Andrew Neil and Squeaking Little Shít Owen Jones should settle this like men.

[Burney]

It's clearly come down from McDonnell. Jones hasn't the stones to have instigated such an attack off his own back. My concern is that the leftists running the BBC might be involved in this plot to remove him.

But anyway, back to happier matters. Imagine punching the little ****'s face until it resembled a mallet-tenderised steak, until your arm ached so much you feared you'd dislocated your shoulder, until he drowned in his own blood and mucus

Back in 7or 8.

Seems an odd way of going about things. If you explicitly try and get a particular beeb journo sacked for political reasons, it will dig in its heels and do anything to stop that happening because of the precedent it sets.

I agree it's clearly concerted, though. All the usual apparatchiks are out in force retweeting the article with suspiciously similar wording. Clearly McDonnell et al are sick of having the embarrassing shortcomings of their personnel and policies exposed with forensic precision. They prefer nice soft lobs from poorly-briefed walkovers like thon wonky-faced cvnt Marr.

[Sir C]

Seems an odd way of going about things. If you explicitly try and get a particular beeb journo sacked for political reasons, it will dig in its heels and do anything to stop that happening because of the precedent it sets.

I agree it's clearly concerted, though. All the usual apparatchiks are out in force retweeting the article with suspiciously similar wording. Clearly McDonnell et al are sick of having the embarrassing shortcomings of their personnel and policies exposed with forensic precision. They prefer nice soft lobs from poorly-briefed walkovers like thon wonky-faced cvnt Marr.

Andrew Marr's nice soft lob, you say?

Back in 20

[Peter]

Seems an odd way of going about things. If you explicitly try and get a particular beeb journo sacked for political reasons, it will dig in its heels and do anything to stop that happening because of the precedent it sets.

I agree it's clearly concerted, though. All the usual apparatchiks are out in force retweeting the article with suspiciously similar wording. Clearly McDonnell et al are sick of having the embarrassing shortcomings of their personnel and policies exposed with forensic precision. They prefer nice soft lobs from poorly-briefed walkovers like thon wonky-faced cvnt Marr.

What is all this about?

[Sir C]

What is all this about?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...itics#comments

[World's End Stella]

That really is quite a remarkable article. After you extract yourself from the endless rhetoric and unsupported statements (like 'Our press overwhelmingly supports the Tories and is intolerant of even mild deviations from rightwing orthodoxy.', as an example) you realize that the point he is making is that someone cannot do his job effectively because he holds views that I don't agree with.

And he's a liberal.

[Peter]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...itics#comments

He has a point and the right to make it. Why such a big hissy fit?

Using David Irving was a bit much, although he would have been considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at the time.

[Sir C]

He has a point and the right to make it. Why such a big hissy fit?

Using David Irving was a bit much, although he would have been considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at the time.

Tim Montgomerie just summed it up rather nicely:

"The Corbyn Left’s intolerance of alternative views is already unattractive - in opposition. Could become dangerously unhealthy if ends up in power. (Always true of ppl with absolutist sense of their moral superiority)."

These people are dangerous.

[Peter]

Tim Montgomerie just summed it up rather nicely:

"The Corbyn Left’s intolerance of alternative views is already unattractive - in opposition. Could become dangerously unhealthy if ends up in power. (Always true of ppl with absolutist sense of their moral superiority)."

These people are dangerous.

The issue is more the BBC insist it? We have an unrealistic expectation of objectivity when it comes to the BBC which tends to demand either fake neutrality or centrist consensus- which is, of itself, a clear form of bias.

It would be tough to find a journalist to host a political show on TV who didnt have a background on one side of the fence.

[redgunamo]

The issue is more the BBC insist it? We have an unrealistic expectation of objectivity when it comes to the BBC which tends to demand either fake neutrality or centrist consensus- which is, of itself, a clear form of bias.

It would be tough to find a journalist to host a political show on TV who didnt have a background on one side of the fence.

Yes, it seems to me politics has pinched all that partisanship, if that's a word, from the football.

[Burney]

He has a point and the right to make it. Why such a big hissy fit?

Using David Irving was a bit much, although he would have been considered one of the foremost authorities on the subject at the time.

The fuss is because this is an explicit and concerted attempt to remove a journalist from a role not because of how he does his job, but because of who he is and personal views he may hold. We are essentially being told that the possession of certain political ideas makes one unsuitable for a role with the state broadcaster. It's a straight-up authoritarian move by Jones at the behest of his masters.