🚀 go-pugleaf

ha@centralpets.com (Honest Aryan) wrote in message news:<2d7f3ef5.0401280744.3c8dd8cb@posting.google.com>...
> Guardian-BBC can lie about the "benefits" of
> diversity, misrepresent bums and criminals as
> Vulnerable People and call itself "elite" because
> it shits on poor Whites, but when broadcasting scum
> tries shitting on the political scum of a librul
> "democracy", it's The Wrong Sort Of Lies and libruls
> get to find-out, first hand, just how nasty-ass
> libruls are.
>    Over to you, Mrs. Murray...

The real problem with the fucking BBC is how our 'Licence Fee' pays
for crap programmes like 'Perfect Holiday' that send camp BBC twats
away on free fucking holidays with 'deserving' members of the public
....... these freeloader 'employees' of the BBC need shooting!

"Hugh Jarce" <stortford@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa8cf102.0401281127.3cccc569@posting.google.com...

<snip>

> The real problem with the fucking BBC is how our 'Licence Fee' pays
> for crap programmes like 'Perfect Holiday' that send camp BBC twats
> away on free fucking holidays with 'deserving' members of the public
> ....... these freeloader 'employees' of the BBC need shooting!

Your licence fee also pays for the sort of rubbish BBC reporting so rightly
criticised in the Hutton report. It's only natural to ask - why?

in article j6WRb.438$iz1.163@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net, BBC Watcher at
bbcwatcher@hotmail.com wrote on 28/1/04 9:50 PM:

> "Hugh Jarce" <stortford@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fa8cf102.0401281127.3cccc569@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> The real problem with the fucking BBC is how our 'Licence Fee' pays
>> for crap programmes like 'Perfect Holiday' that send camp BBC twats
>> away on free fucking holidays with 'deserving' members of the public
>> ....... these freeloader 'employees' of the BBC need shooting!
>
> Your licence fee also pays for the sort of rubbish BBC reporting so rightly
> criticised in the Hutton report. It's only natural to ask - why?
>
>

I'm quite happy to continue paying my licence fee for the generally
excellent and indeed unparalleled reporting of the BBC. Gilligan's report
maybe had some questionable language but if you listen to what he is
actually saying, it is nowhere near as bad as some (especially those with a
vested interested in dismantling the BBC) would have you believe. And there
is still the very open question of what the *real* intelligence and the real
threat from Saddam was. Unfortunately that fell outside the scope of the
Hutton Inquiry.

I say thank god for the BBC. I'd rather trust them than the government any
day.

"Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
news:BC3DE938.69A8C%bada@boom.com...
> in article j6WRb.438$iz1.163@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net, BBC Watcher at
> bbcwatcher@hotmail.com wrote on 28/1/04 9:50 PM:
>
> > "Hugh Jarce" <stortford@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fa8cf102.0401281127.3cccc569@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> The real problem with the fucking BBC is how our 'Licence Fee' pays
> >> for crap programmes like 'Perfect Holiday' that send camp BBC twats
> >> away on free fucking holidays with 'deserving' members of the public
> >> ....... these freeloader 'employees' of the BBC need shooting!
> >
> > Your licence fee also pays for the sort of rubbish BBC reporting so
rightly
> > criticised in the Hutton report. It's only natural to ask - why?
> >
> >
>
> I'm quite happy to continue paying my licence fee for the generally
> excellent and indeed unparalleled reporting of the BBC.

I don't have a problem with you paying your licence fee, if you think the
BBC's good, that's your prerogative. I do object to you being happy to pay
*my* licence fee (or not watch TV).

>Gilligan's report
> maybe had some questionable language but if you listen to what he is
> actually saying, it is nowhere near as bad as some (especially those with
a
> vested interested in dismantling the BBC) would have you believe.

It was inaccurate it certain aspects of detail, and when this was brought to
the attention of management and the governors they did damn all about it.

> And there
> is still the very open question of what the *real* intelligence and the
real
> threat from Saddam was. Unfortunately that fell outside the scope of the
> Hutton Inquiry.

Indeed so, for Hutton appears to be very diligent and would no doubt have
been able to throw a lot of light on those questions.

>
> I say thank god for the BBC. I'd rather trust them than the government any
> day.
>

Some choice.

in article qxXRb.32$2p6.69857@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net, BBC Watcher at
bbcwatcher@hotmail.com wrote on 28/1/04 11:27 PM:

>> "Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
>> news:BC3DE938.69A8C%bada@boom.com...

>> Gilligan's report
>> maybe had some questionable language but if you listen to what he is
>> actually saying, it is nowhere near as bad as some (especially those with
>> a
>> vested interested in dismantling the BBC) would have you believe.
>
> It was inaccurate it certain aspects of detail, and when this was brought to
> the attention of management and the governors they did damn all about it.

