OT Russell Howard

[Bill Wright]

Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?

More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.

Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Bill

[Martin]

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

Would it have been OK if Mike Reid had sung in a standard English
accent? If so, what accents are taboo? Will Lenny Henry still be able to
put on a West Indian accent? And what about Yorkshire? Can impersonators
still 'do' William Haig or Alan Bennett?

[Brian Gaff]

Well I'd never presume to worry about such trivia myself. Surely people are
being far too precious over this sort of thing. Humour is often close to
being rude about certain people or peoples, and one needs to take a large
pinch of salt with it.
The only exception I came across was the late Bernard Manning, who really
was as obnoxious in the flesh as he played on stage.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

Would it have been OK if Mike Reid had sung in a standard English accent?
If so, what accents are taboo? Will Lenny Henry still be able to put on a
West Indian accent? And what about Yorkshire? Can impersonators still 'do'
William Haig or Alan Bennett?
--
Ian

[c***@isbd.net]

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

Which is why I ignore most of Bill's rubbish.

[Bill Wright]

Post by c***@isbd.net
Which is why I ignore most of Bill's rubbish.

Cut yourself off from some much-needed education then, haven't you?

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party. It would make
me feel that they were obeying their charter obligation to be impartial.

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

You've not been paying attention to Brillo Pad on the Daily Politics, then.
He regularly grants your wish.

Jim

[Bill Wright]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

You've not been paying attention to Brillo Pad on the Daily Politics, then.
He regularly grants your wish.
Jim

He's brilliant, and so brave. But I suppose he doesn't care if they get
rid of him. It's noticeable that any BBC people who break ranks and
admit to the bias are on the point of retirement.

Some of his guests don't seem to do their homework, and are caught off
guard. Not quite the leftist BBC easy ride they expected!

Bill

[Bill Wright]

In reality he is just like the herd. More interested in starting an
argument and showing how 'clever' he is in being able to 'trip up' people.

Except that he gives left wingers a hard time, unlike almost any other
BBC interviewer.

I guess you also missed recent radio interviews of some of the candidates
for the leadership of the Scottish LP as well. Yet another example where
your endless moaning about BBC 'leftist' bias was shown to be nonsense.

Since all the candidates were LP members there's no reason why the
interviewer should differentiate between them, so they might as well
give them all a proper grilling.
Anyway, one example doesn't prove anything. I'm talking about bias, not
relentless propaganda. Of course there are programmes and items on the
BBC that put the right wing POV. It's just that the balance isn't there,
even remotely.

But I realise you find it too much fun to start such pointless arguments.
Indeed, it is something you share with most BBC 'journalists' <sic> in
their news and politics <sic> areas.

Isn't this one of the ad hominem attacks that you're always on about?

Bill

[Martin]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

You've not been paying attention to Brillo Pad on the Daily Politics, then.
He regularly grants your wish.

He attacks all politicians.

[Martin]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:50:09 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

You've not been paying attention to Brillo Pad on the Daily Politics,
then. He regularly grants your wish.

He attacks all politicians.

Indeed. Hence exampling that Bill's delusion that 'leftists' are not
challenged by BBC journalists is absurd. Of course mere reality doesn't
stop Bill cranking out his same old obsessive tune...

Bill's comments say more about his own bias than those of the BBC.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Martin
Bill's comments say more about his own bias than those of the BBC.

My only bias is that I'd like the BBC to be the trustworthy thing it
once was.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Post by Martin

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

You've not been paying attention to Brillo Pad on the Daily Politics, then.
He regularly grants your wish.

He attacks all politicians.

As he should. But what makes him stand out is that he attacks left wing
ones. This always seems odd when you're used to the BBC.

Bill

[Steve Thackery]

Post by Bill Wright
As he should. But what makes him stand out is that he attacks left
wing ones. This always seems odd when you're used to the BBC.

What I like about Andrew Neil is that he is very much on top of his
game. Of course he uses researchers when preparing for an interview,
but there's no doubt he really does know politics, and the history of
politics.

It can be slightly annoying when he brandishes that expertise -
willy-waving, basically - but I like the way he pins down politicians
of any colour with no apparent bias (or rather, equal bias against all
of them).

Surely, for pathetic points-scoring, the worst culprit must be David
Dimbleby on Question Time. He latches on to some totally trivial point
and then picks at it until he "scores". Pathetic, because these points
are invariably irrelevant. In particular he is obsessed with "Will
you....... yes or no?" -type questions.

Most intelligent people can see that many of these questions simply
cannot be addressed with a "Yes" or "No"; "It depends on the
following....." is often more appropriate.

I don't think David Dimbleby is particularly intelligent, and it shows,
but Andrew Neil is.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Steve Thackery
What I like about Andrew Neil is that he is very much on top of his
game. Of course he uses researchers when preparing for an interview,
but there's no doubt he really does know politics, and the history of
politics.

He really does seem to have the facts at his fingertips doesn't he?

