than any other paper, despite its national circulation being otherwise so low. Is that the debate you’re talking about?

Was that the debate where Boris exposed his total ignorance by suggesting GATT Article XXIV?

there will still be a few on here, MC

Bap is back (hurrah!) and his wrist is no longer aching.

The same BBC who advertises its job vacancies in The Guardian more than any other paper. Is that the one?

The same BBC who praised left wing ‘comedian’ Jo Brand for suggesting people should throw battery acid on politicians, yet sacked Danny Baker for posting a picture of a monkey? That BBC you mean?

Jun 24, 2019 -- 5:26PM, aaronh wrote:

There has never been a plant on BBC panel shows before

If they were of course.

Is asking if the leader would commit to a GE or that they would commit to an Islamophobia investigation questions that could only be asked by these people?

The first one is very valid given the government is falling apart and the next leader wont fix that. And tories should not want their party to be attacked the same way labour is on Jews.

The guardian really got you lot tilted hard

Labour is attacked because many of its prominent members ARE anti-Semitic. Who in the Tory party is Islamophobic?

Why does the left wing broadcaster not put their full support behind policy of labour. Why does it not show support for labour and corbyn, even implicitly?

This would be actual sign of left wing bias. Not that the employ some liberals and buy a load of the guardian

Jun 24, 2019 -- 5:34PM, Torquemada wrote:

Labour is attacked because many of its prominent members ARE anti-Semitic. Who in the Tory party is Islamophobic?

Do you disagree with Baroness Warsi, or many of the muslim groups suggesting it is so.

Or is it all a conspiracy by these groups to put down the tories?

I noticed a feature on the beeb site a while back, debating if it was ok to listen to Michael Jackson songs. This coming from the lot who employed a certain fix it character doing tv shows for donkeys years.

How can you take them seriously.

No, The Guardian is what it is - a left wing newspaper. It’s the BBC who are the hypocrites - purporting to be impartial when they clearly are not. And worse, forcing folks to pay for their hypocrisy. That is what tilts me.

The bbc has a liberal bias, I don't think that is arguable. It certainly does not have a left one.

Which, despite what this forum thinks and acts like, I think the country is mostly socially liberal. At least for now

Who, specifically, does Baroness Warsi accuse of being Islamophobic?

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-05/warsi-hits-out-at-institutional-islamophobia-in-the-tory-party/

.

Zac Goldsmith and those associated with the mayoral campaign, thoughb

I can’t copy and paste on this device. What prominent Tories does she accuse of Islamophobia? Tell me their names and I’ll google them.

Zac Goldsmith? Was he one? Okay, I’ll google it now.

i presume Zac Goldsmith is Jewish?

turns out he is

Most political parties have immigration experts in them who can forget the bicycle man tebbit and his infamous cricket test

Jun 24, 2019 -- 5:48PM, Torquemada wrote:

I can’t copy and paste on this device. What prominent Tories does she accuse of Islamophobia? Tell me their names and I’ll google them.

so, when we are criticising Labour btw - are we only to talk about idiots like Chris Williamson and not crank councillors and **** posters on Twitter?

You will not get any reasonable discussion with talkmadder such is his blind hatred of anything  to the left of Rees fogg

You can talk about who you like. Once again, try not to invent stuff that wasn’t written.

then you might need to explain why you are asking about prominent Tories

Anxious displaying his breathtaking hypocrisy as ever.

The explanation has already been given but you chose to ignore it. To reiterate, several PROMINENT Labour Party members ARE anti-Semitic.

iirc it was one Lynton Crosby who brought out Goldsmith's inner islamophobe for his mayoral campaign.

Torque inventing stuff again

Aaron projecting again.

Which prominent Labour members are anti semitic or to put it another way anti- zionist

I’m off to Sainsbury’s, chaps. Does anyone want anything fetching? An original thought for Aaron? Sense of humour for Anxious? A dictionary for Management?

