Wes Tender

Shatlock, we are debating whether the BBC is biased towards Brexit in general terms, i.e. several instances. I have provided a link containing several instances of complaints of alleged bias. If you choose to ignore them, then tough. Verbal has already made himself look a bit of a prat making unsubstantiated claims that I had called for the abolition of the licence fee. Why don't you wait and see whether he chooses to dig himself in any deeper?

Ah, so you've refrained from insisting that I had called for the abolition of the BBC's licence fee. We're making progress. Now I invite you once again to read the listing of incidents of suggested bias posted on that website I linked to. As you seem to have ignored it, here it is again.http://news-watch.co.uk/category/bbc-bias/ I realise that you are dismissive of anything that doesn't suit your leftie agenda, but as I said earlier, who cares?

The beast is wounded by his earlier incompetence in a post which made him look an idiot and is thrashing about trying to save face by trawling back into the past for any ammunition that he can find. Don't worry, I'm not in an apoplectic raqe about anything, I'm calmly enjoying your discomfort. Where did I say that I called for the abolition of the licence fee? You're making yourself look like a fool again. What I said was:- Carry on with whatever childish insults you feel you need to make, it will just make you look infantile. I'm not about to lose any sleep over the opinions of some keyboard warrior trying to masturbate his ego.

You have made yourself look an idiot by quoting this post. In your zeal to attempt your usual snide put down, you appear to have failed to put the post into any sort of context. Had you taken the trouble to read the post from Moonraker just two above mine, you would realise that I parodied his post by changing just a few select words to change it to the polar opposite viewpoint. So when that has sunk in, you will realise that "pony", and "snowflake" were actually Moonraker's choice of words merely copied by me. Regarding your triumphal insistence that I am somehow incapable of citing a single incidence of BBC bias in the Brexit debate, then egg all over your face again, because I gave a link on post 3800, which was dismissed by Shatlock, much as I predicted it would be. No doubt your own blinkered prejudice will dismiss the source also, but then who cares?

The Remoaners wouldn't know bias if it hit them in the arse, their real denial is that a world renowned broadcaster would demean itself by following the rabid left-wing press in demonising everything Brexit. My demand for optimism in their reporting is only a simple request for some balance to the bias they show towards the Remoaners' position. No news media is 100% reliable or accurate, but to deny that there is institutional bias at the BBC although their articles spout Remoaner propaganda is yet another example of the Remoaners' blinkered view of the World. Most Remoaner posts are just a load of old pony, from a bunch of snowflakes who favour our country being governed by a supranational body instead of our own democratically parliament.

I believe that I described the number as significant; significant because the number was unprecedented. And of course it is not necessarily just 11%, that is the number who bothered to sign the letter. It's not up to you to judge it though, it is up to the BBC. It might be a mistake for them to dismiss these MPs as swivel-eyed loons when if a majority of them desired it, it is within their powers to abolish their funding from the public purse. I see that you make no defence of the ludicrous arguments you made in the rest of your post.

A typical response from you, beginning by claiming the failure of an opposing opinion from the offset. Nice work, undone by the ensuing argument from you. We all know that the BBC is required by its charter to be balanced in its presentation of all significant points of view and not to be biased to any one position. That there has been, as far as I am aware unprecedented Parliamentary support to a letter condemning the BBC's bias towards one side of the Referendum debate is indicative that a significant number of MPs consider that there is a solid case to be made for that complaint. Why is it impossible to ensure that all significant points of view are represented in every interview? Basically the Referendum question covered only two main positions, to stay in the the EU or to leave it, so at the very least, equal time and representation should be accorded to those arguing each position and if any emphasis was granted to one position over the other, it should reflect the leave position which won a majority. The Beeb is to be excused because they don't know what an interviewee might say? What complete and utter tosh! I even know on here what the likes of you, Shatlock and Verbal will say. Are you suggesting that the BBC programme producers cannot produce a balanced debate on the basis that do not have any idea of what Blair, Major, Farage, Johnson, Lawson, Minor Fart, Rees-Mogg, Hannan, etc, would say? Are their programme researchers incapable of ascertaining their previous stance on the matters that will be raised in the interview by their employee? Are their programme producers then unable to instruct their presenter to allocate equal time to each person's opinion? Frankly, I didn't expect this level of absurdity from you. On the first point, when there are vox poluli interviews, then it ought to be easy when collating them to ensure that there are as many holding one opinion as another, but often there isn't. On the second point, I agree completely. I don't recall hearing much at all about the economic good news, but plenty of items continuing the doom and gloom scenario prevalent during the Referendum. campaign.

I had a haircut yesterday at the Barbers near Cobden Bridge. The owner is a skate, so a good opportunity for a bit of gentle joshing about the possibility of their club becoming even more Mickey Mouse than it is currently. I am assured that the deal will be going through, because Eisner knows Thiery Henry, and was persuaded by him to go for them on the basis that their fans were unrivalled in their passion by any others in World football. The skate wasn't sure that he would use his two votes (his and his son's) to go for this takeover, as he wouldn't want PL football. Frankly, I fail to be convinced that somebody like Eisner would via his investment group Tornante wish to take over a fourth division football club with a decrepit old ground with no prospects for expansion, poor training facilities, massive investment required to address those shortcomings, when there are many other clubs offering a much better return. The skate reckons that Eisner is attracted by how cheap the Club would be and how amazing their support is.

As I predicted, Remoaners like you will naturally be dismissive of any source that opposes your sycophantic arse-licking of the EU. As for your closing sentence, then no; of course I'm not chastened. Severely patronised perhaps, but then I bow to your prowess in that department, you really are in a league of your own there.

http://news-watch.co.uk/category/eu-referendum/ Fill your boots. I indicated that there were websites solely devoted to BBC bias, so spend a little time reading. I realise that Remoaners like you and Shatlock don't accept any criticism of your beloved EU and will use your usual MO of dismissing any anti-EU source and accepting as verbatim any pro-EU source. The two links were also about BBC bias, but you and him seem to be incapable of joining up the dots to conclude that the bias is not only in favour of leftie politics generally, but also the Remoaner position too.

There are several websites devoted to incidents of BBC bias. A simple few minutes Googling will show many complaints covered by them with dates, times, programmes etc. I'm sure that all you blinkered lefties will dismiss them all as being irrelevant, their content made up lies. But here is a report with a bit more substance to it, specifically criticising the BBC's coverage of data provided by Think Tanks and their bias towards those from the left. http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/130814102945-BBCBiasOliverLathamfc.pdf?utm_source=Press+%26+Political+Only&utm_campaign=bdafa69cb1-FTT_chown_lawson&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9f3445a366-bdafa69cb1-303547657 And another one backing it up https://iea.org.uk/blog/bbc-bias-by-presentation-a-case-study-of-think-tanks

It's a simple enough concept, Shatlock, or perhaps you're being deliberately thick.

Shatlock, you seem to be confusing political debating programmes with News programmes, little leftie. I'm all for political debate where in the interests of impartiality both sides of the argument are examined during political programmes like Newsnight, Question Time, Marr, etc., with equal participation being accorded where the sides are reasonably matched for public support, as they were in the Referendum. But even in that scenario there have been reasonable criticisms aimed against the BBC for the imbalance of numbers on each side, time allocation favouring one side, choice of speakers, etc. This is what constitutes bias But where that bias is not acceptable is in the reporting of the main news. The privately owned media is of course permitted to choose whichever position they like and there are several publications which do not do the governments bidding, such as the Guardian, the Mirror and the Not Independent for example. But as you well know, it is not acceptable for the BBC as our national broadcaster to adopt a politically biased stance, even though most of their journalists lean leftwards politically, as indeed you do. Of course, nowhere did I call for the BBC to keep "schtum", only to be more balanced. I would suggest that you believe that democratic accountability should not apply to our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

Does the Red part of your name refer to the Saints colours, or your political affiliations? Judging from your reply, I suspect the latter. The BBC always gives a balanced point of view? As for the rest of your post, its given me a good belly laugh too. You're surprised that cranks like flat earthers and creationists aren't accorded the same right of reply that should be granted to those who believe that the UK will prosper outside of the EU? No doubt you believe that the Brexiteers are cranks too. Surely the Beeb could adopt a more optimistic tone in the interests of balance without you suggesting that that is a scenario which would only apply to a war situation. In any event, we have no bones to pick with Europe, only the part of it that is the EU. Censorship is not on your agenda, but you are quite content for the BBC to indulge in censorship to suit their agenda. The irony doesn't seem to occur to you. Why should those 78 MPs switch to Fox news instead? Aren't they entitled to be critical of our national broadcaster and hold it to account as the recipient of tax payers monies (and EU grants) which fund it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904 Many MPs are complaining that the BBC is biased towards the Remain position and is not going to be doing us any favours when it comes to negotiating the best possible deal in the forthcoming couple of years following on from the triggering of Article 50 on 29th. That isn't what they have been doing and as a result, they are not at all trusted. As long as they remain true to their charter to report news without bias, there is no reason to question their continued funding from the public purse. But the accusations of bias towards their reporting during the Referendum Campaign and in the ensuing 9 months have provoked a growing clamour for their public funding to cease. Despite their prominent role in the project fear strategy in the run up to 23rd June, they continue to report anything negative that they can get their hands on, whilst simultaneously doing their best to ignore any positive news that has come about, unless they prefix it as being "despite Brexit". Is it too much to expect that during the massively important negotiations of the next couple of years, that our national broadcasting service attempts to report the process and the future prospects of our country fairly and with some degree of optimism? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/03/21/bbcs-bias-against-brexit-could-do-real-harm-britain/

Sloppy passing, Long always offside, the damage already done in the first half, although we gave as good as we got during the second half. But without Gabbiadini, we didn't have the goal-scoring threat that might have got us a draw at least. Why can't we have Cacceres on the pitch? What exactly is he there for? Boufal was pants when he came on. Our best players were Bertrand and Cedric out wide and occasionally Romeu.

How has that **** Marriner not awarded us a penalty for Davies hacking down Tadic in the box? He didn't get anything of the ball

The penny doesn't drop, does it? Any significant events happen in the past 24 hours? Oh yes. Now it all becomes clear to you. The Queen gave her Royal Assent to the Article 50 Bill. So if I'm entirely relaxed about everything, it is because the process of leaving the EU has finally come about after my 27,848 posts. Am I world-wary? No. I look forward to the Global trade. World-weary? Perhaps. Congratulations on that Shakespeare quote. I did Macbeth for my O Level English Literature and can quote the whole speech even now. I am flattered though that you believe that Shakespeare might have anticipated my posts on a football forum thread when he wrote it. I have used those same lines in a post myself, perhaps in the earlier Referendum Campaign thread, although I would not have had the imagination to have accredited Will's inspiration for it to anybody living so far in the future; that didn't appear to be his style.

I'm pleased for you that you are de-stressing and simultaneously giving your ego a good massage. Here's a little snippet to lighten your mood still further, Charles. It seems that losing one's smart phone rates as more stressful than Brexit. http://www.physoc.org/sites/default/files/page/1736%208%20page%20report%20%283%29.pdf It's nice to put everyday life into perspective, isn't it? If you have one, my advice to you is not to put your smart phone in your shirt pocket in case it falls into the toilet pan when you lean over whilst having a pee.

It's a lovely sunny day, Charles, and the Queen has given her assent for the Brexit process to move forward. Why don't you just go out today, enjoy the sunshine and the early spring blossom and relax. Sing a verse or two of Que que, sera. You can't go on stressing about things that might not happen; it will be injurious to your health, methinks

You're not that hot on the reasoning yourself, Timmy, insisting that we would be going for the Norway option post Brexit. Any talk on that being a possibility has gone rather quiet. You do recall the £50 charity bet we had on that, I hope.

Did you miss out Antonio? Clyne, Shaw, Lallana, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Antonio

9 current or ex Saints players in the squad of 26! Nearly 35%

Calm down, dear, I worry for your health. You're also coming across as rather shrill, which is not going to assist the image you try to project as a sensible observer of events, methinks. It also doesn't help throwing about insults at me, which presumably also apply towards over half of the electorate who voted in the referendum. I've told you many times before, that it isn't logical to label those who seek to expand our trade with the global market place as "little Englanders". We are looking outwards, not towards inward isolation. Theresa May is not hell-bent on achieving the most extreme form of Brexit possible. If you cared to read her remarks without blinkers, then you would see that her position is to achieve the best possible deal for Britain, but as in any negotiations, one must be prepared to walk away if the terms offered are not acceptable. The fall back position is to go with WTO terms if the EU don't wish to allow us access to the single market on reasonable terms that don't include the four freedoms which together were the main cause of the vote to leave the UK. What is extremist about that? Surely you would wish us to go to the table with a strong negotiating hand, wouldn't you? I am happy to reiterate that if Scotland voted to leave the UK because they wished to remain in the EU, it would be a price worth paying in my opinion. I could hardly hold the position that we should be allowed a referendum vote on whether we remain in one union and deny the Scots their vote on their continued membership of another union. However, they have already had a recent referendum on that, so it is clear that the SNP seek any excuse to have successive referenda until they achieve their goal, so naturally their ambitions will be met increasingly with a resigned metaphorical shrug of the shoulders. But even as a hypothetical situation, it is extremely unlikely to happen. It has become clear that Scotland would have to leave the EU with us and reapply to join, leaving them in limbo for some considerable time, because their application would be vetoed by Spain and maybe others. Regarding your last paragraph, here is your usual arrogance surfacing once more. You accuse me of ignoring the possible negative consequences of Brexit and that they may be caused by the outcome I sought. I invite you to look at the reasons why the referendum vote took place in the first place and to accept that the actions of what became the EU brought about the consequences of the situation that we face regarding our future. Whether or not there is a negative outcome to our leaving remains to be seen. Why don't you wait until events unfold before indulging in your Private Fraser act? As for your last sentence, well, that is beyond contempt.

It was "bored" yawn, not a tired one.