Lots of pearl clutching here. Orange man bad stuff, yes he is quite bad. But he will be gone soon, I never thought there was a risk that the BBC might implode before he does.
The excuses on here "yeah but he was inciting a riot", well then why splice the video together to make it appear he was saying something different to what he did?
They caught fabricating a narrative. That other media organisations do this is neither here or there. Just because other car manufacturers repeatedly break down, and yours has an excellent reputation for reliability shouldnt mean you start producing models that break down. ‘ The BBC is only really a few more mistakes away from implosion. Imagine losing a post truth pi*sing contest with Donald Trump.
I'm clearly going to have to start officially complaining every time they edit his current ramblings to make him sound semi-coherent.
That's going to keep me pretty busy, as they do so regularly.
It’s slightly weird that it’s taken so long for Trump and Trumpers to notice this supposedly egregious piece of editing, also what practical effect did a piece broadcast to UK viewers have on US politics?
Quite a good list of quotes to put the ‘poor misrepresented Trump’ narrative into context.
None whatsoever- which is indicated by the fact that the piece received all of ... zero complaints at the time.
That’s a sign of just how good a fabrication it was. The best lies are hidden in truth. Nothing Burgers don’t take down the DG and head of news at one of the world’s most recognisable media organisations. They lied. They lied. They lied.
I was jaw dropping shocked when I saw it. I was saddened to the core that it was the BBC and Panorama. A show that from my youth had always been a programme that meant truth and integrity.
If a show like Panorama on a station like the BBC can so easily deceive, it makes me question assumptions about all news reporting. It’s devastating. To simply dismiss it as orange man bag and it’s probably what he meant anyway, just adds. Carrying water for media corruption because its a noble lie.
The truth: Trump incited a riot The edited lie: Trump incited a riot
Why the performative shock? We aren't morons on X, doesn't work here.
Because if we stand for nothing we fall for anything.
For what it's worth (not much, I know) I've just had my grocery delivery and the driver made a political comment. First time that's ever happened, usually it's the weather, the traffic, what they did on their recent days off/plans for coming days off.
Today, ID cards. And they're a Bad Thing. And Keir Starmer mentioned negatively.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
We have a tiny fraction of the construction we require for our population growth and demographic changes (people living longer in houses without kids while growing up grandkids also need a home).
Unless we have massive population decline, we need more cement, not less.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
How, I wonder, is it possible to build millions of dwellings for a population who like low rise with gardens in nice areas with current populations living in nice areas with low rise with nice gardens who don't want any more of them without upsetting someone?
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The very notion of building 'millions of dwellings' would be a dystopian horror inflicted on our small once-beautiful island, an environmental disaster which has stemmed from successive governments failing to control population numbers (or even have a target to do so).
Given the rate of population increase, we do indeed need millions of dwellings over, say, any 10-year period
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
I thought the Telegraph was debunked as a thoroughly unreliable source?
Is there any newspaper out there that can be deemed reliable?
Probably not.
There isn't that much money in publishing newspapers these days, and what market there is skews older and older.
So the only way to survive is to cut reporting staff to the bone, publish clickbait to scare/affirm your retired readers (because they're the only ones you have) or hope that some billionaire buys you up as a personal pulpit.
One of the possibilities that gets missed in the pre-budget period is the the sources for all these "Reeves will tax X" stories may be the Treasury, but they may also be the voices in the head of some hack.
I hear it's a standard Treasury tactic to say they may blow up bombs everywhere so that when only one or two goes off, rather than four or five, everyone is relieved.
Personally, I'm not sure I buy it. It's a very political angle to take and the Treasury would know the economic damage it could do as it fuels speculation everywhere.
I think it's Reeves and her team doing a bit of kiteflying and laying smoke.
The suggestion of the 20% “exit tax” was on the news headlines and discussed on the breakfast radio show in the sandpit this morning.
That’s how much of an affect it’s having already, people are making decisions that will stick even if it doesn’t happen this year. People know it’s been floated, and there’s three more Labour budgets still to come.
I agree the constant tax speculation is unhelpful. It's one reason why I really hope Reeves make OBR forecasts annual. Otherwise we're on speculation of budget black holes every 6 months and the preceding period, which is completely unnecessary.
On the exit tax, I do think it's worth exploring taxes on expats to low tax countries, but I'm not sure what form that should take. What people shouldn't be able to do is spend their working years abroad paying no tax and then retiring here and taking advantage of our healthcare and state pension with only a few quid spent on voluntary NI contributions.
If people want the benefits of citizenship / residency in retirement, they should pay their fair share during their working life.
If the OBR has half the money workload can we cut their headcount by 50%? Or are public sector job cuts bad?
The exit tax is a gimmick that will not really work. Say I have a business that makes widgets in Turkey and sells them in USA. At the moment if I live in the UK and pass the profits through a UK company I pay tax on the profits. Now say I decide to pass the orders and sales from a company say in Dubai. The company in Dubai then uses the profits to rent a mansion in Dubai. All legal but quickly the money moves away from the HMRC. This is what Labour dont really understand about the rich. They are used to moving money and assets about. By the time the UK Government has woken up the business has gone. The rich dont shout about this but keep quiet. The only businesses the Government can really hit are UK orientated service businesses but then the risk is if you hit them too hard are the UK owners sell off to global multinationals. They can extract profits from UK easier ref Starbucks.
I am amazed as one of the HNWIs left in the UK how often Labour MPs and supporters claim to know what I am thinking about on living in the UK. They appear clueless.
I think there should be a serious annual fee for any with a UK passport who is not UK tax resident. At least £2k a year maybe tiered for age. This could raise billions of pounds. UK citizens could live abroad but still need to file UK taxes.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
How, I wonder, is it possible to build millions of dwellings for a population who like low rise with gardens in nice areas with current populations living in nice areas with low rise with nice gardens who don't want any more of them without upsetting someone?
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The very notion of building 'millions of dwellings' would be a dystopian horror inflicted on our small once-beautiful island, an environmental disaster which has stemmed from successive governments failing to control population numbers (or even have a target to do so).
Whether you like it or not, the people live here, so we need the homes. Demographic changes mean future increases in demand are already baked in too.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today, we'd still need the homes.
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
Rachel Reeves is poised to increase the tax rate on earnings from shares in her Nov 26 Budget, The Telegraph understands. The Chancellor is expected to put up the rate of dividend tax in a move that will hit investors but could raise up to £2bn.
I thought Reeves wanted more people investing in stocks?
I thought the Telegraph was debunked as a thoroughly unreliable source?
Is there any newspaper out there that can be deemed reliable?
Probably not.
There isn't that much money in publishing newspapers these days, and what market there is skews older and older.
So the only way to survive is to cut reporting staff to the bone, publish clickbait to scare/affirm your retired readers (because they're the only ones you have) or hope that some billionaire buys you up as a personal pulpit.
One of the possibilities that gets missed in the pre-budget period is the the sources for all these "Reeves will tax X" stories may be the Treasury, but they may also be the voices in the head of some hack.
I hear it's a standard Treasury tactic to say they may blow up bombs everywhere so that when only one or two goes off, rather than four or five, everyone is relieved.
Personally, I'm not sure I buy it. It's a very political angle to take and the Treasury would know the economic damage it could do as it fuels speculation everywhere.
I think it's Reeves and her team doing a bit of kiteflying and laying smoke.
The suggestion of the 20% “exit tax” was on the news headlines and discussed on the breakfast radio show in the sandpit this morning.
That’s how much of an affect it’s having already, people are making decisions that will stick even if it doesn’t happen this year. People know it’s been floated, and there’s three more Labour budgets still to come.
I agree the constant tax speculation is unhelpful. It's one reason why I really hope Reeves make OBR forecasts annual. Otherwise we're on speculation of budget black holes every 6 months and the preceding period, which is completely unnecessary.
On the exit tax, I do think it's worth exploring taxes on expats to low tax countries, but I'm not sure what form that should take. What people shouldn't be able to do is spend their working years abroad paying no tax and then retiring here and taking advantage of our healthcare and state pension with only a few quid spent on voluntary NI contributions.
If people want the benefits of citizenship / residency in retirement, they should pay their fair share during their working life.
But doesn't that cut both ways, with some foreigners working here and paying tax then retiring back home? I'm not a fan of people being taxed twice over. It's telling that only the USA and Eritrea currently, I think, impose income tax on citizens who work overseas.
I know nothing about Eritrean taxes, but the US overseas regime also has a personal allowance of $130,000 and deducts taxes paid locally, before taxes are paid to the IRS.
If the UK did something similar, for example 10% tax on overseas income above £100k, then I wouldn’t object.
The Eritreans do it as part of their slavery system, whereby overseas workers send loads of cash back or their hostage families get harmed. Think of North Korea, but a little less of a hermit.
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
We have Labour MPs who boast they didn't enter politics to make difficult decisions.
We live in an age of fundamentally non-serious politicians.
The Dems really need to be looking at other candidates.
Why is it malignant narcissism to comment on the Democrat leadership folding to Trump for 156th time (based on promises to do things - which he always breaks) as "Pathetic"?
WRT BBC bias and all that (I am a BBC radio life long enthusiast).
This morning I listened to a couple of hours of turgid R4 Today introspection on the current row. I haven't read the famous leaked memo/report. One thing stood out a mile: Charles Moore (whose bias and dislike of the BBC is of course obvious) started to mention, as if from the memo/report suggestions about the BBC Arabic service which, if true, are egregiously and outstandingly startling and a total dereliction of news values duties. No idea if it's true. This was more or less immediately stifled and diverted and the rest of the two hours focusses on other stuff including the now notorious Panorama splicing of clips from a well known American fascist called Donald Trump.
This indicated to me that a selection bias is going on, under the appearance of fair neutral news coverage. But I can't be sure.
An astute post. This sounds very much like a right wing coup.
Despite losing some of its best journalists recently it is still one of the most trusted news organisations in the world and one of the UK's finest institutions. So even in it's current neurotic form it's worth preserving.
The Trump story is definitely left field. An absolute nothing story that should have been batted away without a second thought. But other things of more importance have been rumbling under the surface.
The name Robbie Gibb recently owner of the Jewish Chronicle and responsible for some provably dishonest stiories being one of them. Why is he one of the five on the BBC's standards committee and seemingly an influential one?
This BBC Furore just shows that American fascism (sorry, "yanksoc") is now starting to permeate its way into our own institutions.
In the past we would debate issues and facts. Disagreeing with the other side but recognising that their policy position is based on truth and their genuine ambition to do what is best for the country.
That is gone. Now we argue about the facts - even when those facts happened in real time in front of us. And have malevolent actors doing their best to undermine the country.
Yanksoc is not going to be good for the UK as we continue to be influenced by it.
Yanksoc has a bit of a Leon vibe..
Well, fascists are wankers...
Where is Leon?
Banned and if I know Leon doing something else right now so not that bothered about posting on PB. You can always check out this fella on X - https://x.com/thomasknox - he might be able to contact Leon as I think they are friends...
The fact the Conservatives lead not only Labour again but also now Reform on the economy is a positive for them. They won't beat Farage on the culture wars and anti immigration policies but if they focus on tax and spend they could be contenders again
F1: fortnight until the hellish 4am starts of Las Vegas, unlike the more normal 6am of last year.
Low grip but dry, it's been good for Mercedes, and might be the last curveball of the year (that said, I never expected Mexico and Interlagos to go the way they did). I've put a little on both Antonelli and Russell at 12 and 7.5 each way, respectively.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
Mostly agree. I think less than two years into this government it will be unrealistic to expect it to have eliminated borrowing altogether, but by now the direction of travel should be unambiguously clear, with both well planned tax rises and spending cuts and a well communicated plan for paying off large amounts of the debt while keeping gilt rates at or below EU levels.
Gigantic planning failures: Failing to plan for Brexit; failing to plan NHS recruitment and training within the UK to meet requirements; failing to plan the number of dwellings to match the population; failing to plan for a pandemic; and most recently Labour's failure to plan for government, giving the real impression they are having to make it up as they go along.
The fact the Conservatives lead not only Labour again but also now Reform on the economy is a positive for them. They won't beat Farage on the culture wars and anti immigration policies but if they focus on tax and spend they could be contenders again
Yep.
There's going to be a gap in the market for sensible One Nation Tories.
Big question will be can they attract monied supporters again?