Post by Steve Thackery
Surely, for pathetic points-scoring, the worst culprit must be David
Dimbleby on Question Time. He latches on to some totally trivial point
and then picks at it until he "scores". Pathetic, because these points
are invariably irrelevant. In particular he is obsessed with "Will
you....... yes or no?" -type questions.
Most intelligent people can see that many of these questions simply
cannot be addressed with a "Yes" or "No"; "It depends on the
following....." is often more appropriate.
I don't think David Dimbleby is particularly intelligent, and it shows,

Let's face it, he got into broadcasting because of his dad. If he'd been
born in a council house in Doncaster he'd probably have been an aerial
rigger or some other trade favoured by the dim witted.

I reckon I could do a better job on QT than him. When they all started
barneying I'd just say, "Oi you, shut the fuck up!" (You can say 'fuck'
on the BBC even though many people find it highly offensive. You can't
say 'nigger' though, even though the word was a normal part of the
vocabulary of anyone over 65 for most of their lives).

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Steve Thackery

Post by Bill Wright
As he should. But what makes him stand out is that he attacks left
wing ones. This always seems odd when you're used to the BBC.

What I like about Andrew Neil is that he is very much on top of his
game. Of course he uses researchers when preparing for an interview,
but there's no doubt he really does know politics, and the history of
politics.

Which if true shows that "knowing" politics doesn't stop them playing the
usual "X is unpopular in polls, Y disagrees with his colleagues, Z isn't
liked by his party, etc, etc" The problem here is the *behaviour* of
journalists when 'interviewing'. Rather that focus on spending time
analysing the issues and their factual basis it is "go for the man, not the
ball'.

Its driven by the meedja obsession for having short sharp 'items' rather
than giving an issue the time and consideration needed to find if - heaven
help us - the *interviewer* may have something to learn. Also driven by the
need of the interviewer to show the audience and their director that they
are the 'expert' here.

The Today interview of two leadership candidates was a classic example.
They wanted to talk about their ideas and policies so we might be able to
decide if either might be a better leader than the other. The interviewer
wanted to talk about Milliband, not issues or policies. Then cut things off
after just a few mins. No time for anyone to explain anything or allow
listeners to think about it. They treat pretty much all politicians in the
same way.

Post by Steve Thackery
I don't think David Dimbleby is particularly intelligent, and it shows,
but Andrew Neil is.

Which may tell us that 'intelligence' has little to do with the methods
they use. Just driven by the need to follow the above requirements they
regard as 'the job'. So far as I can tell, Brillo just acts with more smug
arrogance and aggression tham Dimbo rather than more intelligence. All I
can see behind it is "I like this job and want to show I'm indispensible.
Look how I can show up politicians by the way I behave." Bear bating.

It was very different in the days of hour-long Walden interviews, etc.
There he drew out the ideas and arguments and actions of the person being
interviewed. The audience learned more, and could then easily make their
own minds up about the person being interviewed. He gave them plenty of
rope to hang themselves when it was deserved. And time for people to decide
if the person was genuine and capable if they were. But this all takes
screen time and a level of understanding of politics that you simply don't
see these days from the programs and interviews we've been discussing. To
busy interrupting and trying to drag things to "X doesn't really support Y"
and so on.

Jim

[Steve Thackery]

Post by Jim Lesurf
It was very different in the days of hour-long Walden interviews, etc.
There he drew out the ideas and arguments and actions of the person
being interviewed. The audience learned more, and could then easily
make their own minds up about the person being interviewed. He gave
them plenty of rope to hang themselves when it was deserved. And time
for people to decide if the person was genuine and capable if they
were. But this all takes screen time and a level of understanding of
politics that you simply don't see these days from the programs and
interviews we've been discussing. To busy interrupting and trying to
drag things to "X doesn't really support Y" and so on.

I completely agree with every word in this paragraph. Those Walden
interviews were brilliant.

[Bill Wright]

Indeed. Hence exampling that Bill's delusion that 'leftists' are not
challenged by BBC journalists is absurd. Of course mere reality doesn't
stop Bill cranking out his same old obsessive tune...

Where have I said that leftists aren't challenged by the BBC? That would
be absurd. Of course they are. But there's no balance, and it's as much
about bias by omission and emphasis than anything else. For instance,
I've just watched the 1pm news. There was a long item about the fact
that some (hitherto unknown) fashion designer has seen a way to get some
publicity so she has made some hijabs with Remembrance poppies on them.
This was turned into a ridiculous piece about cultural cohesion, all the
fantastically brave things British Muslim soldiers have done over the
years (how bloody patronising!), how a Muslim won a VC in WWI, etc etc.
This story wasn't, by any reasonable measre, worthy of a slot on the
main national news. They talk to us as if we are little children that
need to be taught right from wrong. It's insulting.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Post by Bill Wright
I've just watched the 1pm news. There was a long item about the fact
that some (hitherto unknown) fashion designer has seen a way to get some
publicity so she has made some hijabs with Remembrance poppies on them.
This was turned into a ridiculous piece about cultural cohesion, all the
fantastically brave things British Muslim soldiers have done over the
years (how bloody patronising!), how a Muslim won a VC in WWI, etc etc.
This story wasn't, by any reasonable measre, worthy of a slot on the
main national news. They talk to us as if we are little children that
need to be taught right from wrong. It's insulting.

Strangely, although there was lots of time for the bollocks mentioned
above, there wasn’t time for another story which I think is possibly
more important: the fact that 14% of Britain’s young people have ‘warm
feelings’ about ISIS.


Bill

[Wolfgang Schwanke]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their
political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson fit the bill?

[Bill Wright]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke

Post by Bill Wright
That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson fit the bill?

No, because he doesn't do political programmes. He manages to appear
very right wing, but actually he rarely expresses any political
opinions. When he appears on HIGNFY he just does it for the money,
knowing that he will be pilloried.

Bill

[Martin]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke

Post by Bill Wright
That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson fit the bill?

No, because he doesn't do political programmes. He manages to appear
very right wing, but actually he rarely expresses any political
opinions.

LOL

Post by Bill Wright
When he appears on HIGNFY he just does it for the money,
knowing that he will be pilloried.

He does everything on TV for money.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
When he appears on HIGNFY he just does it for the money,
knowing that he will be pilloried.

He does everything on TV for money.

Your point being?

Bill

[Martin]

Post by Wolfgang Schwanke

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Martin

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

Nobody is obliged to watch somebody, who doesn't share their political views.

That's true, but I do wish the BBC would sometimes show long winded
gratuitous attacks on the Labour Party or the Green Party.

Doesn't Jeremy Clarkson fit the bill?

and HIGNFY

[Brian Gaff]

All very infantile, but then again, who really cares. The best disabled
sketch ever was the Pete and dud one about the Unidexter auditioning for the
part of Tarzan in a movie.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs folded
up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with the
disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.
Bill

[John Hall]

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African
accents. This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

[Bill Wright]

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot. BBC3 is the channel that the BBC use to brainwash
the young and naive.

Bill

[John Hall]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot. BBC3 is the channel that the BBC use to brainwash
the young and naive.

The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American
Dad. Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at
chavs aged under 25.

[Alan White]

Post by John Hall
The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American
Dad. Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at
chavs aged under 25.

Isn't that the target audience, or close to it?

[Bill Wright]

Post by Alan White

Post by John Hall
The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American
Dad. Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at
chavs aged under 25.

Isn't that the target audience, or close to it?

I guess if programmes are aimed at anyone it might as well be the target.

Bill

[Woody]

Isn't the target age range for BBC 3 18-34?

And excuse the ignorance but who is Brillo Pad?

[charles]

Post by Woody
Isn't the target age range for BBC 3 18-34?
And excuse the ignorance but who is Brillo Pad?

you obviously aren't a Private Eye reader .

[Bill Wright]

Post by Woody
Isn't the target age range for BBC 3 18-34?
And excuse the ignorance but who is Brillo Pad?

You know, whatsisname.

Bill

[Mark Carver]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Woody
Isn't the target age range for BBC 3 18-34?
And excuse the ignorance but who is Brillo Pad?

You know, whatsisname.

Andrew Neil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil

[Woody]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Woody
Isn't the target age range for BBC 3 18-34?
And excuse the ignorance but who is Brillo Pad?

You know, whatsisname.

Andrew Neil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil

Well, I did think it might be him but I just wanted to make
sure.

[John Hall]

In message <m2uc8u$d5d$***@dont-email.me>, Woody <***@ntlworld.com>
writes

Post by Woody
Isn't the target age range for BBC 3 18-34?

More like 13-25 I'd have thought, going by the content.

Post by Woody
And excuse the ignorance but who is Brillo Pad?

I don't know either.

[Steve Thackery]

Post by John Hall
I don't know either.

Andrew Neil is called that - rather unkindly - since he started having
hair implants and his hairline began creeping forwards rather than
backwards. A guy at work who had the same thing got called "Tufty".

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <P8WdnR-***@bt.com>, Steve
Thackery

Post by Steve Thackery

Post by John Hall
I don't know either.

Andrew Neil is called that - rather unkindly - since he started having
hair implants and his hairline began creeping forwards rather than
backwards. A guy at work who had the same thing got called "Tufty".

I'd thought the nickname was based on the way others said he treated them.
But I've never met him so can only go by his cocky abrasive behaviour on
the 'meedja'.

Jim

[Bill Wright]

Post by Jim Lesurf
I'd thought the nickname was based on the way others said he treated them.
But I've never met him so can only go by his cocky abrasive behaviour on
the 'meedja'.

It's just his image. I bet he's a really nice bloke in real life.

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Jim Lesurf
I'd thought the nickname was based on the way others said he treated
them. But I've never met him so can only go by his cocky abrasive
behaviour on the 'meedja'.

It's just his image. I bet he's a really nice bloke in real life.

For all I know, that may be so. However accepting that simply underscores
the way 'journalists' these days feel that have to behave when doing
political interviews. All 'short sharp shock' and no depth or chance to
dive into the reality below the issues. Blood sports performance.

And my impressions from comments in PE over the years make me suspect he
isn't exactly a fluffy bunny in 'real life'. It could all be an in-joke to
go with their standard photo of him in his vest, though. :-)

Jim

[Bill Wright]

Post by Jim Lesurf
And my impressions from comments in PE over the years make me suspect he
isn't exactly a fluffy bunny in 'real life'. It could all be an in-joke to
go with their standard photo of him in his vest, though. :-)
Jim

You have to be a bit ruthless to do the jobs he's done, but at least we
know he has decent moral values.

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Jim Lesurf
And my impressions from comments in PE over the years make me suspect
he isn't exactly a fluffy bunny in 'real life'. It could all be an
in-joke to go with their standard photo of him in his vest, though. :-)
Jim

You have to be a bit ruthless to do the jobs he's done, but at least we
know he has decent moral values.

