Quote ="Ajw71"By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration'" "Thicko's" what? Oh - and don't forget all those questions you haven't answered yet. After all, you wouldn't be dodging them because you're clueless beyond a sound bite or two, would you? So take the chance to show that you have some meaningful comprehension of the nature of the political debate that you claim to love.

Quote ="Ajw71"By thicko's you mean former BBC news directors.... www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... mmigration'" "Thicko's" what? Oh - and don't forget all those questions you haven't answered yet. After all, you wouldn't be dodging them because you're clueless beyond a sound bite or two, would you? So take the chance to show that you have some meaningful comprehension of the nature of the political debate that you claim to love.

You'll be able to point us in the direction of [isaid[/i quote(s) from the usual suspects of course?

I prefer this quote from Peter Oborne:

"Rather than representing the nation as a whole, the BBC has become a vital resource – and sometimes attack weapon – for a narrow, arrogant Left-Liberal elite"

Spot on for me Labour-kiddy.

We can quote all night but unfortunately it won't make you any less clueless.
I wish you could inform me the last time I voted for the Labour Party?
You must have a better memory than me m'laddo.

You've been shown up squire.

You claimed only 'thickos' say the BBC is left leaning when a former BBC news director only said as much less than 2 weeks ago.

Someone who has 30 years experience working within the BBC, an English Literature degree, an MBA, three honorary degrees and numerous industry awards.

You really are thick if you deducted that from the article you linked too.


Sweet dreams.

Priceless

There are two problems with all of the pretty pictures you posted previously in order to illustrate the source of your education...


1. They are all derived from American web sites or blogs and all refer to the American political system, you will have known this when you sourced them but leaving the stars and stripes on one of the images was a bit of a schoolboy error.

Most of them are from private blogs with a far right leaning and as we are all well aware the political spectrum in America is far more extreme than it is in this country, the right wing of the spectrum being the most fanatical, I assume you know this ?

2. None of those pretty pictures describe anything about the political spectrum in the UK. I can forgive one of such tender years from not knowing this though for you are not old enough to understand what right and left wing politics look like in the UK, you've never seen such a thing in your short life to date.

Let me advise you though - the three main political parties in the House of Commons could all sit very comfortably together slightly to the right on any of your school text book pretty pictures, all of them, sitting together, there is no such thing as "left" and "right" in British politics anymore and hasn't been for a couple of decades at least, you'd probably have to go back to Kinnock and Thatcher to find the sort of spectrum that your pictures describe (although they don't describe British politics at all).


But nice try, at least we now know where you get your opinions from, anyone who wants to know more just quote Ajw71's original post and follow the links in the photos to the source domains.

Being liberal is associated with left wing politics. When she said a deep liberal bias she certainly wasn't saying the BBC was too centrist or right wing.

Mark Thompson also said when he began at the BBC there was "a massive bias to the left". But no carry on believing what you want to believe. Nevermind what the people who have worked at the BBC years actually think.

The very definition of the word "liberal" is far from left or right wing in any political spectrum both of whom seek to control a population from either side with their different philosophies, the word "liberal" would certainly not be used in conjunction with any party that was a party associated with "the left", or at least not any party who favoured nationalisation, unionisation and a dominance of the population through political control - not that that ideaology exists in any parliament that we have had int he UK in the past three decades at least.

You are confusing yourself in your choice of reference material (which I note you haven't addressed), by limiting yourself to right wing AMERICAN blog commentators you are getting a very finely focused summary rather than an overall view - in America its impossible to have a Liberal Republican, the creature just does not exist, hence the reason why your American Republican reference material places the word "liberal" to the left of itself .

Trying to apply those definitions to what exists in the UK is just, well, stupid.

The fact that someone at the BBC should describe its policies as "liberal" in the context of the UK politics simply means that its placed in the centre of the UK political spectrum and certainly not veering towards communism as you seem to infer (which is far from "liberal"icon_wink.gif.

Reference the UK Liberal Party and its morphing into the LibDems if you want more material, but stay away from American blogs for your UK research.

Well, you seem to be saying that because Helen Boaden says the Beeb was too liberal about immigration (in her opinion) back in =#FF00002004, that somehow proves that it is politically left-leaning now.
Do you see the error there?

Mark Thompson is on record as having said that, 30 years ago, the BBC had a left-leaning bias.
I'm afraid you've made the same error again, a bit careless there.

You also gave us a quote from that well-known moderate and centrist (

), the excitable [iDaily Mail, Telegraph[/i and ex-[iSpectator[/i columnist Peter Oborne, as if that proves anything.

Now, tell me ... do you think that the BBC's current (i.e. not from nine years ago and not from thirty years ago) Chief Political Editor (note the words [ucurrent[/u, [uChief[/u and [uPolitical[/u) Nick Robinson is a leftie?