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
How, I wonder, is it possible to build millions of dwellings for a population who like low rise with gardens in nice areas with current populations living in nice areas with low rise with nice gardens who don't want any more of them without upsetting someone?
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The very notion of building 'millions of dwellings' would be a dystopian horror inflicted on our small once-beautiful island, an environmental disaster which has stemmed from successive governments failing to control population numbers (or even have a target to do so).
Given the rate of population increase, we do indeed need millions of dwellings over, say, any 10-year period
On birthrate the UK population is declining, only immigration is increasing it but even the rate of net immigration is now declining after tighter visa requirements Sunak brought in
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
The Conservative response to the Budget will be very important.
Big opportunity for Mel Stride to show what he can offer. If he can pin the unpopular stuff on Reeves and Starmer, whilst having a sensible narrative for what he would have done instead, the Tories could start heading back towards Reform in the polls.
Tim (still totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback · 1h Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
30% for don't know suggests more people are paying attention than I feared. Labour are getting this worst because they are in power and have to make real decisions with real consequences but none, and I mean none, of the others are remotely convincing or serious about addressing our problems.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
Mostly agree. I think less than two years into this government it will be unrealistic to expect it to have eliminated borrowing altogether, but by now the direction of travel should be unambiguously clear, with both well planned tax rises and spending cuts and a well communicated plan for paying off large amounts of the debt while keeping gilt rates at or below EU levels.
Gigantic planning failures: Failing to plan for Brexit; failing to plan NHS recruitment and training within the UK to meet requirements; failing to plan the number of dwellings to match the population; failing to plan for a pandemic; and most recently Labour's failure to plan for government, giving the real impression they are having to make it up as they go along.
I am not saying that the deficit should be eliminated by now or in this budget. It took Osborne 9 years to eliminate the huge structural deficit that he inherited from Brown and the collapse of financial services taxation. What is necessary is that we start making real progress towards that objective. The skill (and luck) is to do that just fast enough that the economy continues to grow even slowly while the excess demand is withdrawn. Time is not our friend here. We need to be reducing the deficit by at least £30bn a year by a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
How, I wonder, is it possible to build millions of dwellings for a population who like low rise with gardens in nice areas with current populations living in nice areas with low rise with nice gardens who don't want any more of them without upsetting someone?
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The very notion of building 'millions of dwellings' would be a dystopian horror inflicted on our small once-beautiful island, an environmental disaster which has stemmed from successive governments failing to control population numbers (or even have a target to do so).
Whether you like it or not, the people live here, so we need the homes. Demographic changes mean future increases in demand are already baked in too.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today, we'd still need the homes.
The biggest driver is the increasing number of people living alone, partially offset by the greater number of younger people still living with a parent.
F1: fortnight until the hellish 4am starts of Las Vegas, unlike the more normal 6am of last year.
Low grip but dry, it's been good for Mercedes, and might be the last curveball of the year (that said, I never expected Mexico and Interlagos to go the way they did). I've put a little on both Antonelli and Russell at 12 and 7.5 each way, respectively.
Yes they moved it forward this year, race at 8pm local time to pacify both the US East Coast and the live attendance who the casinos want to go out rather than home afterwards.
Rather annoying even for me, the European audience will be less than impressed with the change.
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
How, I wonder, is it possible to build millions of dwellings for a population who like low rise with gardens in nice areas with current populations living in nice areas with low rise with nice gardens who don't want any more of them without upsetting someone?
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The very notion of building 'millions of dwellings' would be a dystopian horror inflicted on our small once-beautiful island, an environmental disaster which has stemmed from successive governments failing to control population numbers (or even have a target to do so).
Given the rate of population increase, we do indeed need millions of dwellings over, say, any 10-year period
On birthrate the UK population is declining, only immigration is increasing it but even the rate of net immigration is now declining after tighter visa requirements Sunak brought in
On birthrate the UK population is increasing, births have exceeded deaths in every year apart from 2023 and Covid-impacted 2020.
Births are forecast to exceed deaths this year.
You have an obsession with the replacement rate, but given increasing life expectancies, it is about 80-90 years before those people die and that is relevant.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Council officers should be applying the regulations to ensure fairness on both sides.
Without help of some sort, AI or not, local objectors, who lack expertise in this complex area, resort to sloppy, incomplete and irrelevant objections which get knocked down by those that know, who sigh a relief that the meaty grounds for objecting have been missed.
Meanwhile, council officers are indulging in behind-the-scenes discussions with developers (long past the objection deadline) to get applications through by contorting their own rules, and then they get patted on the back for meeting their new housing targets and enlarging their tax base.
Parishioners are being out-gunned and the countryside and nature is being cemented over. I've seen all this in action and spoken to people on all sides.
How, I wonder, is it possible to build millions of dwellings for a population who like low rise with gardens in nice areas with current populations living in nice areas with low rise with nice gardens who don't want any more of them without upsetting someone?
(In addition I note that in horrible places with high rise and no gardens like parts of cities, the new build dwellings numbers are no better or often worse.)
The very notion of building 'millions of dwellings' would be a dystopian horror inflicted on our small once-beautiful island, an environmental disaster which has stemmed from successive governments failing to control population numbers (or even have a target to do so).
Whether you like it or not, the people live here, so we need the homes. Demographic changes mean future increases in demand are already baked in too.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today, we'd still need the homes.
The biggest driver is the increasing number of people living alone, partially offset by the greater number of younger people still living with a parent.
Increasing life expectancies mean we'll have more people living alone in the future. People live a lot longer now without kids than they did in the past.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
Not helped by quite a few of the US media having made, if not exactly the same mistake, summaries or paraphrasing of that speech that significantly changed its meaning from what was actually said.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
The parts shown aren't spliced together to make it look like somebody said something different to what they said. Showing a snippet, ending that section, then showing another snippet is completely different to splicing them together.
Also the news has well-worn ways of showing that its the end of one section and start of another, such as going black screen and silence for a moment then starting something else. Not panning to the audience then continuing as if its the same sentence being continued.
Whatever your political leanings, having integrity matters. That Trump has zero integrity is one of his biggest flaws, it does not give carte blanche to have none yourself to sex up criticism of him.
There's enough there to legitimately criticise him over!
This BBC Furore just shows that American fascism (sorry, "yanksoc") is now starting to permeate its way into our own institutions.
In the past we would debate issues and facts. Disagreeing with the other side but recognising that their policy position is based on truth and their genuine ambition to do what is best for the country.
That is gone. Now we argue about the facts - even when those facts happened in real time in front of us. And have malevolent actors doing their best to undermine the country.
Yanksoc is not going to be good for the UK as we continue to be influenced by it.
Yanksoc has a bit of a Leon vibe..
Well, fascists are wankers...
Where is Leon?
He’s been banned, yet people like you and TUDand IanB2 still obsess about him.
God knows why. I guess it shows the influence he has. No one is pining for that knob Jessop who flounced before Leon was banned.
He’s not been here for weeks.
You can get him on Twitter if you want.
Given Leon writes for the likes of the Spectator I hope it is only a temporary ban. He was also one of the only Reform backers on here so offered a different viewpoint
I’d be all for an NI cut because, even if she is doing it inadvertently, I fully agree with shifting NI to IT over time - we should be getting rid of it.
No it should be ringfenced for the state pension, JSA and some social care
Tim (still totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback · 1h Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
Plus also the landslide was as much an artifact of FPTP as any we have seen. Blair won 43.2%of the votes to get 418 seats. Starmer 33.7 to get to 411 seats. In context and a different time the losing Tories in 1997 still won 30.6 % of the votes.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
Not helped by quite a few of the US media having made, if not exactly the same mistake, summaries or paraphrasing of that speech that significantly changed its meaning from what was actually said.
Poor misrepresented Trumpy.
'A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.'
Even at the time a distinguished academic (lol) thought Trump was being a bit fashy.
Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 7 Jan 2021 3 days ago I suggested Trump's ploy was dangerous, irresponsible & would "legitimise loonies". In National Populism, we argued that Trump was closer to a distinct American populism than fascism. Today, I think it is obvious he is closer to the fascists than populists 1/3
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
For match of the day they used to show the match clock so you knew where you were in the game.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here. There clearly have. Just as with that Queen documentary (where they made it look as if the Queen stormed out by shitting editing) or the two lads in Cardiff being 'chased' by the police van that was actually not chasing them.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
There's a difference between clipping for highlights and rearranging the sequence of sentences.
Tim (still totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback · 1h Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
What "change" has Starmer brought to the table? What is he doing that is significantly different?
He is out of his depth, floundering, and abandoning any reforms.
He proposed planning reform then neutralised it all to be meaningless. He cut winter fuel allowance, then reintroduced it to make it meaningless. He proposed tackling the vastly increasing numbers of people claiming disability benefits, then abandoned all reforms to make it meaningless.
What agenda is he following to change?
The only thing he has changed is blue to red on the government benches, and Sunak's name for his. What else has he done?
People voted for change, yes, but Starmer has proven himself incapable of delivering it.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
There's a difference between clipping for highlights and rearranging the sequence of sentences.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
There's a difference between clipping for highlights and rearranging the sequence of sentences.
Did they rearrange the order?
How would we know (other than the main man has resigned perhaps?).
"BBC ‘must accept’ it is biased, says Labour MP The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Tim (still totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback · 1h Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
What "change" has Starmer brought to the table? What is he doing that is significantly different?
He is out of his depth, floundering, and abandoning any reforms.
He proposed planning reform then neutralised it all to be meaningless. He cut winter fuel allowance, then reintroduced it to make it meaningless. He proposed tackling the vastly increasing numbers of people claiming disability benefits, then abandoned all reforms to make it meaningless.
What agenda is he following to change?
The only thing he has changed is blue to red on the government benches, and Sunak's name for his. What else has he done?
People voted for change, yes, but Starmer has proven himself incapable of delivering it.
Starmer had no plan. His change was "We're not the Tories."
Not much of an argument when you turn out to be even worse.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Trump has done lots wrong, Trump's actions on that day were awful.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
There's a difference between clipping for highlights and rearranging the sequence of sentences.
Did they rearrange the order?
How would we know (other thn the main man has resigned perhaps?).
The transcript of the whole 70 minute speech is available if you can be arsed.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Firstly its not just Trump and the edit. There is a lot else been going on.
Secondly I don't think there are many, if any on PB that think Trump did nothing wrong (and thus 'has been framed', in the way that the Queen was).
Thirdly, as has been shown on PB by quotation, they could have simply used his words without the need to 'sex them up' - so why didn't they?
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Firstly its not just Trump and the edit. There is a lot else been going on.
Secondly I don't think there are many, if any on PB that think Trump did nothing wrong (and thus 'has been framed', in the way that the Queen was).
Thirdly, as has been shown on PB by quotation, they could have simply used his words without the need to 'sex them up' - so why didn't they?
Tim (still totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback · 1h Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
Tim has a good deal of special pleading here. Two things: change is an odd word. In general people don't like change. They like familiarity and gradual incremental improvement. They didn't vote for 'change' in the sense of turning stuff upside down. People just want stuff to work properly and to know credibly the future plan. Some of this, not all, should be fixed by now, like basic boring competence (not letting prisoners out, HMRC answering the phone, not borrowing for day to day expenditure).
The rest takes longer. Which is why the plan has to be communicated every day by all in government all the time, and it has to make sense. At this they have been utterly useless. Labour MPs have been even worse.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Firstly its not just Trump and the edit. There is a lot else been going on.
Secondly I don't think there are many, if any on PB that think Trump did nothing wrong (and thus 'has been framed', in the way that the Queen was).
Thirdly, as has been shown on PB by quotation, they could have simply used his words without the need to 'sex them up' - so why didn't they?
The Queen was framed?!
Yes - there was furore a while back about a trailer for a documentary which had been edited to make it look as though the Queen angrily stormed out of a room. Which didn't happen.
"BBC ‘must accept’ it is biased, says Labour MP The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
How is a viewer supposed to know the editing had happened? That is what makes it so insidious.
By the fact they showed 20 minutes of an hour long speech perhaps?
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
Long years ago I recall a tale about a politician who complained about his speech being edited in a newspaper. The next time he made a speech the local paper printed it verbatim. Including the oh's and ah's, side-trackings and so on. The politician never complained again.
I do think though that sewing together two unrelated bits of a speech, to give the impression that that was 'exactly' what was said is wrong, and liable to mislead.
President Trump has pardoned a long list of his political allies for their support or involvement in alleged plans to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mark Meadows.