Do 'we'? Afraid I have no idea of how moral he may or may not be off
screen.

Jim

[Bill Wright]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Jim Lesurf
And my impressions from comments in PE over the years make me suspect
he isn't exactly a fluffy bunny in 'real life'. It could all be an
in-joke to go with their standard photo of him in his vest, though. :-)
Jim

You have to be a bit ruthless to do the jobs he's done, but at least we
know he has decent moral values.

Do 'we'? Afraid I have no idea of how moral he may or may not be off
screen.
Jim

I'm going on the fact that he has maintained his integrity as a
journalist instead of toeing the BBC line like so many of them do. After
all, giving a global warming believer a hard time (as he did not so long
ago) could be professional suicide on the BBC.

It's obvious that a lot of performers and presenters tailor their
'views' to suit the BBC's party line. You've only got to see some of the
comics when they are outside the BBC bubble (at a live gig for instance,
or socially) to know that. And take Hislop as an example. He's no
socialist, far from it, but you'd never know from his TV appearances.

I don't really blame any of them for this. After all, I'm no better.I've
made a lot of money from putting satellite TV in prison cells, whereas
if it were left to me the bastards wouldn't have leccy or heating, never
mind telly.

BBC

[Martin]

Post by Alan White

Post by John Hall
The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American
Dad. Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at
chavs aged under 25.

Isn't that the target audience, or close to it?

Under 35s.

[John Hall]

Post by Alan White

Post by John Hall
The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American
Dad. Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at
chavs aged under 25.

Isn't that the target audience, or close to it?

I assume so. I didn't intend to suggest that it wasn;t.

[Bill Wright]

Post by John Hall
The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American
Dad. Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at
chavs aged under 25.

It's aimed at all under 25s.

Bill

[Max Demian]

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot. BBC3 is the channel that the BBC use to brainwash the
young and naive.

The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American Dad.
Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at chavs aged
under 25.

Try "The Revolution Will Be Televised".

[Andy Burns]

Post by Max Demian

BBC3

the output seems to be aimed exclusively at chavs aged under 25.

Try "The Revolution Will Be Televised".

OK, fair point, under 15.

[Martin]

Post by Max Demian

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot. BBC3 is the channel that the BBC use to brainwash the
young and naive.

The only programmes I ever watch on there are Family Guy and American Dad.
Most of the rest of the output seems to be aimed exclusively at chavs aged
under 25.

Try "The Revolution Will Be Televised".

Aimed at under 35s :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot.

Ah! That's why I've never heard of him.

Jim

[Bill Wright]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot.

Ah! That's why I've never heard of him.
Jim

You wouldn't like him. He's very ageist.

Bill

[Max Demian]

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot. BBC3 is the channel that the BBC use to brainwash the
young and naive.

He and his show have been 'promoted' to BBC2. What does that show? Has he
grown up, or what?

[Martin]

Post by Max Demian

Post by John Hall
I've never heard of Russell Howard. It doesn't sound as though I'm
missing much.

He's on BBC3 a lot. BBC3 is the channel that the BBC use to brainwash the
young and naive.

He and his show have been 'promoted' to BBC2. What does that show? Has he
grown up, or what?

It shows that BBC3 is about to stop being transmitted except via iPlayer.
It also shows that the BBC has very little new material and is getting
desperate.

[Windy Miller]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:25:02 +0000, Bill Wright said...

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

What programme was this?

Why do you appear to imply that he is a leftist?

You said, "This, apparently, was hilariously funny". To whom, exactly?
The other people on the programme?

It's my view, as a leftist (whatever you think that is), that Russell
Howard is neither funny nor acceptable, but at least I have a choice
whether to watch him or not.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Windy Miller

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

What programme was this?

The Russell Howard Programme on BBC3 (whatever it's called; Google it)

Post by Windy Miller
Why do you appear to imply that he is a leftist?

Because he shows very strong leftist bias, which is not balanced either
by other contributors to the programme or by other programmes on BBC3.

Post by Windy Miller
You said, "This, apparently, was hilariously funny". To whom, exactly?
The other people on the programme?

The people we heard laughing. I don't know whether the laughter was
genuine or fake, or a mixture. I strongly suspect that the BBC often
augments audience mirth when the joke is anti-UKIP or whatever.

Post by Windy Miller
It's my view, as a leftist (whatever you think that is)

If you call yourself one you must have some idea of what the term means.

, that Russell

Post by Windy Miller
Howard is neither funny nor acceptable, but at least I have a choice
whether to watch him or not.

We all have that choice, but we don't have a choice whether to subscribe
to the BBC, so they have a moral duty (as well as a legal one) to bash
the left as much as they bash the right. They don't do this, so that's
obtaining money by false pretences really.

Bill

[critcher]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Windy Miller

Post by Bill Wright
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.

What programme was this?

The Russell Howard Programme on BBC3 (whatever it's called; Google it)

Post by Windy Miller
Why do you appear to imply that he is a leftist?

Because he shows very strong leftist bias, which is not balanced either
by other contributors to the programme or by other programmes on BBC3.