Think of the Nectar points!

a picture dictionary would be more appropriate. Don't over face the troll

"The saddest thing is that despite all the above - he's the strongest candidate the Tories have to offer"

Well that is of course a matter of opinion.  He's the most popular and if by strongest you mean most popular and most likely to win an election I agree. Hunt would be a better choice if it were up to me and not the Tory Members and public.  We are in an age where politics is turning more and more into a populaity, personality and cult contest, hence Corbyn, Farage, Trump, BREXIT and soon to be Boris.

The leftist media are getting carried away by their determination to paint him as an idiot, but he is streets ahead of Corbyn in terms of pragmatism, leadership and intellectual capability, although that isn't hard at all.

I think you give him too much credit. The media doesn't have to be "leftist" to paint him as an idiot (what media is leftist anyway these days? - apart from the Guardian & Mirror - it all leans to the right) -

I hope he enjoys the ride - because it will be a very short one! - Which in itself is more evidence that he (and his team) are idiots. Who in their right mind would want to try to clear up this mess (of which he was one of the chief architects) - it's a kamikaze mission impossible even for a very talented individual never mind for an idiot whose ambition always gets the better of his IQ.

So I am still saying he is an idiot in his own right (regardless of relativity to other idiots) - ultimately - Why would anyone but an idiot even be putting themselves forward at this point in time?

You do the master of "creative ambiguity" a disservice, sir!

I like to think of him more as The Writer of Alternative Truths....

Jezza has the charisma of an electric eel. Never ever will he disgrace the doors of No10. And if Labour want a Government, may i humbly suggest they find a new leader

By leftist media I'm mainly getting at the BBC, Radio, SM and the art of PC and censorship.  Newspapers these days wield much less power.

BBC not leftist.
Radio see above since where else other than LBC has any sort of political slant. And putting annannoying lib in the mid morning slot does not make a station leftist.

Which conservative views are getting censored on social media? Is it calling for lower taxes or the belief in free markets or whatever?

Or is it the most horrible lying reactionaries being gotten rid of, many of which dont actually have a great deal in common with traditional conservatives.

YouTube, Facebook etc would much rather Trump and I guess Boris won than Corbyn and Sanders btw

BBC not leftist

De don't do irony

Kuenssbers "grilling" of Twunt:

BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg called out Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt suggesting he had no "concrete plan" on how to deliver on Brexit. Mr Hunt has been vying for the position of Prime Minister against Boris Johnson in the Tory leadership contest and has pledged his commitment to reopening discussions with the European Union to secure a deal. But Ms Kuenssberg dismissed his campaign pledge during an interview with Mr Hunt on Tuesday: "Listening to you talking about your plans is actually very similar to talking to Boris Johnson about his Brexit plans."High on ambition, low on concrete detail."
Mr Hunt defended his position, insisting he had been "very clear" on how he would proceed if elected Prime Minister to ensure Brexit is delivered.
The senior BBC reporter however dismissed his proposals as "a wish" as she demanded to discuss the evidence he had to justify claims he would be able to resolve the Brexit debacle.
She added: "You were clear about what you would like to do. That’s a wish. What’s the evidence you can actually get this done?"Mr Hunt said: "This is the starting point for any deal. You’ve got to be absolutely clear about what you want and its’ different to what Theresa May was negotiating.

"Both Boris and I want to change that deal and the judgment is who is the person you trust as Prime Minister to go to Brussels and bring back that deal.

"It’s about the personality of the Prime Minister. If you choose someone where there’s going to be no trust, there’s going to be no negotiation and no deal."

Asked about his view on the Irish backstop, one of the most contentious aspects of the negotiation with Brussels, the Foreign Secretary claimed a solution "is ready" but said the bloc had not listened to alternative proposals.
He continued: "I think it is ready but the EU has not wanted to accept this kind of solution because their hope is we might stay in this thing called the customs union where we have to stick to their tariffs.
"But I think they know now that won’t get through to Parliament."He added: "This is a negotiation and they obviously are going to negotiate for something that for them is the best outcome.

"The reality is we ended up with a deal that’s not going to go through Parliament. When I talk to people in the EU, they understand that.

"They are keen to see if there is a way through."
But despite both Mr Hunt and Mr Johnson insisting they will seek to pressure Brussels into reopening talks on the existing withdrawal agreement, top figures across the Union have repeatedly rejected the suggestion.

European Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker insisted the bloc will not agree to any changes in the agreement and urged any future Prime Minister to respect the agreement Mrs May struck with the bloc.
Mr Juncker said: "We've concluded with Theresa May the withdrawal agreement.
“This isn’t a treaty between May and Juncker, this is a treaty between the UK and the EU.
“It has to be respected by whomsoever will be the next British prime minister.”
^^

Go and have a nice lie down now love.

It's all terribly unfair I know. Maybe we can whip up a collective chit chat hug for you in these difficult times.

#snowflakebell

Jun 26, 2019 -- 9:43AM, CLYDEBANK29 wrote:

BBC not leftist

Already been through this with torque and he came up with some irrelevant wibble not to do with their editorial policy. Can you provide me with proof of them supporting Corbyn, Labour or explicitly being in favour of left economic policy?

if you show a continual bias against one Party, whilst maintaining you are unbiased; that is proof enough of a bias

So devoting whole programmes to them. Essentially party political broadcasts where they're given a clear run at declaring why the public should vote for them...

Doing all that and more is evidence of bias against them???


You really need to stop trying so hard to be offended all the time. It's not a good look.

what a totally inept & immaterial comment to what i posted! You are talking about 5 minutes when i am talking about year upon year of bias.
that's 2 snipes in a two posts, pineapple so may i suggest you yourself have a lay down - love because baiting is not your forte

that's presuming you have any forte of course

I'm talking about hour long debates.

One on channel 4 and one on the beeb. And plenty more to come. Let's see how much time they devote to the Lib Dem leadership campaign eh.

Yet apparently they're both "leftist".


But you carry on if Boris doesn't get bowled under arms. Have a whinge if a comedian says something off and then claim it's all part of a left wing conspiracy.

Again, you are trying way too hard to be offended by something. You're supposed to be an adult. Start acting like it.

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”.

    All this, he said, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.

–Andrew Marr

    “It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat.

    “If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”

– Jeff Randall, former BBC business editor

    By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

–  Peter Sissons, Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter

     “In the BBC I joined 30 years ago [as a production trainee, in 1979], there was, in much of current affairs, in terms of people’s personal politics, which were quite vocal, a massive bias to the left. The organisation did struggle then with impartiality. And journalistically, staff were quite mystified by the early years of Thatcher.

    “Now it is a completely different generation. There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC. It is like the New Statesman, which used to be various shades of soft and hard left and is now more technocratic. We’re like that, too.”

– Mark Thomspon, former BBC Director General

    “I do remember… the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles. I’ll always remember that”

– Jane Garvey, Radio 4 presenter, recalling Tony Blair’s election victory in 1997

    I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face.

– Sir Antony Jay, former BBC producer and creator, inter alia, of “Yes, (Prime) Minister”

    “Liberal sceptical humanists tend to dominate television”.

    The “default position in broadcasting” – when covering issues such as gay marriage and the Roman Catholic position on IVF – revolved around human rights, and that opponents should not be treated as “lunatics”.

    “All I’m saying is, if you have at the centre of News an editor, he could explain why people in particular areas…are motivated, why they behave as they do and I think that would just increase understanding.”

– Roger Bolton, Radio 4 presenter and former head of Panorama and Nationwide

    “And, in the tone of what we say about America, we have a tendency to scorn and deride. We don’t give America any kind of moral weight in our broadcasts.”

– Justin Webb (pg. 66), Today presenter and former BBC North America editor

    “We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”

– Ben Stephenson, BBC controller of drama commissioning

I remember a time during which people didn't insist that someone or something was leftist propaganda just because they weren't total turd sandwiches.

“The BBC has wholeheartedly thrown its lot in with the liberal reformers; there has been no ‘impartiality’ on any of the big moral issues of the past half-century. In every instance, the socially conservative argument has been depicted as callous, reactionary and dogmatic. Any counterargument to the prevailing liberal consensus is now ignored altogether; social conservative voices are conspicuous by their absence on mainstream current affairs programmes.”

