The Guardian hit a new low in Amelia Hill’s report on Julian Assange’s appearance at the Oxford Union. Hill moved beyond propaganda to downright lies.
This is easy to show. Read through Hill’s “report”. Then zip to 20 minutes and 55 seconds of the recording of Assange speaking at the event Hill misreports, and simply listen to the applause from the Oxford Union after Assange stops speaking.
Just that hearty applause is sufficient to show that the entire thrust and argument of Amelia Hill’s article moves beyong distortion or misreprentation – in themselves dreadful sins in a journalist – and into the field of outright lies. Her entire piece is intended to give the impression that the event was a failure and the audience were hostile to Assange. That is completely untrue.
Much of what Hill wrote is not journalism at all. What does this actually mean?
“His critics were reasoned, those who queued for over an hour in the snow to hear him speak were thoughtful. It was Julian Assange – the man at the centre of controversy – who refused to be gracious.”
Hill manages to quote five full sentences of the organiser of the anti-Assange demonstration (which I counted at 37 people) while giving us not one single sentence of Assange’s twenty minute address. Nor a single sentence of Tom Fingar, the senior US security official who was receiving the Sam Adams award. Even more remarkably, all three students Hill could find to interview were hostile to Assange. In a hall of 450 students who applauded Assange enthusiastically and many of whom crowded round to shake my hand after the event, Hill was apparently unable to find a single person who did not share the Rusbridger line on Julian Assange.
Hill is not a journalist – she is a pathetic grovelling lickspittle who should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
Here is the answer to the question about cyber-terrorism of which Amelia Hill writes:
“A question about cyber-terrorism was greeted with verbose warmth”
As you can see, Assange’s answer is serious, detailed, thoughtful and not patronising to the student. Hill’s characterisation – again without giving a word of Assange’s actual answer – is not one that could genuinely be maintained. Can anybody – and I mean this as a real question – can anybody look at that answer and believe that “Verbose warmth” is a fair and reasonable way to communicate what had been said to an audience who had not seen it? Or is it just an appalling piece of hostile propaganda by Hill?
The night before Assange’s contribution at the union, John Bolton had been there as guest speaker. John Bolton is a war criminal whose actions deliberately and directly contributed to the launching of an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yet there had not been one single Oxford student picketing the hosting of John Bolton, and Amelia Hill did not turn up to vilify him. My main contribution to the Sam Adams event was to point to this as an example of the way people are manipulated by the mainstream media into adopting seriously warped moral values.
Amelia Hill is one of the warpers, the distorters of reality. The Guardian calls her a “Special Investigative Correspondent.” She is actually a degraded purveyor of lies on behalf of the establishment. Sickening.
Arbed; It was but 2 hours after I commented off topic on another thread that she posted her findings. Unless she has a cadre of assistants, and knowing her attachment to minute detail, she must have been working on it well before. She is a relentless workhorse, isn’t she?
“At a general level, the government has exempted what files it has under a 7(A) (ongoing investigation) exemption, while also invoking 1 (classified information), 3 (protected by statute), 5 (privileged document), 6 (privacy), 7(C) (investigative privacy), 7(D) (confidential source, which can include private companies like Visa and Google), 7(E) (investigative techniques), and 7(F) (endanger life or property of someone) exemptions.”
”
They have all their bases covered, kinda like the Catholic Church and their pedophiles. ” Nothing to see here, chaps”
John Cornyn and Darrell Issa, both Neocon arses, are the only elected officials seeking answers. Certainly, not of pure motive, or truly serious in their inquiries.
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=InNews&ContentRecord_id=b026c108-ff4c-4ff9-a771-7307c72e14c5&ContentType_id=b94acc28-404a-4fc6-b143-a9e15bf92da4&f6c645c7-9e4a-4947-8464-a94cacb4ca65&Group_id=bf378025-1557-49c1-8f08-c5df1c4313a4
On the requirement to seek and obtain the ‘queen’s’ consent before any bill gets debated in parliament that might affect her private interests, and ditto her eldest son:
* details came out because of research by a student at Plymouth University, who fought the Cabinet office on the FOI issue for 2 years, until the Information Tribunal ruled in his favour
* the Scottish parliament works the same way (rule 9.11 of the Standing Orders of the Scottish parliament); no flies on the royal family!
* how many bills, or amendments to bills, have been vetoed in the past? not just in the past 10 years, but ever – bills concerning land? private and state schools? charities? tax? the second chamber? social reform? Ireland? war? nationalisation? promises made in Labour’s 1945 manifesto that then weren’t enacted? (I just read Rodney Brazier’s fawning article in the Cambridge Law Review. You wonder whether his article was submitted for approval too. At least he reveals that one bill for which the monarch’s consent was refused was the Titles (Abolition) Bill 1964.)
* one line put out is it is only so as not to waste time and resources debating something and then find out that royal assent is denied; curiously the point is then not made that this clearly means that royal assent is by no means the dead letter that it is usually painted as by learned professors; I mean why not have it earlier, before anyone even thinks of a bill? no…wait a minute…I knew there must be a reason for the Times flying the royal masthead…
* …so you thought the Labour Party under Attlee might have been a bit more forthcoming? 🙂 Nope – gobs completely shut.
* ‘constitution’? my arse!
* this is the tip of the iceberg
As it would be for the monarchy itself to determine if any bill could potentially effect the monarchy’s private interests, all must go through this crude screening, this country is and always has been a dictatorship. The fawning BBC and the press have played their part in re-inforcing the myths and legitimacy, nourishing worship of these appalling in-breds.
As for her/its private wealth, all of it has been stolen, her ancestors came to the country penniless and borrowed, creating the national debt, secured on future taxation of the people, to fund their lavish and parasitic existence; whilst the ‘loyal’ aristocracy and private landowners have usurped the common ownership of the very land itself.
I’m afraid its going to be bloody, with plenty of useful idiots, acting for the privileged sets selfish self-preservation, but against all our ultimate best interests.
No party leader elected on a credible majority basis, should ever submit to asking her to ‘allow’ them to form a government. All this could change overnight, strip them of our wealth, kick them out back to wherever they choose to seek asylum or will have them, or sell them to the highest bidders, ebay the monarchy (they probably forbid human trafficking, but they could be supplied stuffed and mounted), lock stock and barrel, plus all the hangers-on and flunkies thrown in, offer free delivery. Something has to be done.
First steps in Scotland after independence should be referenda on the monarchy, NATO, EU.
The real [horse]power, an evil criminal mastermind if ever I saw one, is Princess Anne.
Seriously England, Wales, Residual-UK whatever you call yourselves, sort this lot out.
Great that your kids are into martail arts Mark Golding…I am expert in Jui Jitsu…the way of the samiuria….and the samurai loved poetry
I didn’t listen to AQ after all as I decided to go to a concert pf works by Haydn, Mozart and Grieg. A wise choice judging from the content of this letter to the producers of AQ from MiriamW on Medialens.
Any Questions – The Usual
Posted by MiriamW on February 1, 2013, 9:30 pm
Here is the unexpurgated version of the rather more succinct (1000-character) rant I have just sent as a comment to Any Questions online.
Dear Any Questions
Some time ago, this household gave up listening to your programme in despair as a result of:
a) the tiny minority of guests allowed onto the programme who represent a divergent view from the ruling right-wing political consensus
b) The fact that on the rare occasions that anyone holding remotely dissident views appears on the programme they are interrupted (often by the Chair), talked over and in every possible way denied a chance to state their case.
Noticing that George Galloway was to be a guest tonight, we decided to give it one last chance. We tuned in with low expectations and even then we were disappointed.
True to form, Galloway was interrogated in a hostile fashion by Dimbleby over the question on Mali and was effectively derailed by Dimbleby’s referral to what Galloway had said on another occasion about Syria.
Worse was to follow: When a question was asked about the growing number of food-banks in Nottingham (and nationally), Ruth Porter was allowed several minutes to waffle incoherently. She seemed incapable of framing a cogent argument and when she finally ground embarrassingly to a halt she was greeted with a stony silence from the audience.
There followed an equally long and pointless wrangle between her and Keith Vaz, then Ken Clarke was given a lengthy slot to state his Coalition-conditioned views. George Galloway, the only one able to articulate the growing despair and anger of the majority of people in this country was, of course, silenced in short order. