tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post1955511598554080237..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Defending Peter Allen & Jane GarveyIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-74076776840902955502007-05-16T11:19:00.000+01:002007-05-16T11:19:00.000+01:00wrinkled weasel Good point.Scientology may very we...<B>wrinkled weasel</B> Good point.<BR/><BR/>Scientology may very well be an evil cult for nutters but they were right in what they said: the Panorama boys were obviously there to do a hatchet job on Scientology, not to impartially 'investigate' it. Pathetic Sweeney obviously couldn't handle being on the receiving end of his own treatment.<BR/><BR/>Fact is the bbc is a state-funded propaganda channel with a leftoid agenda intent on attacking the West (and a couple of other things). Large numbers of beeboids need carting off to the Tower and put to the axe as the traitors they are. Bunch of tossers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-48375071580430719282007-05-16T09:14:00.000+01:002007-05-16T09:14:00.000+01:00Group hug ?Group hug ?Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12600377011577988682007-05-16T00:39:00.000+01:002007-05-16T00:39:00.000+01:00correction..the link to the "Sweeney loses it" pie...correction..the link to the "Sweeney loses it" piece is<BR/><BR/>www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLIWrinkled Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05291551539649118631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21935134199121691992007-05-16T00:29:00.000+01:002007-05-16T00:29:00.000+01:00As was widely reported, a vile reptile called John...As was widely reported, a vile reptile called John Sweeney totally lost control during the making of the BBC's "flagship" programme Panorama, whilst interviewing a Scientologist.<BR/><BR/>You can find it on youtube<BR/>www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkOcK3rZHls<BR/><BR/>The BBC has "severely reprimanded" him.<BR/><BR/>If you watch the clip, you may find yourself asking why he was not instantly dismissed.<BR/><BR/>The putative moral crusade that the BBC has embarked upon over the past few years will thankfully result in its demise as a user of public money. <BR/><BR/>The clip is an example of a BBC employee who not only lost his temper, but revealed his less than neutral position. The whole thing would not have come out had not the people he was interviewing had the sense to use their own team to film him - something he seemed to object to.<BR/><BR/>As many have commented here, the BBC has a clear agenda on such topics as homosexuality, Christianity, abortion, Israel and Islam etc, etc, etc. I object most vehemently for being forced to pay for a service that preaches to me.<BR/><BR/>The clip reveals that Mr Sweeney not only sees himself in the role of an evangelist, it reveals that he is a nasty, perverted, southern evangelist who tolerates nothing but his own distorted beliefs.Wrinkled Weaselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05291551539649118631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-53651682256347168682007-05-15T22:29:00.000+01:002007-05-15T22:29:00.000+01:00"Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.Or two week's..."Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.<BR/>Or two week's 'wages' for a single mother on income support"<BR/><BR/>Hello, welcome to the year 2007.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-16546013943240599702007-05-15T22:25:00.000+01:002007-05-15T22:25:00.000+01:00"Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.Or two week's..."Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.<BR/>Or two week's 'wages' for a single mother on income support"<BR/><BR/>Hello, welcome to the year 2007.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-4105582684097702762007-05-15T22:19:00.000+01:002007-05-15T22:19:00.000+01:00A fellow anon..."old Aunt" LOL. How many old aunts...A fellow anon...<BR/><BR/>"old Aunt" LOL. How many old aunts do you know that can hose money around the way the Beeb has done. e.g. Jonathan Ross.<BR/>May 15, 2007 9:31 PM<BR/><BR/>See my 1:59 PM post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-7599584174028322102007-05-15T22:13:00.000+01:002007-05-15T22:13:00.000+01:00If you are sincerely saying, news aside, that you ...If you are sincerely saying, news aside, that you find nothing in the whole BBC output that is worth 37p a day to you or yours.<BR/>*****************************************<BR/><BR/>Oh yeah, the old 37p a day chestnut.<BR/><BR/>Or two week's 'wages' for a single mother on income supportAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46547094420460352662007-05-15T21:32:00.000+01:002007-05-15T21:32:00.000+01:00I have no problem at all with biased journalists o...I have no problem at all with biased journalists or journalists who do not hide their political views. It is unrealistic to expect any intelligent person who is involved political journalism not to take a position (and believe me there are plenty of BBC journalists who support all the major parties)<BR/><BR/>However what I have a problem with is journalists who pretend that they do not have a political bias; those who feel they have to take a contrary view to their own to demonstrate a lack of bias; and those who lack the basic professionalism to make it clear when they are reporting and editorialising or to ask the questions that their viewers/readers (of differnt political views to their own) want to be asked. <BR/><BR/>Believe me there are people of all political perspectives who believe that the BBC is biased (and this is the main defence the BBC employ to such criticism). What I would like to see is open and honest bias and some basic professional journalism rather than the current dog's breakfast that we getting.tory boys never grow uphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11172736984147732661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-11718594258489567522007-05-15T21:31:00.000+01:002007-05-15T21:31:00.000+01:00"old Aunt" LOL. How many old aunts do you know tha..."old Aunt" LOL. How many old aunts do you know that can hose money around the way the Beeb has done. e.g. Jonathan Ross.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-92025030593804912232007-05-15T21:09:00.000+01:002007-05-15T21:09:00.000+01:00Newmania"What happened to the EU ?"I didn't pick u...Newmania<BR/>"What happened to the EU ?"<BR/><BR/>I didn't pick up on that point because I happen to agree with you.<BR/>Stranger things have happened<BR/><BR/>"I am not a misogynist but I do not have quite such a vehemently pro abortion view as the BBC would prefer."<BR/><BR/>You said pro-feminist. Different agenda.<BR/><BR/>"I support the continuity and the constitutional place of the monarchy as the symbolic focus of the tribe and the living connection to its past"<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with the Royal family, I did once, but grew out of it. I was simply pointing out your 'tax' priorities may not be as impartial or as widespread as you would believe. Those that resent paying for the BBC can go elsewhere for their broadcasting...listen to independent radio or use the internet for free TV [insert 18DS advert here!]. Those that resent paying for a monarchy do not get that choice and are reminded of that every time they take a coin or note from their pocket. <BR/><BR/>I also happen to agree with you on the appeasement of Islam and other faiths that require 'special' treatment in a land that gives less sufficient rights to it's own culture and people. I'm for an English Parliament too. Actually, you and I probably wouldn't disagree on a lot of things to be honest, but I think your more extreme views should be challenged, even if I am in the minority on this forum.<BR/><BR/>I get the impression you do appreciate some of the beeb's content, and you'd be a fool not to, but your problem seems to be with a perceived current affairs bias. I have posted other comments where I've expressed the same sentiments, so we are not at odds as you think.<BR/><BR/>My problem with your posts is that you seem to see the whole of the BBC as a communist tool, a propaganda weapon for some as yet undiscovered Big Brother sect. Without diverting into some nostalgia countdown, I remember the BBC for what it did for me, the learning, the exposure to lives I'd never see, the laughs, the dramas and the knowledge that what you'd just seen on the news wasn't edited to give equal airtime to new cars or fridges. You could argue it is the difference between Blue Peter and Magpie, but there was a place for each. <BR/><BR/>There still is. I'd hate to think that your pride, or that of any BBC resentee, prevents you from enjoying some of the best quality programming in the world. The BBC has earned a heritage and a reputation that is second to none on a global scale. Sure the true Englishman in you can take some pride in that?! The BBC was never all things to all people, but it was, and hopefully shall ever be, part of our fabric and identity.The same arguments for maintaining a monarchy can easily be applied to keeping this old Aunt alive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-90364593254632938902007-05-15T17:50:00.000+01:002007-05-15T17:50:00.000+01:00I thought they did a particularly good job of - pl...I thought they did a particularly good job of - playfully - embarrassing John McDonnell yesterday.David Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240242801763405583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-73587069139264018042007-05-15T17:19:00.000+01:002007-05-15T17:19:00.000+01:00The BBC sucks and has done for a very long time. D...The BBC sucks and has done for a very long time. Does anyone else recall their genuflecting attitude towards the unions in the 70s and the Soviets during the Cold War. What a delight it was not to have the Morning Star cited every day on the Today programme. The BBC's world view was crap then and remains crap now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-9699854148169574382007-05-15T17:08:00.000+01:002007-05-15T17:08:00.000+01:00A sensible debate forum,( ugh…) anon , as the BBC ...A sensible debate forum,( ugh…) anon , as the BBC might learn , is not one in which everyone agrees with them..<BR/><BR/> I am not homophobic I do on the other hand disapprove of state requirements for homosexualist literature in schools and a duty for all adoption agencies to consider homosexual friends as equivalent to married couples. The BBC would consider me a most dreadful person but I am in the vast majority.<BR/><BR/>I am not a misogynist but I do not have quite such a vehemently pro abortion view as the BBC would prefer.<BR/><BR/>I am intolerant of other faiths and ethnicities to the extent that the English should be the dominant and binding one in England. Both the major Parties would agree but the BBC would not . I have a great disateaste for multiculturalism and find the BBC`s efforts to appease Islam nauseating<BR/><BR/>I support the continuity and the constitutional place of the monarchy as the symbolic focus of the tribe and the living connection to its past . Again I am in the vast majority although I would probably be in a minority of one at the BBC. I gather that this means little to you.<BR/><BR/>What happened to the EU ? <BR/><BR/>37p a day is not the point. The point is a having a malignant nest of unchallenged Liberalism. I cannot see it reforming and it does great damage to the country. Judging from your catechism of politically correct assumptions I am not the least bit surprised you approve of “Progressive “ ,propaganda being pumped into every home twenty four hours a day by the state.<BR/><BR/>Nice of you to show your true colours. No suprise of courseNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-7574052800174179972007-05-15T17:00:00.000+01:002007-05-15T17:00:00.000+01:00Garvey said on FIVE DRIVEL: "but as I say there ha...Garvey said on FIVE DRIVEL: "but as I say there have been a few problems along the way over the last ten years".<BR/><BR/>Yeah - Labour have not been left wing enough for you lot have they? Too chummy with ChimpyBusHitlerMcHalliburton, not brought in the Euro, they've hauled the BBC over the coals concerning Fat Arsed Gilligan's flawed reporting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60406423023231191302007-05-15T16:36:00.000+01:002007-05-15T16:36:00.000+01:00Garvey's wonderful gaffe shows just how left-leani...Garvey's wonderful gaffe shows just how left-leaning the BBC is.<BR/><BR/>Can you imagine empty champagne bottles strewn across the corridors of Broadcasting House in the aftermath of the 1992 election? Or the 1987 one?<BR/><BR/>With the Tories gaining >800 seats in the recent local elections, were the bottle banks near BBC premises bulging with empty champagne bottles? I think not!<BR/><BR/>So, Iain go ahead and praise Garvey and Allen (I disagree with you concerning their broadcasting skills) but the Tories must reform the BBC upon gaining power.<BR/><BR/>The licence fee must go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12293787640730111952007-05-15T16:28:00.000+01:002007-05-15T16:28:00.000+01:00So you're a homophobic misogynist, intolerant of f...So you're a homophobic misogynist, intolerant of faiths and ethnicities other than your own, who is happy to pay for the extravagances and luxuries of one elite family and their hangers-on? <BR/><BR/>Sorry if I've misunderstood, but that's my reading of your post. With that outlook, I am not in the least bit surprised you feel the way you do about the BBC!<BR/><BR/>If you are sincerely saying, news aside, that you find nothing in the whole BBC output that is worth 37p a day to you or yours, and that you really see "state sponsored opinions" in everything they do, then a sensible debate on this forum isn't going happen is it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88277759218982307672007-05-15T15:51:00.000+01:002007-05-15T15:51:00.000+01:00Iain,Isn't she suggesting the BBC had a pro Labour...Iain,<BR/><BR/>Isn't she suggesting the BBC had a pro Labour bias, not that she had or has one?Ralphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15203026279846542950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-43136679576718721792007-05-15T14:32:00.000+01:002007-05-15T14:32:00.000+01:00Newmaniaanon-"Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t...Newmania<BR/><BR/>anon-"Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t guess."Well try, 'cos it sure ain't the BBC…………………………….<BR/> The Labour Party ? Or Public Sector ( same thing) . A gay massage parlour ? I dunno , something bad I `m sure <BR/><BR/>Anon-Jump to conclusion much? Etc.<BR/>So you are suggesting that having state controlled opinions thrown at us falls into the same category as providing schools-an-‘ospitals to ‘ard-working –families. Excuse me for not seeing the point of the remark. In fact the cardinal political tool there is very good reason for not having state control of broadcasting. Perhaps you can imagine why this might be ?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anon -I made no such assumption, advertising is essential to business and for the paying customer. But we need a break from it………..<BR/><BR/>And this is a reason for a tax ? Oh do be serious <BR/><BR/><BR/>AnonDo really "need" more?<BR/><BR/>I watch exactly the amount I want to.<BR/><BR/>ANON "In any case the position of the BBC clearly prevents entry into this market thereby stopping the growth of competition"Cyberspace is quite a big place Newmania, <BR/><BR/>How about you hold you breath until google succumbs to competition ? They didn`t have a state funded leg up as well as insuperable economies of scale. I see no possible reason for us to fund the BBC`s all to transparent wish to out spend in cyberspace and cut out the competition. They are misusing public money. The BBC still has a 45% share , though its patronage and influence it influences the politics of this country universally in the following ways <BR/>1 Pro EU<BR/>2 Anti natonalism<BR/>3 Anti Monarchy<BR/>4 Pro Multi Culturalism <BR/><BR/>5 Pro Feminism<BR/><BR/>Since Burt its has felt free to editorialise and the culture of Liberalism is more dominant than ever. I do not believe it can be reformed . It must have large audiences to justify the fee and yet its only possible role is a small adjunct to the free media . This is the conclusion which it fears and hence the aggressive use of resources to entrench its position which is in tandem with its on going political campaign against the small state. Its there in the output every day and not any more chiefly in the news and current affairs , more in the arts production itself skewed by state funding.Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-6150717072469184652007-05-15T13:59:00.000+01:002007-05-15T13:59:00.000+01:00Anon 1.25pm"slash the licence fee and cut the serv...Anon 1.25pm<BR/><BR/>"slash the licence fee and cut the services down to a properly financed core. Focus on good programming & factual unbiased news reporting. Set the rest of the bloated organisation adrift. If Jonathan Ross et al want £15million salaries, then let them seek such recompense on the open commercial market. There is no need for a public service broadcaster to compete for ratings - let them go."<BR/><BR/>Believe it or not, I completely agree.<BR/><BR/>As I said to Newmania, I do not work for the BBC or anything remotely connected, I just get sick of the 'sledgehammer to crack a walnut' mentality of those who want the BBC reformed beyond recognition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27376735042635950712007-05-15T13:51:00.000+01:002007-05-15T13:51:00.000+01:00Newmania"Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t gues...Newmania<BR/><BR/>"Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t guess."<BR/><BR/>Well try, 'cos it sure ain't the BBC.<BR/><BR/>"Fox in particular has been a staggering success"<BR/><BR/>So who do you work for?!<BR/><BR/>"Yes but you enjoy a standard of living vastly above those who pay for the rearing of children. Unless you are suggesting that your income could survive the end of the population . “Hard working families?” are in fact the ones financing your privileged and selfish lifestyle which I resent"<BR/><BR/>Jump to conclusion much? You actually enhance the point I was making, which is that there are things in life which we pay for but don't directly effect us if we make certain choices for ourselves. Far from denigrating "hard working families", I am quite content to pay towards the education for their children to be well educated and cared for by society, which will ultimately benefit from that 'investment'.<BR/><BR/>"Note the assumption that advertising is a sort of poison poured into the ears of malleable children . I am not a child ,we need advertising to tell us what we can buy"<BR/><BR/>I made no such assumption, advertising is essential to business and for the paying customer. But we need a break from it...name me one journey you've made, a paper you've read, a website you've visited, a TV channel other than the BBC where you haven't been bombarded with advertising. Is this not enough for you? Do really "need" more?<BR/><BR/>"In any case the position of the BBC clearly prevents entry into this market thereby stopping the growth of competition"<BR/><BR/>Cyberspace is quite a big place Newmania, I really don't see how the BBC can monopolise it. It is exactly this sort of paranoid, reds-under-the-bed hysteria, ably demonstrated by your good self, that led to my post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-10103737318854774582007-05-15T13:49:00.000+01:002007-05-15T13:49:00.000+01:00If the BBC is so bloody great, why are they so aga...If the BBC is so bloody great, why are they so against losing the license fee and going to subscription?<BR/><BR/>Surely millions of Beeb-loving citizens would be only too happy to cough up?<BR/><BR/>No they wouldn't. They are fully aware the only way they get away with "what they do" (endemic bias and moronification of programming) is via state enabled extortion.<BR/><BR/>Let's have the choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-49822939892062266672007-05-15T13:25:00.000+01:002007-05-15T13:25:00.000+01:00To Anonymous at 12.31 - Do you work for or have an...To Anonymous at 12.31 - Do you work for or have an interest in the BBC by chance?<BR/><BR/>It was probably unwise to bring the subject of other taxes into this discussion. Whilst I do not have a problem subsidising those less fortunate than myself, I am thoroughly fed up with my taxes being wasted on the feckless workshy, the open palms of 'visitors' to my country and Grabbing Gordons chums in PFI etc I fear you have opened a whole new can of worms!<BR/><BR/>As I said in my posting at 10.25am it is time for serious reform. Slash the licence fee and cut the services down to a properly financed core. Focus on good programming & factual unbiased news reporting. Set the rest of the bloated organisation adrift. If Jonathan Ross et al want £15million salaries, then let them seek such recompense on the open commercial market. There is no need for a public service broadcaster to compete for ratings - let them go. Get rid of the dire digital channels - most of them are churning out garbage. The website poses an interesting dilemma - free to those outside the UK, yet paid for by those with no choice within the UK. Is that fair?<BR/><BR/>The BBC is a brand which is now choosing to abuse the trust placed in it for it's own means. It is acting as a commercial organisation but continues to hide behind the mask of friendly public broadcaster. It is time for it to come off the fence and go one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>Enough is enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-13351348026618171142007-05-15T13:16:00.000+01:002007-05-15T13:16:00.000+01:00ANON said ...all sorts of the usual stuffBTWIs it ...ANON said ...all sorts of the usual stuff<BR/><BR/>BTW<BR/><BR/><I>Is it fair that we're paying for your kids?</I><BR/><BR/><B>Yes but you enjoy a standard of living vastly above those who pay for the rearing of children. Unless you are suggesting that your income could survive the end of the population . “Hard working families?” are in fact the ones financing your privileged and selfish lifestyle which I resent</B><BR/><BR/><I>you cannot possibly argue that there is bias on their comprehensive website, which has a considerable amount of interactivity and learning aides for kids.</I> <BR/><BR/><B>But the web site is demonstrably even more biased as in the case of the IRA. In any case the position of the BBC clearly prevents entry into this market thereby stopping the growth of competition . The wish of the BBC to move into and monopolise al new media is precisely because it will otherwise be outflanked by others showing they can do a better job .</B> <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What are the alternatives - more Sky News, more Fox News, more NBC?</I> <BR/><BR/><B>The two I know are better and as I they are commercial bodies they can do what they like having no special authority. The BBC has a special claim to be speaking with authority. That’s why its bias is so important. Fox in oparticular has been a staggering success and a UK operation would also take a great trenche of those who currently have little choice but to watch the BBC</B> <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Advertising works, which is why they do it, and I'm fairly confident the subsequent purchases will cost you a lot more that the 'tax' you objected to.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Note the assumption that advertising is a sort of poison poured into the ears of malleable children . I am not a child ,we need advertising to tell us what we can buy . We also need and have a sophisticated response to it. Advertising is an unalloyed evil in the eyes of socialists and the BBC, who are socilaisticallyy inclined as a state controlled opinion former .</B> <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/><I>The alleged bias of the current affairs output should been seen in the context of the alternatives, and also the rest of the BBC content, which is beyond anything the private sector could ever come up with.-</I><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>1Aha ….so the BBC is correcting our view of the world is it balancing what the left feels is the bias of the printed media .I don`t recall agreeing to that remit It is in anycase only according to its own world view. <BR/><BR/>2I dispute this . The BBC has not only contributed to a moribund reporting culture but has also dragged arts into the UK into a state so poor that, domestic drama is feared and ignored by the public the second the y have a choice . The printed press is infinitely better so there is no mystery about the alternative and what an improvement it would be</B> <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It amazes me that you will pay significantly more per month to the likes of Branson and Murdoch to be fed endless repeats of US TV shows.</I><BR/><BR/><B>But people will, and that’s because it is better. Not perhaps in the opinion of this or that bourgeois self appointed state funded cultural arbiter but better for the people who pay for it . I also happen to think the BBC is a cultural dead weight and it is the superior quality of the US shpws that is telling.Some of the BBC output is so awful you wonder if they write it with word randomisers</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Regardless of what you say, the BBC remains one the most trusted brands in the world.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Typical of the dismissive arrogance you will find . I beginto think Anon is a lickle spit hireling defending his bread and butter. Liberalism works better abroad than at home I admit and the world service does little harm having numerous victims and less need to invent them as it does here. This is largely a historical accident though and in any case does little good for us</B> <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>and is used daily by the majority of the UK population.</I><BR/><BR/><B>.Who have no choice</B><BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>I will gladly take it's liberal stance on some matters if it means I don't have to rely on the dire alternatives.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Its pernicious and wilful desire to effect the political process so as to preserve its own position is somewhat more sinister than you suggest. It will remain this way until its wings are clipped to the size they were say in the 60s . There is probably a place for a culturally uplifting state controlled chanell but in politics there is not. The reasons are so obvious they scream at you. Who pays you anon ? As if I couldn`t guess.</B>Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-30605020729102629172007-05-15T12:52:00.000+01:002007-05-15T12:52:00.000+01:00You're defending an attack that hasn't been made. ...You're defending an attack that hasn't been made. <BR/><BR/>Who's "attacking" Allen and Garvey ? All credit to her for being so honest - as she usually is. If you listen to the mp3 you can hear the realisation that she's digging a hole for herself.<BR/><BR/>The main point - that Broadcasting House was awash with champers on the night of the 1st - remains - unanswered and unanswerable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com