Aitken accuses the Corporation of maintaining “an elaborately constructed pretence” of neutrality, while acting as

    “a strident cheerleader for globalisation, immigration and ‘diversity’ (a quality which, in BBC usage, is always to be applauded, even though academic studies have shown that too much diversity lessens community cohesion).”

He suggests that in “BBC-world we are all liberals now”, and posits the existence of

    “a nexus of media interests which is militantly liberal in outlook, and which has systematically destroyed the foundational beliefs and practices which informed the lives of previous generations. This process started in the post-war years, gathered strength in the 1960s and, since then, has enjoyed virtually uninterrupted success in the furtherance of its goals (the EU referendum is the exception and, at the time of writing, it is not clear whether the wishes of the voters will actually result in Britain leaving the EU, such is the ferocity of the fightback against Brexit).”

He illustrates his thesis with many striking observations. It is true, as he says, that BBC people quite often go on nowadays to be heads of Oxbridge colleges – by his count there are now six of these. And it is also true that our universities and schools contain a far smaller proportion of teachers who think of themselves as conservative than was the case only a generation or two ago. There has been a long march by self-righteous liberals through many of our institutions.

Divorce, feminism, mental health, abortion, euthanasia, Christianity, Islam: on all these questions, the BBC tends to promote  whatever the latest progressive orthodoxy may be, and to ignore the huge volume of evidence which contradicts that orthodoxy. Aitken examines these issues in turn, and points to the inconvenient facts.

In Aitken’s view, the BBC propagates “a series of noble lies in pursuit of a political agenda”, but “sooner or later people will realise they have been duped”, which will be “a moment of great peril for the established order”.

One of the errors he makes here is to exaggerate the credulity of the public. Go into any pub in the land and one has always been able to find people who do not believe a word either politicians or journalists (even BBC journalists) tell them.

A second error is to exaggerate the influence of the BBC. Towards the end of the book, he glances across the Atlantic:

    “When President Trump was merely ‘Candidate Trump’ on the campaign trail, he hammered home one message in particular; he turned on the mainstream US media and accused it of peddling ‘fake news’. As anyone who has had any experience of US journalists will know, they do not, as a group, lack self-esteem; on the contrary, American media folk are monumentally self-important. Trump’s assault on their profession was bitterly resented and dismissed as the words of an inveterate liar who lacked the righteous virtues they see themselves possessing.”

But as Aitken points out, proving the facts in a story are correct – something over which The New York Times and other liberal American newspapers take inordinate pains – does not in itself exonerate the media from the charge of printing fake news:

    “Trump wasn’t saying that the press and the TV networks were getting the facts wrong, rather, they were telling the wrong stories. And Trump had a good point: it’s a question of fairness, not facts. A report can be accurate and yet deeply unfair whether by selection or omission. ‘Fake news’ is not so much about factual inaccuracy as about ideological bias…”

Aitken often implies there can be such a thing as journalism written without bias. That strikes me as a very dubious assumption. Whether one is a historian or a journalist, one can to some extent be aware of one’s own assumptions, and can try to admit these to the reader. But one cannot write without preconceptions, or bias as it will be called by one’s critics.

He also tends to underestimate the extent to which egregious errors, though they may persist for a long time, do eventually tend to be noticed and perhaps even corrected. So immigration, which for a long time was a suppressed subject, is now quite openly debated. And the oddity of Western feminists standing up for Islamic dress codes is more and more noted, even though the discrepancy has not been resolved.

Part of Aitken’s horror is at the “trashy, tawdry and shallow” culture which we inhabit, and which he believes to be “in large measure the creation of our media”. But he does admit, on page 128, that the “collapse in the prestige, influence and centrality of Christianity in Britain” has its roots a long way before the BBC. Arnold wrote Dover Beach, about the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the Sea of Faith, in 1867.

I love the idea that someone's taken the time to gather together those disparate, random, out of context quotes and bundle them together to see if some sap will go along with their story.

Not at all snowflake territory.

Typical BS hypocritical propaganda as with the coverage on Boris there PP.