Do you have a chart from a US website for that too?

Yes but the Beeb is stuffed full with 60 grand a year [iliberals[/i so it's got to be left-wing shurely's.?


Anyways, NHS.

Irony alert!

Quote ="Mintball"...I've also posted this one too (don't know ho long it will stay up) on [iTelegraph[/i collusion with private healthcare companies etc: skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -colludes/'" I had stupidly wondered what Hunt was up to until Cod'ead reminded me on this forum that the Minister now has no responsibility for the provision of the NHS. He is now in the position where he can tell the NHS "Do it this way" but when that fails, it's not his fault, it's the NHS's. He can now just sit back and snipe at whatever failings he perceives (or wants the public to perceive) in the NHS and no-one can ask him what he's going to do about it, he remains blame-proof. The purpose is now obvious, keep criticising and pointing the finger and, eventually, the public might believe that the private sector can do the whole thing better. Frankly, it's frightening to think that the profit motive will, at some future point, be the driver... and HMG won't be accountable for the poorer services that result from ... a) Money having been wasted on the vast amount of invoicing and profit calculations that will have become necessary ... and ... b) The dividends payable. If you are poor and ill or poor and old ... despair, because you don't count.

Quote ="Mintball"...I've also posted this one too (don't know ho long it will stay up) on [iTelegraph[/i collusion with private healthcare companies etc: skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -colludes/'" I had stupidly wondered what Hunt was up to until Cod'ead reminded me on this forum that the Minister now has no responsibility for the provision of the NHS. He is now in the position where he can tell the NHS "Do it this way" but when that fails, it's not his fault, it's the NHS's. He can now just sit back and snipe at whatever failings he perceives (or wants the public to perceive) in the NHS and no-one can ask him what he's going to do about it, he remains blame-proof. The purpose is now obvious, keep criticising and pointing the finger and, eventually, the public might believe that the private sector can do the whole thing better. Frankly, it's frightening to think that the profit motive will, at some future point, be the driver... and HMG won't be accountable for the poorer services that result from ... a) Money having been wasted on the vast amount of invoicing and profit calculations that will have become necessary ... and ... b) The dividends payable. If you are poor and ill or poor and old ... despair, because you don't count.

I sort of quite like Oborne – he can be not bad. But – and I'm sure this is partly on the basis of what his employer instructs him to do – he's also totally inconsistent. So for instance, after the summer riots a few years ago, he lambasted (among others) David Cameron for a complete lack of moral leadership etc etc. Yet within a few months, another column in the [iTelegraph[/i had him praising Cameron to the skies.




Oh aye. And we're well on the way there already.

I don't think one can overdo the point Jerry Chicken has made more than once about the way people are swallowing the lies of politicians and media makes one realise how the Nazis did what they did – and they actually had an intelligentsia that they made a point of getting rid of very quickly after coming to power. We have a cultural distrust of any such intelligentsia.

The question too hard for you, Ajw1?

At least Andrew Neil is a leftie.
You know, the BBC political journalist who is never off our screens -:
[iDaily Politics, This Week, Sunday Politics.[/i

Sky news are now breaking that the government is to sell NHS blood plasma supplier to Bain Capital

Would that be the part of the NHS that takes blood which is donated for free by the population in a magnanimous gesture towards their fellow man/woman in their hour of need and uses the blood and its products within the publicly owned NHS organisation for life saving stuff ?

So this private company, they'll be getting their raw materials for free and then selling the resultant products back to the public who donated them for free - for profit ?

Do they think we are children or something ?

I doubt they think we're children, even a child could work that one out.

No doubt they'll be promoting it under the efficiency banner. I wonder what will happen to the army of "blood bikers" who voluntarily ferry emergency supplies around the country?

Der! If we get rid of all the volunteers who do this for free and get a private company to do it at a profit paid for by the tax payer it will clearly be cheaper and more efficient.

They could deliver a few letters whilst they're at it.

I would also imagine that Bain will be able to profitise wherever possible. So if they see a greater financial opportunity selling blood products overseas, would there be anything to prevent this? Similarly, if they are to "purchase" blood from the National Transfusion Service, will they be able to import blood supplies from cheaper countries?

A real dog's breakfast in the making here

Possibly yes, with the caveat that they are still banned from selling UK blood products in the USA because as everyone knows we are all contaminated with mad cows disease here and will be for generations (seriously).

There are American citizens who believe that this is why our comedy shows are so good, its because the whole population of the UK is mad.

They will probably import it from Angola, Congo and other HIV infested countries, after all they will have to turn a profit.

Don't forget that Bain Capital is not a PLC, they are not quoted on any stock exchange, they have no shareholders. As such, they account to no one but themselves. They are beyond the scope of FOI and as such, really are not accountable to the British public. Mind you, neither is the Secretary of State for Health, so no change there then