Gilligan's report and the 'sexing up' remark was his interpretation of what
David Kelly (and possibly others) told him. The true accuracy of it will
probably never be known now - Hutton said Gilligan's notes of the meeting
were inconclusive. In any case it was not a clear cut 'lie' as some have
claimed.

One major problem I have with Hutton's report is his criticism of Kelly for
holding an unauthorized meeting that fell beyond his professional remit.

In saying that, Hutton has basically outlawed any meeting between a reporter
and a whistleblower.

Whitewash? Looks increasingly like it to me.

<snip>
> I don't have a problem with you paying your licence fee, if you think the
> BBC's good, that's your prerogative. I do object to you being happy to pay
> *my* licence fee (or not watch TV).

Really? I'd be thrilled if he wanted to pay my licence fee.

"Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
news:BC3DE938.69A8C%bada@boom.com...
> in article j6WRb.438$iz1.163@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net, BBC Watcher at
> bbcwatcher@hotmail.com wrote on 28/1/04 9:50 PM:
>
> > "Hugh Jarce" <stortford@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fa8cf102.0401281127.3cccc569@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> The real problem with the fucking BBC is how our 'Licence Fee' pays
> >> for crap programmes like 'Perfect Holiday' that send camp BBC twats
> >> away on free fucking holidays with 'deserving' members of the public
> >> ....... these freeloader 'employees' of the BBC need shooting!
> >
> > Your licence fee also pays for the sort of rubbish BBC reporting so
rightly
> > criticised in the Hutton report. It's only natural to ask - why?
> >
> >
>
> I'm quite happy to continue paying my licence fee for the generally
> excellent and indeed unparalleled reporting of the BBC. Gilligan's report
> maybe had some questionable language but if you listen to what he is
> actually saying, it is nowhere near as bad as some (especially those with
a
> vested interested in dismantling the BBC) would have you believe. And
there
> is still the very open question of what the *real* intelligence and the
real
> threat from Saddam was. Unfortunately that fell outside the scope of the
> Hutton Inquiry.
>
> I say thank god for the BBC. I'd rather trust them than the government any
> day.

I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this comes
down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a (reciprocated)
grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of trusting
their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.


>

Badabing <bada@boom.com> wrote

> One major problem I have with Hutton's report is his criticism of Kelly for
> holding an unauthorized meeting that fell beyond his professional remit.
>
> In saying that, Hutton has basically outlawed any meeting between a reporter
> and a whistleblower.

This was only stated because Kelly was subject to the Official Secrets
Act. Whistleblowers aren't a special case, unless Katherine Gun's case
shows
up something interesting (AFAIK).

--
Ken Tough

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:33:28 +0000, Badabing <bada@boom.com> wrote:

>I say thank god for the BBC. I'd rather trust them than the government any
>day.

Hear, hear.

--
jaf @ jaffullstopcoanotherfullstopuk   ne cede malis
The secret is - Keep Banging the Rocks Together.

"chopsmcp" <sithom35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bv9i51$q10lj$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message

> I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this comes
> down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a (reciprocated)
> grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of
trusting
> their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.
>

Hey sarky dimbo Guardian reader, Gilligan was a Labour supporter: he went
after them because of the War. There wasn't one single employee of the Beeb
who was pro-war. They wanted to fuck the govt up over it. It is the reason
the Govt and the Beeb Fell Out. It is the reason that those twats in
editorial and above said 'fuck it- run the story.'


>
> >
>
>

"JAF" <jafnilspam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:u8gh1093f4sji3eibt28cihcc4ou6smnmn@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:33:28 +0000, Badabing <bada@boom.com> wrote:
>
> >I say thank god for the BBC. I'd rather trust them than the government
any
> >day.
>
> Hear, hear.

Don't trust the govt obviously but trust a vast state-broadcasting company
with all the propaganda connotations of that? You must be comfortable with
lies.


>
> --
> jaf @ jaffullstopcoanotherfullstopuk   ne cede malis
> The secret is - Keep Banging the Rocks Together.

"ROBBIE" <word_chemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvao54$pi31m$1@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "chopsmcp" <sithom35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bv9i51$q10lj$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
>
> > I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this
comes
> > down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a (reciprocated)
> > grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of
> trusting
> > their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.
> >
>
> Hey sarky dimbo Guardian reader, Gilligan was a Labour supporter: he went
> after them because of the War. There wasn't one single employee of the
Beeb
> who was pro-war. They wanted to fuck the govt up over it. It is the reason
> the Govt and the Beeb Fell Out. It is the reason that those twats in
> editorial and above said 'fuck it- run the story.'

The BBC was pretty pro-war.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133161

http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,991149,00.html


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4019149c$0$10053$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "ROBBIE" <word_chemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bvao54$pi31m$1@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "chopsmcp" <sithom35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bv9i51$q10lj$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this
> comes
> > > down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a
(reciprocated)
> > > grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of
> > trusting
> > > their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.
> > >
> >
> > Hey sarky dimbo Guardian reader, Gilligan was a Labour supporter: he
went
> > after them because of the War. There wasn't one single employee of the
> Beeb
> > who was pro-war. They wanted to fuck the govt up over it. It is the
reason
> > the Govt and the Beeb Fell Out. It is the reason that those twats in
> > editorial and above said 'fuck it- run the story.'
>
> The BBC was pretty pro-war.
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml
>
> http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133161
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,991149,00.html
>
>
World Socialist Web Site? Pilger? Cardiff Academics? F*ck off mate the Beeb
went as anti as they dared- they started before the conflict, hence Hutton.


> --
> Jez
> "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
> of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
> highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
> and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
> perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
> R.D. Laing

Laing was a c*nt as well.


>
>

In article <BC3DF8C8.69AAF%bada@boom.com>, Badabing <bada@boom.com>
writes
>In saying that, Hutton has basically outlawed any meeting between a reporter
>and a whistleblower.

Which is patently nonsense.

All that is needed is for reporting to be accurate and, on the very few
occasions it isn't, for the complaint(s) to be investigated properly.

--
< Paul >

"ROBBIE" <word_chemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvao54$pi31m$1@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "chopsmcp" <sithom35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bv9i51$q10lj$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
>
> > I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this
comes
> > down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a (reciprocated)
> > grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of
> trusting
> > their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.
> >
>
> Hey sarky dimbo Guardian reader,

Hey obsessive fuckwit - how's the piss-poor satire progressing?

Gilligan was a Labour supporter: he went
> after them because of the War. There wasn't one single employee of the
Beeb
> who was pro-war. They wanted to fuck the govt up over it. It is the reason
> the Govt and the Beeb Fell Out. It is the reason that those twats in
> editorial and above said 'fuck it- run the story.'

Gilligan had form with Campbell and other New Labour Apparatchiks - and
Today had developed an aggressive, semi-tabloid culture. That's why he
over-egged it and they let him. But basically he was on to a legitimate
story. The fact that Hutton's terms of reference were deliberately framed to
ensure a govt win may have pulled the wool over your dull staring eyes, but
anyone who actually followed the evidence can see that the govt *did*
distort the intelligence for political ends.

>
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

In article <bv9i51$q10lj$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de>, chopsmcp
<sithom35@yahoo.com> writes
>I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this comes
>down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a (reciprocated)
>grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of trusting
>their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.

Do you believe it may be *possible* that some sort of Tory "dirty
tricks" might have been involved at some stage?

--
< Paul >

"chopsmcp" <sithom35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvb8of$qmfke$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "ROBBIE" <word_chemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bvao54$pi31m$1@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "chopsmcp" <sithom35@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bv9i51$q10lj$1@ID-171243.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Badabing" <bada@boom.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > I totally agree with this. Let's get this in perspective: what this
> comes
> > > down to is, the BBC hired an ex-Telegraph reporter with a
(reciprocated)
> > > grudge against New Labour, then made the rather laudable mistake of
> > trusting
> > > their journalist's assurances a bit too unquestioningly.
> > >
> >
> > Hey sarky dimbo Guardian reader,
>
> Hey obsessive fuckwit - how's the piss-poor satire progressing?
>
> Gilligan was a Labour supporter: he went
> > after them because of the War. There wasn't one single employee of the
> Beeb
> > who was pro-war. They wanted to fuck the govt up over it. It is the
reason
> > the Govt and the Beeb Fell Out. It is the reason that those twats in
> > editorial and above said 'fuck it- run the story.'
>
> Gilligan had form with Campbell and other New Labour Apparatchiks - and
> Today had developed an aggressive, semi-tabloid culture. That's why he
> over-egged it and they let him. But basically he was on to a legitimate
> story. The fact that Hutton's terms of reference were deliberately framed
to
> ensure a govt win may have pulled the wool over your dull staring eyes,
but
> anyone who actually followed the evidence can see that the govt *did*
> distort the intelligence for political ends.

Quite. I was never saying the Govt was innocent. I said that Gilly was a
Labour man and was allowed to run the story because the BBC were completely
anti-war: more labour than labour's front bench. As I said elsewhere Hutton
should have blasted them all. In the end, the BBC has been damaged, which
suits me, but the govt has 'got away with it,' which doesn't. You know you
shouldn't get so hysterical lovey so easily; go and make some nice toast on
the aga and a cup of Earl Grey.


>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>