Post by Windy Miller
You said, "This, apparently, was hilariously funny". To whom, exactly?
The other people on the programme?

The people we heard laughing. I don't know whether the laughter was
genuine or fake, or a mixture. I strongly suspect that the BBC often
augments audience mirth when the joke is anti-UKIP or whatever.

Post by Windy Miller
It's my view, as a leftist (whatever you think that is)

If you call yourself one you must have some idea of what the term means.
, that Russell

Post by Windy Miller
Howard is neither funny nor acceptable, but at least I have a choice
whether to watch him or not.

We all have that choice, but we don't have a choice whether to subscribe
to the BBC, so they have a moral duty (as well as a legal one) to bash
the left as much as they bash the right. They don't do this, so that's
obtaining money by false pretences really.
Bill

Is it me then? I think the beeb bash labour more than cons, but there
that's a subjective viewpoint. You really should be in bed at that time
of night Bill, you are "becoming" very right wing and old very quickly
and that is what late nights and not enough sleep do to us.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Bill Wright]

Post by critcher
Is it me then? I think the beeb bash labour more than cons,

It isn't usually a case of them bashing anyone. The bias comes from
individuals, and arises because most 'creatives' are left wing. Much of
the bias is actually the bias of omission and/or emphasis; the way a
news item will be used or not used, and if used will be downgraded. It's
fascinating to note the running order of items on the BBC TV news, and
the time given to each item, and compare this with other channels or
with what YOU feel is genuinely important.

Items that will be be minimised:
Illegal immigrants
Child Sexual Abuse by Pakistanis (and it will be 'men', not Pakistanis)
Good news about the economy
Good news about the unemployment figures (and there will always be a
longer follow-on item about low pay)
Anything that reflects well on Israel.
The problems of renewable energy generation

Items that will be given undue prominence:
Anything to do with homosexual equality
Anything to do with sexual equality
Women's sport
Anything about black history, Mandela, etc
Problems with the NHS (but no mention that the problems go back to the
pre 2009 days)
New renewable energy schemes.
The suffering of the Palestinians caused by the evil Israelis.

This isn't evil people at work; there's no conspiracy. It's just the
result of the BBC being unaccountable and financially insulated from
reality, and having allowed their recruitment and advancement policies
to fall into the hands of left wingers.

Post by critcher
You really should be in bed at that time
of night Bill, you are "becoming" very right wing and old very quickly
and that is what late nights and not enough sleep do to us.

I get lots of sleep. It's just that I keep funny hours. And I'm not
right wing. You'd know if you had heard me in the pub last night, having
a right old barney with some real right wingers!

Bill

[Brian Gaff]

One other thing to bear in mind, in times gone by there was time. Time to
look at the general leaning of items for broadcast, time to consider running
order. Now however, with 24 hour news and little time to do much other than
present it, the prejudice can easily come through. I don't think its just
the bbc, its all the news outlets. One mans neutral is another's bias of
course.
Who should be the final arbiter of neutralness anyway, and do we have the
luxury of waiting to decide this.

Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

Post by Bill Wright

Post by critcher
Is it me then? I think the beeb bash labour more than cons,

It isn't usually a case of them bashing anyone. The bias comes from
individuals, and arises because most 'creatives' are left wing. Much of
the bias is actually the bias of omission and/or emphasis; the way a news
item will be used or not used, and if used will be downgraded. It's
fascinating to note the running order of items on the BBC TV news, and the
time given to each item, and compare this with other channels or with what
YOU feel is genuinely important.
Illegal immigrants
Child Sexual Abuse by Pakistanis (and it will be 'men', not Pakistanis)
Good news about the economy
Good news about the unemployment figures (and there will always be a
longer follow-on item about low pay)
Anything that reflects well on Israel.
The problems of renewable energy generation
Anything to do with homosexual equality
Anything to do with sexual equality
Women's sport
Anything about black history, Mandela, etc
Problems with the NHS (but no mention that the problems go back to the pre
2009 days)
New renewable energy schemes.
The suffering of the Palestinians caused by the evil Israelis.
This isn't evil people at work; there's no conspiracy. It's just the
result of the BBC being unaccountable and financially insulated from
reality, and having allowed their recruitment and advancement policies to
fall into the hands of left wingers.

Post by critcher
You really should be in bed at that time of night Bill, you are
"becoming" very right wing and old very quickly and that is what late
nights and not enough sleep do to us.

I get lots of sleep. It's just that I keep funny hours. And I'm not right
wing. You'd know if you had heard me in the pub last night, having a right
old barney with some real right wingers!
Bill

[critcher]

Post by Bill Wright

Post by critcher
Is it me then? I think the beeb bash labour more than cons,

It isn't usually a case of them bashing anyone. The bias comes from
individuals, and arises because most 'creatives' are left wing. Much of
the bias is actually the bias of omission and/or emphasis; the way a
news item will be used or not used, and if used will be downgraded. It's
fascinating to note the running order of items on the BBC TV news, and
the time given to each item, and compare this with other channels or
with what YOU feel is genuinely important.
Illegal immigrants
Child Sexual Abuse by Pakistanis (and it will be 'men', not Pakistanis)
Good news about the economy
Good news about the unemployment figures (and there will always be a
longer follow-on item about low pay)
Anything that reflects well on Israel.
The problems of renewable energy generation
Anything to do with homosexual equality
Anything to do with sexual equality
Women's sport
Anything about black history, Mandela, etc
Problems with the NHS (but no mention that the problems go back to the
pre 2009 days)
New renewable energy schemes.
The suffering of the Palestinians caused by the evil Israelis.
This isn't evil people at work; there's no conspiracy. It's just the
result of the BBC being unaccountable and financially insulated from
reality, and having allowed their recruitment and advancement policies
to fall into the hands of left wingers.

Post by critcher
You really should be in bed at that time of night Bill, you are
"becoming" very right wing and old very quickly and that is what late
nights and not enough sleep do to us.

I get lots of sleep. It's just that I keep funny hours. And I'm not
right wing. You'd know if you had heard me in the pub last night, having
a right old barney with some real right wingers!
Bill

illegal immigrants:-because the cons know the problem is small, did you
know that anyone can spend over a million on a house in Spain and
automatically gains Euro citizenship.

Child sex abuse :- look at the news now and realise the problem goes
much deeper than pakistanis, there are very sinister people involved in
covering up the true scale and depth of child sex abuse, the
establishment is protecting itself.

Good news about the economy:- where? look beneath the figures given and
you will see we are a nation of service economy and very vunerable to
changes in consumer spending, our engineering base is struggling and in
some areas no longer exists.

Employment figures:- are complete rubbish, there are more people on low
wages due to short contracts with no security,people who are no longer
collecting benefit for any number of reasons, the figures for the
increase in self employed are debateable, everyone knows if you are self
employed you are part of the black economy and are not paying the
correct tax(if at all) or national insurance, most self employed fiddle
their tax like hell and if the figures are true that is why saying self
employed has increased is costing the country a fortune in lost revenue.

low pay:- give people money to spend and the government to tax and
benefit payments would drop.Low pay is disgusting especially when you
need to take on 3 or 4 jobs at 8-10 hours per week because you have
bills to pay.Small rant (Pembrokshire council, pay for council leader
more than PM,) what the hell is going on in this country.

Sexual equality:- did you know that Labour frequently specified women
only shortlists in various constituencies? this is now being altered
because people like myself complained about it.You don't see that on the
news either.

Problems with the NHS:- the problems aflicting the NHS are far more
serious now than they ever were at the end of the Labour gov.tenure.
The welsh nhs is a point in question, The Cam always raises the Welsh
NHS at PMQs, just to take peoples minds off the English NHS.
BELIEVE ME A BAD NHS IS BETTER THAN NO NHS.

Renewable energy schemes:-prominent because the Gov wants you to believe
they are viable and are solving our energy crisis.

Palestinians and Israelis:- nothing can be said about these people
because the warmongers among them are inherently evil.If ever two
countries with so much in common needed to be taken to task by the UN
its those two.They should both be ostracised and left to fend for
themselves, but then what would our munitions firms do for a living?
(what reflects well on Israel?)

Sleep is to be taken in the hours of darkness preferably otherwise your
body clock becomes confused and god knows what that can affect.
Now to bed Bill and have a good rest.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Bill Wright]

Post by critcher
Child sex abuse :- look at the news now and realise the problem goes
much deeper than pakistanis, there are very sinister people involved in
covering up the true scale and depth of child sex abuse, the
establishment is protecting itself.

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

Post by critcher
Employment figures:- are complete rubbish, there are more people on low
wages due to short contracts with no security,people who are no longer
collecting benefit for any number of reasons,

Such as? Do you have figures?


? the figures for the

Post by critcher
increase in self employed are debateable, everyone knows if you are self
employed you are part of the black economy and are not paying the
correct tax(if at all) or national insurance, most self employed fiddle
their tax like hell and if the figures are true that is why saying self
employed has increased is costing the country a fortune in lost revenue.

Ha! You should try it! HMRC are not complete fools you know. All the
fiddlers get caught eventually, then they pay huge fines and penalties.
The vast majority of self-employed don't fiddle (apart from tiny things
which are the equivalent of an office worker nicking some stationery)
because (a) if you do it soon becomes obvious that your declared income
doesn't match your lifestyle, (b) a disgruntled customer might dob you
in (c) it's dishonest.

Post by critcher
Sexual equality:- did you know that Labour frequently specified women
only shortlists in various constituencies?

They did in Rotherham. Therefore the MP is not the democratic choice of
the people, as I had the pleasure of telling her at a 'do'.

Post by critcher
Problems with the NHS:- the problems aflicting the NHS are far more
serious now than they ever were at the end of the Labour gov.tenure.
The welsh nhs is a point in question, The Cam always raises the Welsh
NHS at PMQs, just to take peoples minds off the English NHS.
BELIEVE ME A BAD NHS IS BETTER THAN NO NHS.

The Welsh NHS is bad because of maladministration by the Labour
controlled Welsh Government.

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bill Wright
Ha! You should try it! HMRC are not complete fools you know. All the
fiddlers get caught eventually, then they pay huge fines and penalties.

Except, of course, when they may be a large international company or work
via various 'offshore' schemes, limited liability partnerships, Swiss
accounts, brass nameplates in Monaco, use 'franchises', 'foreign loan
interest repayments', etc, etc.