Tim (still totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback · 1h Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
Tim has a good deal of special pleading here. Two things: change is an odd word. In general people don't like change. They like familiarity and gradual incremental improvement. They didn't vote for 'change' in the sense of turning stuff upside down. People just want stuff to work properly and to know credibly the future plan. Some of this, not all, should be fixed by now, like basic boring competence (not letting prisoners out, HMRC answering the phone, not borrowing for day to day expenditure).
The rest takes longer. Which is why the plan has to be communicated every day by all in government all the time, and it has to make sense. At this they have been utterly useless. Labour MPs have been even worse.
I don't think that there IS a plan. Genuinely. I think they are going day by day at the moment - how do we reach tomorrow.
At least Thatcher had a plan, even if it was pretty brutal for some. Blair was fortunate to inherit a booming economy so was able to spend on the things that the Tories had neglected. I'm not really sure that the 'third way' was real. Cameron (Osbourne) had a plan to eliminate the deficit. Arguably they would have succeeded were it not for events...
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
"BBC ‘must accept’ it is biased, says Labour MP The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
Would a court accept as evidence a recording that had been spliced together, or otherwise edited?
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Firstly its not just Trump and the edit. There is a lot else been going on.
Secondly I don't think there are many, if any on PB that think Trump did nothing wrong (and thus 'has been framed', in the way that the Queen was).
Thirdly, as has been shown on PB by quotation, they could have simply used his words without the need to 'sex them up' - so why didn't they?
The Queen was framed?!
Yes - there was furore a while back about a trailer for a documentary which had been edited to make it look as though the Queen angrily stormed out of a room. Which didn't happen.
You don't need to splice together clips of Trump, just report what he does.
The White House announced late Sunday evening that Donald Trump had issued pardons for members of his 2020 campaign legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Chesebro and Sydney Powell, for their involvement in a scheme to alter the slates of electors chosen by states that voted against the Republican nominee in that year’s presidential election.
A statement announcing a list of 77 people who were pardoned was tweeted out late Sunday evening, at 10:54 p.m. local time, by Trump’s “clemency czar” Ed Martin.
Thirdly, as has been shown on PB by quotation, they could have simply used his words without the need to 'sex them up' - so why didn't they?
This is the bit we keep tripping over
They did invent the speech
Cutting and splicing together words from different sentences without indicating you've done so is disingenuous and changes the meaning, as I was able to do to you here.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
Would a court accept as evidence a recording that had been spliced together, or otherwise edited?
It was a TV show, not a courtroom.
Trump incited a riot. As they say in TV/film court dramas, the facts of this case are not in dispute.
Anyone watching Panorama will be left with the impression that Trump incited a riot.
I don't think a good outcome from this series of events is destroying the BBC so they never report the truth ever again.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Previously you said that 'The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong...'.
That's always the problem, the risk, when things are misrepresented. Nobody complained because they trusted what they were seeing and hearing. Then it comes out that what they were shown was stitched together. A smal step from there to assuming it was a stitch-up.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
Would a court accept as evidence a recording that had been spliced together, or otherwise edited?
It was a TV show, not a courtroom.
Trump incited a riot. As they say in TV/film court dramas, the facts of this case are not in dispute.
Anyone watching Panorama will be left with the impression that Trump incited a riot.
I don't think a good outcome from this series of events is destroying the BBC so they never report the truth ever again.
Did he though? “March peacefully and patriotically”
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Previously you said that 'The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong...'.
That's always the problem, the risk, when things are misrepresented. Nobody complained because they trusted what they were seeing and hearing. Then it comes out that what they were shown was stitched together. A smal step from there to assuming it was a stitch-up.
When I say nobody complained I mean Trump and his merry band of liars and sycophants.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Previously you said that 'The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong...'.
That's always the problem, the risk, when things are misrepresented. Nobody complained because they trusted what they were seeing and hearing. Then it comes out that what they were shown was stitched together. A smal step from there to assuming it was a stitch-up.
When I say nobody complained I mean Trump and his merry band of liars and sycophants.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
The attacks by the miners on the Police at Orgreave back in the 80s actually happened. It was their actions filmed by the BBC.
But that doesn't excuse the BBC reversing the train of events in their reports so that it looked like the Miners attacked the police first rather than the other way round.
This is not about whether Trump is a lying piece of shit (he is) nor about whther the miners violently attacked the police (they did). It is about the BBC altering the appearence of what was said or done to suit their own political bias.
It makes the BBC no better than GBnews. At least with the latter you kow their bias and don't take their news seriously. Are you not saddened that the same now applies to our National broadcaster which used to be the envy of the world?
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Previously you said that 'The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong...'.
That's always the problem, the risk, when things are misrepresented. Nobody complained because they trusted what they were seeing and hearing. Then it comes out that what they were shown was stitched together. A smal step from there to assuming it was a stitch-up.
When I say nobody complained I mean Trump and his merry band of liars and sycophants.
Presumably none of them watched it...
They watched it. They are now taking a victory lap
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Previously you said that 'The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump did nothing wrong...'.
That's always the problem, the risk, when things are misrepresented. Nobody complained because they trusted what they were seeing and hearing. Then it comes out that what they were shown was stitched together. A smal step from there to assuming it was a stitch-up.
When I say nobody complained I mean Trump and his merry band of liars and sycophants.
Presumably none of them watched it...
They watched it. They are now taking a victory lap
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
Would a court accept as evidence a recording that had been spliced together, or otherwise edited?
It was a TV show, not a courtroom.
Trump incited a riot. As they say in TV/film court dramas, the facts of this case are not in dispute.
Anyone watching Panorama will be left with the impression that Trump incited a riot.
I don't think a good outcome from this series of events is destroying the BBC so they never report the truth ever again.
If your wife sleeps with another man but then, when caught, promises never to do it again, are you a fool to trust her again? And after the second or third time? These are not one off events. No one in their right minds would trust the BBC to be balanced and neutral in its reporting.
A video from a channel called "Friendly Atheist" showing how church-influenced school boards in Texas are imposing bizarre views on children's education. Things like physically cutting out chapters from biology textbooks in schools about vaccination science.
This is a deep link to a spot in a Texas megachurch where the lead pastor tells his congregation to vote for their "approved" candidates, who talk from the stage, for the school district positions.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
Nobody planted fake evidence. The BBC showed Trump in his own words. Nobody complained
Reading the thread, and listening to the edited recording, it is clear the BBC acted egregiously, and your attempts to play it down because it is Trump does you no credit nor anyone else who downplays it or, worse blames everyone but the BBC ( like Reeves who blames everyone else but herself)
This, along with other inexcusable journalism, has understandably put the BBC in the spotlight both here and abroad and sadly handed Trump a coup (please excuse the pun)
Where the BBC goes from here is a genuine question, but certainly it is time to compete with other media and not at the taxpayers expense
To be fair I rarely watch the BBC having stopped watching Panorama, Question Time, and Newsnight years ago and the rest of their output does not interest me
Who would have thought the BBC could have committed such hari kari on itself
Whether you like it or not, the people live here, so we need the homes. Demographic changes mean future increases in demand are already baked in too.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today, we'd still need the homes.
The biggest driver is the increasing number of people living alone, partially offset by the greater number of younger people still living with a parent.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
President Trump has pardoned a long list of his political allies for their support or involvement in alleged plans to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mark Meadows.
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here.
I am not stating they have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
So planting fake evidence on a known criminal to ensure he's found guilty is all OK? Not in my world.
No fake anything. Its all Trump by his own words.
The Eric Morecambe defence: "They're showing all the right words...but not necessarily in the right order..."
Much more worrying than anything to do with Trump is that the BBC has clearly been shutting down internal dissent over it's clear pro-transgender editorial stance. I couldn't give two fucks about Trump and whatever the BBC did in post with his speech. I very much care that the national broadcaster is pushing pro-transgender ideology and ignoring biological fact in favour of nonsense. That is a very clear dereliction of duty and every single person in that LGBT editorial group should be sacked immediately by the new DG and all internal pressure groups disbanded. Enough is enough.
It is about the BBC altering the appearence of what was said or done to suit their own political bias.
I am not convinced that is objectively true
What is the BBC political bias in this case?
Trump is/was not fit to be President. That is objective fact.
What was bias and how was it manifest?
The producers believed that Trump wanted the 6th Jan Riot but couldn't find the exact quotation they wanted. So they made one by splicing two sentences together, changing the meaning of both.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
No, we need more houses.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
The Tories are polling worse on this measure than they did in July 2024, when they suffered a landslide defeat of epic proportions. I don't see much comfort for them in this poll result.
It is about the BBC altering the appearence of what was said or done to suit their own political bias.
I am not convinced that is objectively true
What is the BBC political bias in this case?
Trump is/was not fit to be President. That is objective fact.
What was bias and how was it manifest?
The bias claim is pretty well a different matter (Gaza, etc).
The Trump thing was put forward as an example of poor journalism (which it is) occasioned by bias (which is pretty ridiculous given the generally favourable treatment Trump gets in reporting of his rambling nonsense).
Comments
More than half a century on, Gale Is Dead remains British TV’s most haunting documentary – raw, humane and unforgettable
Gale Is Dead tells the story of Gale Parsons, a 19-year-old who died from a heroin overdose in February 1970
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2025/11/09/gale-is-dead-bbc-documentary-review/ (£££)
The Telegraph's recommendation for your viewing pleasure. 45 days to Christmas.
Gale is Dead is among several 1960s Man Alive episodes on iplayer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p055sys5/man-alive-gale-is-dead
The complete list is (all under Man Alive on iplayer):-
Hyde Park
John Pitman reports on a day in the life of Hyde Park. (1971)
Gale is Dead
The story of Gale Parsons, who died a drug addict on 11 January 1970.
The Office Party
Documentary made in 1969 about that year's Christmas office party at a London ad agency.
What's the Truth About Hells Angels and Skinheads?
Two youth groups with one aim in common - to cause shock and outrage by any means. (1969)
Packing Up and Moving Out
Two mining families make the decision to move from Northumberland to Nottingham. (1967)
Consenting Adults 2: The Women
2/2. Angela Huth interviews lesbians about their lives and their place in society. (1967)
Consenting Adults 1: The Men
1/2. Jeremy James interviews homosexuals about society's views of them. (1967)
Top Class People
A look at the burgeoning popularity of the working-class celebrity. (1967)
Marriage Under Stress 3: 'Put Asunder'
Desmond Wilcox interviews various men and women who are coping with divorce. (1967)
Marriage Under Stress 2: Breaking Point
Interviews with men and women whose marriages have gone wrong. (1967)
Marriage Under Stress 1: Children Make a Difference
Young couples talk about the difference children have made to their marriages. (1967)
Living in Sin
Man Alive speaks to couples who choose to live together, rather than marry. From 1966.
A malignant narcississt on the cusp of dementia seems the worst possible option
Today, ID cards. And they're a Bad Thing. And Keir Starmer mentioned negatively.
Unless we have massive population decline, we need more cement, not less.
https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1987660678472327284
The exit tax is a gimmick that will not really work. Say I have a business that makes widgets in Turkey and sells them in USA. At the moment if I live in the UK and pass the profits through a UK company I pay tax on the profits. Now say I decide to pass the orders and sales from a company say in Dubai. The company in Dubai then uses the profits to rent a mansion in Dubai. All legal but quickly the money moves away from the HMRC. This is what Labour dont really understand about the rich. They are used to moving money and assets about. By the time the UK Government has woken up the business has gone. The rich dont shout about this but keep quiet. The only businesses the Government can really hit are UK orientated service businesses but then the risk is if you hit them too hard are the UK owners sell off to global multinationals. They can extract profits from UK easier ref Starbucks.
I am amazed as one of the HNWIs left in the UK how often Labour MPs and supporters claim to know what I am thinking about on living in the UK. They appear clueless.
I think there should be a serious annual fee for any with a UK passport who is not UK tax resident. At least £2k a year maybe tiered for age. This could raise billions of pounds. UK citizens could live abroad but still need to file UK taxes.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today, we'd still need the homes.
In 2025 the UK government (in the broadest sense) is due to spend £1250bn. Of that £150bn will be borrowed from our children. That's 12% of all spending is borrowed. Debt is hovering around the high 90s of GDP and is growing significantly faster than output (nearly 10x as fast in fact). Arguing about £5-20bn of additional taxes is deck chairs on the Titanic territory. More than 4 years after the Covid induced recession we should be paying down our dangerously high debt, not adding to it. The changes that Reeves is proposing are in pursuit of some completely mickey mouse and random objective which is supposed to show a degree of control as the iceberg hoves into view. And our political class and media bicker about it pointlessly and endlessly as the ice starts work on the hull.
Why is it that unless you fully buy into the Dem cheerleading you get accused of being a Trump supporter ?
Trump is a malignant narcissist and is doing great damage.
Newsom is a malignant narcissist and would do great damage.
What the USA needs is competent government.
There's no shortage of Dems who could provide that as president.
But Newsome isn't one of them.
"I [and state your name]..."
We live in an age of fundamentally non-serious politicians.
GROUND BREAKING NEW ZANDLAND DOCUMENTARY FOR ITV REVEALS FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS FROM ISRAELI SOLDIERS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR IN GAZA
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/media-releases/ground-breaking-new-zandland-documentary-itv-reveals-first-hand-accounts-israeli
Last I looked, the three favourites were Newsom, AOC, and a retread Kamala Harris, none of which IMHO have a chance.
It really is.
Despite losing some of its best journalists recently it is still one of the most trusted news organisations in the world and one of the UK's finest institutions. So even in it's current neurotic form it's worth preserving.
The Trump story is definitely left field. An absolute nothing story that should have been batted away without a second thought. But other things of more importance have been rumbling under the surface.
The name Robbie Gibb recently owner of the Jewish Chronicle and responsible for some provably dishonest stiories being one of them. Why is he one of the five on the BBC's standards committee and seemingly an influential one?
An interesting article from a few months ago.....
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jul/02/more-than-400-media-figures-urge-bbc-board-to-remove-robbie-gibb-over-gaza
If Newsom ends his governorship next year in failure, then he's unlikely to get the nomination.
For now, though, he leads the nomination polling by some distance.
Low grip but dry, it's been good for Mercedes, and might be the last curveball of the year (that said, I never expected Mexico and Interlagos to go the way they did). I've put a little on both Antonelli and Russell at 12 and 7.5 each way, respectively.
....A final thought...I understand that at the time of transmission of the Panorama film in October 2024 there were no complaints received about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech.
I suspect Robinson thinks this makes it okay. It doesn't. In fact, it's why this is so bad.
altogether, but by now the direction of travel should be unambiguously clear, with both well planned tax rises and spending cuts and a well communicated plan for paying off large amounts of the debt while keeping gilt rates at or below EU levels.
Gigantic planning failures: Failing to plan for Brexit; failing to plan NHS recruitment and training within the UK to meet requirements; failing to plan the number of dwellings to match the population; failing to plan for a pandemic; and most recently Labour's failure to plan for government, giving the real impression they are having to make it up as they go along.
There's going to be a gap in the market for sensible One Nation Tories.
Big question will be can they attract monied supporters again?
Tim (still totally unremarkable)
@forwardnotback
·
1h
Rumours are rife that Starmer is finished and the budget will bring him down
We are told he will be replaced by an as yet unnamed saviour who will sort everything out within months, have crowds cheering on the streets and lead the party to a second term in government with ease
Tim (still totally unremarkable)
@forwardnotback
As step back from that fantasy world to June 2024 and the election campaign
Door after door people were saying they were fed up, tired of the chaos, the cost-of-living crisis, of nothing working as it should and they wanted things to change
They voted for change in huge numbers
Tim (still totally unremarkable)
@forwardnotback
We need to remember that, many as they cast their vote for the Labour candidate did not vote for Labour, they were voting for change. It wasn’t a socialist landslide. It was a change landslide
And that is important
Part of that change, an important part imo, was an end to
Tim (still totally unremarkable)
@forwardnotback
… the attitudes that changing a leader when things went wrong and starting over was the political default
https://x.com/forwardnotback/status/1987805012035072111
There's a lot more on the thread
The biggest driver is the increasing number of people living alone, partially offset by the greater number of younger people still living with a parent.
Rather annoying even for me, the European audience will be less than impressed with the change.
Births are forecast to exceed deaths this year.
You have an obsession with the replacement rate, but given increasing life expectancies, it is about 80-90 years before those people die and that is relevant.
The 6 o'clock news shows (parts of) PMQs
How are the audience supposed to know it was edited?
Insidious...
Also the news has well-worn ways of showing that its the end of one section and start of another, such as going black screen and silence for a moment then starting something else. Not panning to the audience then continuing as if its the same sentence being continued.
Whatever your political leanings, having integrity matters. That Trump has zero integrity is one of his biggest flaws, it does not give carte blanche to have none yourself to sex up criticism of him.
There's enough there to legitimately criticise him over!
'A few reminders of what Trump said in the lead up to Jan 6th
December 19th: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
December 26th: “We will never give up. We will never concede.”
December 27th: “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”
December 30th: “We’re going to fight like hell. If you don’t fight, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
December 31st: “We’ve won this election. They just don’t want to admit it. We’ll see what happens on January 6th….The people are angry.”
Jan 3rd: “They’re not taking this White House. We’re going to fight like hell.”
Jan 4th: “If the Democrats take control, we’re not going to have a country anymore… You have to get your people to fight.”
Jan 5th: “Washington is being inundated with people who don’t want to see an election victory stolen. Our country has had enough, they won’t take it anymore!”
On Jan 6th itself Trump over roughly 70 minutes used the words “fight”, “fighting” or “fighters” more than 20 times.'
Even at the time a distinguished academic (lol) thought Trump was being a bit fashy.
Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
7 Jan 2021
3 days ago I suggested Trump's ploy was dangerous, irresponsible & would "legitimise loonies". In National Populism, we argued that Trump was closer to a distinct American populism than fascism. Today, I think it is obvious he is closer to the fascists than populists 1/3
I'm intrigued as to why you think the BBC has done nothing wrong here. There clearly have. Just as with that Queen documentary (where they made it look as if the Queen stormed out by shitting editing) or the two lads in Cardiff being 'chased' by the police van that was actually not chasing them.
He is out of his depth, floundering, and abandoning any reforms.
He proposed planning reform then neutralised it all to be meaningless.
He cut winter fuel allowance, then reintroduced it to make it meaningless.
He proposed tackling the vastly increasing numbers of people claiming disability benefits, then abandoned all reforms to make it meaningless.
What agenda is he following to change?
The only thing he has changed is blue to red on the government benches, and Sunak's name for his. What else has he done?
People voted for change, yes, but Starmer has proven himself incapable of delivering it.
The BBC is the biggest danger to its own future and must stop “failing to acknowledge” its institutional basis, a Labour MP has said.
Graham Stringer told The Telegraph: “I’ve been listening to the Today programme and it’s unbelievable. The people they had on were the editor of the Guardian and somebody else from the BBC. They just do not get it, they really don’t. They’re blaming everybody else.
“The fact is the biggest danger to the BBC is the BBC. It’s got a whole history of bias which it’s just failing to acknowledge. They’ve been the home of Europhiles, going back to the 1999 elections when there was an independent report on their bias in the European elections.
“You can see all the biases from biological nonsense about men and women, to Hamas and Gaza. There’s just so many questions that they are just failing to answer, and blaming the Mail and the Telegraph is not going to get them there.”
Mr Stringer added: “The BBC needs to realise that they are the problem, their bias is the problem. It’s threatening the future of the BBC and not any external factors.”"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/10/bbc-in-crisis-as-tim-davie-resigns/
The issue is that some people have taken this as evidence that Trump dd nothing wrong, and I think that is bollocks.
I don't think the BBC wrongly painted Trump as an insurrectionist. I think he was/is an insurrectionist. I think nuking the BBC for a program that showed this, is a bad idea
Not much of an argument when you turn out to be even worse.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The BBC's actions were wrong too.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
O'Rourke is always running for some office and never achieving anything.
Those two are the Peter Principle in action.
Secondly I don't think there are many, if any on PB that think Trump did nothing wrong (and thus 'has been framed', in the way that the Queen was).
Thirdly, as has been shown on PB by quotation, they could have simply used his words without the need to 'sex them up' - so why didn't they?
The rest takes longer. Which is why the plan has to be communicated every day by all in government all the time, and it has to make sense. At this they have been utterly useless. Labour MPs have been even worse.
They did simply use his words
They didn't invent any part of the speech
Edit (it's longer ago than I thought - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6294472.stm)
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5372370#Comment_5372370
Time he joined Reform, I think. First Labour defection?
The politician never complained again.
I do think though that sewing together two unrelated bits of a speech, to give the impression that that was 'exactly' what was said is wrong, and liable to mislead.
President Trump has pardoned a long list of his political allies for their support or involvement in alleged plans to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mark Meadows.
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1987829784424882527?s=20
At least Thatcher had a plan, even if it was pretty brutal for some. Blair was fortunate to inherit a booming economy so was able to spend on the things that the Tories had neglected. I'm not really sure that the 'third way' was real. Cameron (Osbourne) had a plan to eliminate the deficit. Arguably they would have succeeded were it not for events...
But what is Starmer's plan?
(Good morning, everyone.)
Everyone knows that was Phillip.
A statement announcing a list of 77 people who were pardoned was tweeted out late Sunday evening, at 10:54 p.m. local time, by Trump’s “clemency czar” Ed Martin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-giuliani-pardon-fake-electors-b2861891.html
I'm struggling to see why you think that's ok. Even Tim Davie, the head of the BBC, doesn't think it was ok.
Trump incited a riot. As they say in TV/film court dramas, the facts of this case are not in dispute.
Anyone watching Panorama will be left with the impression that Trump incited a riot.
I don't think a good outcome from this series of events is destroying the BBC so they never report the truth ever again.
That's always the problem, the risk, when things are misrepresented. Nobody complained because they trusted what they were seeing and hearing. Then it comes out that what they were shown was stitched together. A smal step from there to assuming it was a stitch-up.
But that doesn't excuse the BBC reversing the train of events in their reports so that it looked like the Miners attacked the police first rather than the other way round.
This is not about whether Trump is a lying piece of shit (he is) nor about whther the miners violently attacked the police (they did). It is about the BBC altering the appearence of what was said or done to suit their own political bias.
It makes the BBC no better than GBnews. At least with the latter you kow their bias and don't take their news seriously. Are you not saddened that the same now applies to our National broadcaster which used to be the envy of the world?
This is a deep link to a spot in a Texas megachurch where the lead pastor tells his congregation to vote for their "approved" candidates, who talk from the stage, for the school district positions.
The whole video is good.
https://youtu.be/6XhL7vCFB-c?t=588
And what's the polling for Iowa and S Carolina ?
(I'm aware of the recent NH poll, but that is not going to decide the nomination.)
This, along with other inexcusable journalism, has understandably put the BBC in the spotlight both here and abroad and sadly handed Trump a coup (please excuse the pun)
Where the BBC goes from here is a genuine question, but certainly it is time to compete with other media and not at the taxpayers expense
To be fair I rarely watch the BBC having stopped watching Panorama, Question Time, and Newsnight years ago and the rest of their output does not interest me
Who would have thought the BBC could have committed such hari kari on itself
What is the BBC political bias in this case?
Trump is/was not fit to be President. That is objective fact.
What was bias and how was it manifest?
The biggest driver is the increasing number of people living alone, partially offset by the greater number of younger people still living with a parent.
True. But the conclusion from that should be a need for lots of blocks of flats, some of them with care facilities. My impression is that the new building is mostly medium- to large-size houses - certainly that's the case around here (south of Oxford), where there is an explosion of new development, and a good deal of which seems to be standing empty awaiting better times. (If I were on my own I wouldn't dream of buying a house in the middle of the Oxfordshire countryside.)
Presumably this trend (If I've corrctly identified it) is partly a time lag from richer times and partly an effect of local planning regulations. The number of blocks of flats in my area appears to be zero.
The people buying new homes are generally young people who are starting, or have, families and need a family home.
That their grandparents still live in a family home they brought their kids up in does nothing to ensure they themselves have a home and building new flats or care homes won't solve the situation either. Old people who are capable of still living in their home and are settled down their should not be forced to downsize unless they choose to do so.
Eliminating stamp duty would help encourage people to downsize though.
The Trump thing was put forward as an example of poor journalism (which it is) occasioned by bias (which is pretty ridiculous given the generally favourable treatment Trump gets in reporting of his rambling nonsense).