I only posted it because someone asked.  Had I not posted it I would've avoided his question.  By posting it I'm a snowflake going to extreme lengths.

For the record I'm a staunch remainer and not a fan of Trump, but I'm not too stupid to realise that that TV is highly bias against Farage, (who resembles a car salesmen to me) BREXIT and Trump.

It's in your face almost every day.

It would be nice if TV relied on reasoned and balanced debate, to counteract the problem that the simpler the message the more it resonates with voters.  Rather they act like self righteous hypocrites, that furthers the prospect of personalities seen as visible alternatives to self righteous hypocrisy, such as Boris, Trump and Farage.

As one of Trump's supporters said.  Better to be a bare faced liar, than a self righteous hypocritical one.

I think you'd struggle to find any news clip in this country that doesn't paint Trump in a bad way.

It's hard to edit him in a way that makes him sound bigly intelligent.

Turn on MSN what do you get?  A link to a story saying Boris "mocked" for "weird" hobby.

You couldn't make it up.

Same source would be up in arms if someone from a supposed persecuted minority was being "mocked" as a "weirdo".

That's the self righteous hypocrisy of the source.

....

Well seeing as Trump's a billionaire mouse that's patently untrue.  Unlike Corbyn.

Trump could be portrayed as hard but pragmatic, and prepared to make tough and critical decisions.  But he's not.

Yes, they brushed Corbyn's man hole obsession under the carpet.

Clydebank - did you not see the hobby section of his interview?

IT is eminently mockable. The poor bluffer was trying to think of a hobby and just came out with gibberish.

Social media has duly ripped him on it.

Not sure why you're offended by it or trying to equate it to a minority group of some kind.



Why is everyone so offended by everything nowadays?

Right wingers spend all day calling liberals snowflakes and then when it comes down to it, they are just as triggered as those they hate.

Clydebank's question with regards to it being a minority would have to depend if it was a hobby based within that culture. As it is, I dont think making model buses is a corner stone of British culture

That's the problem with hypocrites.  Heads so far up their self righteous backsides they lose all sense of reason

At least he improvises with cardboard boxes instead of wasting money on one of those build a bus in 100 issues @ £5 each publications.

correct, Clydebank hatred really does make one lose reasoning

To point out self righteous hypocrisy one does not need to be offended.  I would be offended if someone mocked me, but I'm not offended for Boris.  Haven't read the story, just noted the headline.  The hobby is irrelevant

It's MSN I'm having a dig at not The Guardian.  It's just interesting that having been popped the question about media bias, without looking I get a link to a Guardian article.  The Guardian is the mouth piece for leftist propaganda and self righteous ideology.  It's open in that regard.   

I'll keep an eye out for a link to a Daily Mail story

I suppose you can just shout hypocrisy if you like.

It might be complete crap like, but don't let us stop you.

You're so deeply offended by this "self-righteous hypocrisy" having bothered yourself to read an entire headline.


Maybe the lesson of the day is to be a tad less ignorant. Maybe try to understand more. In this case, read the article and find out why he was mocked. Maybe see if you think it was worthy of mocking first before letting your blood pressure jump through the roof.

I mean I could move on and rip apart the whole MSM thing too if I had more time. As if you can throw the beeb, fox news, the guardian, the mail etc into one neat package and treat them all alike.

It's utterly ludicrous.

And it's only spouted by online sites in competition. Hey, get yoyr news and views from me instead. Pay your subscription here. Keep up the traffic for my sponsors here. But the brain juice here.

People not seeing through this charade is one of the most depressing features of the 21st century.

We get what we deserve.

But the night is young and it's summer so let's stick to Johnson and his defence force.

Wasted two minutes of my life reading one of the most lame and irrelevant articles I've ever come across, which the headline suggested it would be.

So looking at MSN today.  2 more anti Boris, Guardian articles featured, 2 no deal BREXIT warnings featured, and a link to an anti Farage piece from The Independent.  No anti Labour posts today or yesterday.  I repeat I'm anti BREXIT, anti no deal and anti Farage, and very anti Corbyn.

Maybe The Guardian pay MSN to cover their stories?  Either that or the editors are seemingly lefties.

In the interests of balance, I've also checked in on this mainstream media monolith. In my case, the telegraph.

Top 3 stories are: a strident message from Johnson to fellow tories to back no deal; a spirited defence from Farage about his expenses and; an op ed about "desperate remainers"

Bloody MSM and their pro-Johnson, pro-Farage, pro-no deal coverage.

Have you checked the Burpton Upon Fart Enquirer?

days since the BBC had a positive Brexit story

0

To be accurate that's starting today, in reality it must be already a high number .. well can anyone remember anything that wasn't 100% negative about Brexit since Boris took over or long before that? It's just since The Rise of Boris (and the period before) they've ramped up the hysterical anti Brexit propaganda to fever pitch again.

OfCom apparently complaining today about diversity in radio presenters, we can see which way that shower of ***ks bread is buttered, no wonder they turn a blind eye to the BBC. They are a like minded bunch of sad SJW snowflake twunts, them trying to keep the BBC in line is liking get the SS to make sure the NSDP weren't too right wing.

(LACK of divesity).

snowflake alert/\

0

& the pessimistic Canuck is his usual jovial self

He's at it again today. It's like a drip drip of news management to keep the negativity in the news every day.

he should have been roasted yesterday. Because he wasn't, is why you get today. Too soft with the the 3 main reasons we are still in the EU. Got rid of the nutcase & the nodding dog; just Hecate to go, & the sooner the better

Dateline London now; fair & balanced

Jo Phillips & Nigel Nelson tonight on "The Papers" Now that's a well balanced review coming up - is it not?

Had to google them. Guardian and Mirror?...

Dateline london = 4 (generally foreign) left wing EU-philes sit and bash Boris and Brexit, is that a fair stab? Was the French burd on? Yasmin? Owen "flounce" Jones?

They reported that the pets of Whaley Bridge are all safe. If that doesn't cheer you miserable basterds up then quite likely nothing will.

That's probably like 1,000 cat rescued from tree stories in a single hit.

there was a Yank on DL (Henry Chu) who was a cross between Alibaba & Bernie Sanders. The other 3 were a Greek numpty - a French numpty - & Polly Toynbee

your others were correct

Toynbee, of course. Did she break from tradition and say stupid things with unbelievable arrogance?

(That might describe me I suppose but everyone loves a hypcrite :))

Toynbee just anti everything to do with Brexit & a confirmed hater of Bozo

on the Beeb earlier, there was some ex-diplomat; who quite surprisingly for the unbiased Beeb was - a Europhile Now besides being a total incoherent burk, who actually admitted that he hadn't "Been in the game" for over 20 years; he spent over 10 minutes blaming the UK for being "uncooperative" & "disingenuous" over Brexit. I sat in total bewilderment watching this numpty spout sh ite & more importantly, being allowed to do so, without any questioning or even the slightest hint of disagreement. It was like watching TASS berating America

That P Toynbee is an odd looking fellow.

The UK parliament won't pass the current deal (which has the non democrat lock in that the EU might possibly veto us ever trying to actually leave), UK goes back to get deal changed, EU says it won't, thus obviously preventing Brexit which is what it obviously wants, and it's the UK fault.

Yaaaaayyyy that make sense.

Carney hasn't said anything today so the BBC had to have SOMETHING so they just covered "brexit might ruin our holidays".

So they've flown their journalist + crew to the amalfi coast at license fee payer expense to walk around shooting holiday scenes and asking people if they are worried and the answer to the question is .. he doesn't have a clue. So .. he could have just said "we don't know". But that would only be 3 seconds of "doom".

And it's immediately followed by a similar article about food. Another drawn out "we don't know" - from location after location.

Nice work if you are a BBC journalist (no doubt on inflated pay) who likes expenses boosted travel.

Of course the RECIPROCAL of a drop in the value of the pound is that this make Britain far more attractive as a tourist destination for people from the EU. Don't hold your breath waiting on this in a counterpoint "upsides of Brexit" article on this from Brexit Bashing Central.

You need a cuddle JC? Sound like you're close to tears there.