As ever, the small fry get caught. The big sharks swim deep. Often with the
blessing of the politicians who pocket their backhanders... erm sorry,
donations to the party. :-)

Post by Bill Wright
The Welsh NHS is bad because of maladministration by the Labour
controlled Welsh Government.

Its bad because the Daily Mail says so. Using comparisons of apples with
oranges, etc. e.g. stats based on going to the geographically closest
hospital used to moan about how many from Wales use an English hospital.
And waiting times that start from referral in Wales but from first contact
with a consultant in England. As usual, reality isn't what you read about
in the Daily Mail or hear on Today.

Jim

[Bill Wright]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bill Wright
Ha! You should try it! HMRC are not complete fools you know. All the
fiddlers get caught eventually, then they pay huge fines and penalties.

Except, of course, when they may be a large international company or work
via various 'offshore' schemes, limited liability partnerships, Swiss
accounts, brass nameplates in Monaco, use 'franchises', 'foreign loan
interest repayments', etc, etc.
As ever, the small fry get caught. The big sharks swim deep. Often with the
blessing of the politicians who pocket their backhanders... erm sorry,
donations to the party. :-)

I can't dispute any of that.

Bill

[Windy Miller]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:53:16 +0000, Bill Wright said...

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Windy Miller
You said, "This, apparently, was hilariously funny". To whom, exactly?
The other people on the programme?

The people we heard laughing. I don't know whether the laughter was
genuine or fake, or a mixture. I strongly suspect that the BBC often
augments audience mirth when the joke is anti-UKIP or whatever.

The BBC uses canned laughter to 'augment audience mirth when the joke is
anti-UKIP or whatever'? I've got a tin foil hat here but I think you
need it more than I do.

What they actually do is get a comic who can't get a better job, to stir
the audience up to a fever pitch before the show, so that they'll laugh
at any old shite.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Windy Miller
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:53:16 +0000, Bill Wright said...

Post by Bill Wright

Post by Windy Miller
You said, "This, apparently, was hilariously funny". To whom, exactly?
The other people on the programme?

The people we heard laughing. I don't know whether the laughter was
genuine or fake, or a mixture. I strongly suspect that the BBC often
augments audience mirth when the joke is anti-UKIP or whatever.

The BBC uses canned laughter to 'augment audience mirth when the joke is
anti-UKIP or whatever'? I've got a tin foil hat here but I think you
need it more than I do.

Watching the Dimbo programme, Question Time, I compared the volume of
the applause with the pictures of the audience, when left wingers and
right wingers had been speaking. Generally the applause was much louder
for left wingers, but a count of people clapping suggested that it was
only about the same numbers as clapped for a right winger. So either
left wing people clap louder (seriously, they might do*) or the applause
it tampered with in some way.

*Don't left wingers generally react more audibly; clapping, shouting
out, etc? When you get people shouting from the back it's usually
because they don't agree with a right wing panelist.

Bill

[Dave W]

Post by Bill Wright
Watching the Dimbo programme, Question Time, I compared the volume of
the applause with the pictures of the audience, when left wingers and
right wingers had been speaking. Generally the applause was much louder
for left wingers, but a count of people clapping suggested that it was
only about the same numbers as clapped for a right winger. So either
left wing people clap louder (seriously, they might do*) or the applause
it tampered with in some way.
*Don't left wingers generally react more audibly; clapping, shouting
out, etc? When you get people shouting from the back it's usually
because they don't agree with a right wing panelist.
Bill

I often get the feeling that shots of audiences are just random bits
pasted in afterwards, unrelated to what's happening.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Dave W
I often get the feeling that shots of audiences are just random bits
pasted in afterwards, unrelated to what's happening.

They often are. They're what's called "cutaways". If the director
considers it a waste of a camera to have one pointed at the audience
throughout a show for the sake of the few seconds it's likely to be
used, they may take a few minutes worth of material to paste in
afterwards. A common use of cutaways is to cover edits.

Rod.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by Dave W
I often get the feeling that shots of audiences are just random bits
pasted in afterwards, unrelated to what's happening.

They often are. They're what's called "cutaways". If the director
considers it a waste of a camera to have one pointed at the audience
throughout a show for the sake of the few seconds it's likely to be
used, they may take a few minutes worth of material to paste in
afterwards. A common use of cutaways is to cover edits.

The programme is live.

Bill

[Steve Thackery]

Post by Bill Wright
The programme is live.

I don't think it is, Bill. I remember catching sight of someone's
watch, but I can't remember the discrepancy now. Less than an hour, I
think.

[Dave W]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:21:23 -0600, "Steve Thackery"

Post by Steve Thackery

Post by Bill Wright
The programme is live.

I don't think it is, Bill. I remember catching sight of someone's
watch, but I can't remember the discrepancy now. Less than an hour, I
think.

Even 'live' programmes have recorded bits they don't tell you about.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Dave W
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:21:23 -0600, "Steve Thackery"

Post by Steve Thackery

Post by Bill Wright
The programme is live.

I don't think it is, Bill. I remember catching sight of someone's
watch, but I can't remember the discrepancy now. Less than an hour, I
think.

Even 'live' programmes have recorded bits they don't tell you about.

I didn't know that. Although I know the weather forecast is often
recorded yet they introduce it as if the forecaster is there in the room
with them.

Bill

[Graham Murray]

Post by Dave W
Even 'live' programmes have recorded bits they don't tell you about.

And repeats and extracts shown on other programmes (eg the News) etc
often still carry the 'Live' DOG.

[Bill Wright]

Post by Steve Thackery

Post by Bill Wright
The programme is live.

I don't think it is, Bill. I remember catching sight of someone's
watch, but I can't remember the discrepancy now. Less than an hour, I
think.

Oh, that's interesting. On PM (R4) they ring old Dimbo up at about half
five and he always says something like, "I'm on the train to Slagthorpe!
It's going to be a good show tonight!"

Bill

[n***@address.invalid]

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.
Bill

Feedback had an item on this unpleasant character.

Apparently there had been many complaints about his excessive
appearances on the BBC and the way he was allowed to interrupt and
dominate the programmes. Also the promotions of his new book.

Naturally the producer justified everything totally. Once again it was
all the listeners who were wrong.

[n***@address.invalid]

Post by n***@address.invalid

Post by Bill Wright
Interviewed a man who had one leg. Russell kept one of his own legs
folded up under himself all the time. Was this leftist solidarity with
the disabled?
More seriously, maybe, the programme included an item in which two
animated ebola viruses discussed
whether to invade Europe or America. They had ludicrous African accents.
This, apparently,
was hilariously funny. Contrast it with the recent Mike Reid calypso
affair.
Than a long winded totally gratuitous attack on UKIP. Oh dear.
Bill

Feedback had an item on this unpleasant character.
Apparently there had been many complaints about his excessive
appearances on the BBC and the way he was allowed to interrupt and
dominate the programmes. Also the promotions of his new book.
Naturally the producer justified everything totally. Once again it was
all the listeners who were wrong.

Apologies! I read the OP as being about Russell Brand!

Must learn to read the OP more carefully (and not read another screen
at the same time)

[Bill Wright]

Post by n***@address.invalid

Post by n***@address.invalid
Apparently there had been many complaints about his excessive
appearances on the BBC and the way he was allowed to interrupt and
dominate the programmes. Also the promotions of his new book.
Naturally the producer justified everything totally. Once again it was
all the listeners who were wrong.

Apologies! I read the OP as being about Russell Brand!
Must learn to read the OP more carefully (and not read another screen
at the same time)

Oh don't worry, I'm watching 'Showboat' and also having a conversation
with a spaniel about why she smells of sheep shit, and what we are going
to do about it. Basically she feels that the aroma is rather fetching,
and would like to keep it. I'm thinking more along the lines of the
power washer.

Regarding Russell Brand, he has been all over the BBC promoting his
book. Just name a programme he hasn't been on (not including the
shipping forecast). I mean, fancy having him on Newsnight! It just shows
that the programme has lost its way, and is desperate to get viewing
figures up.

Now, it takes two to tango. I'm sure Russell would accept every
invitation, so why does he get so many? The book is a muddled,
head-in-the-clouds anarchist/Marxist mess. In other words it's an
accurate match for the thought processes of many BBC 'creatives'.

I don't recall Lord Lawson getting many BBC invites when he published
'An Appeal to Reason', which was a pretty good debunking of the
economics of environmentalism.

Maybe Russell's book is more the sort of thing the BBC would be happy to
give millions of pounds worth of free publicity to. It just demonstrates
how low the BBC has sunk, plugging the immature ramblings of this
spoilt, self-centred, little shitehawk.

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bill Wright
Now, it takes two to tango. I'm sure Russell would accept every
invitation, so why does he get so many? The book is a muddled,
head-in-the-clouds anarchist/Marxist mess.

Good grief! You've actually *read* it?! I can't say it had occurred to me
to read anything he has written.

Post by Bill Wright
I don't recall Lord Lawson getting many BBC invites when he published
'An Appeal to Reason', which was a pretty good debunking of the
economics of environmentalism.

He appeared on tediously many programmes. To the point where Feedback
repeatedly had to ask editors to explain in what sense he was any kind of
'expert' on the topic. It was one of the main exemplars of the clueless way
Today editors approach 'balance'. i.e. if you give 5 mins to someone who
knows a topic you have to give 5 to some dimwit who simply disagrees in a
loud and smug voice. That's 'debate' on the BBC. Ignorant idiocy has to
have 'equal time'.

Post by Bill Wright
Maybe Russell's book is more the sort of thing the BBC would be happy to
give millions of pounds worth of free publicity to.

Must have worked if you've read it. :-)

Thankfully that cup has passed me by.

Jim

[Mark Carver]

Post by Bill Wright
Maybe Russell's book is more the sort of thing the BBC would be happy to
give millions of pounds worth of free publicity to. It just demonstrates
how low the BBC has sunk, plugging the immature ramblings of this
spoilt, self-centred, little shitehawk.

<http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/crucifying-russell-brand-could-save-mankind-2014101691784>

[n***@address.invalid]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:03:41 +0000, Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Bill Wright
Maybe Russell's book is more the sort of thing the BBC would be happy to
give millions of pounds worth of free publicity to. It just demonstrates
how low the BBC has sunk, plugging the immature ramblings of this
spoilt, self-centred, little shitehawk.

<http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/crucifying-russell-brand-could-save-mankind-2014101691784>

If only ...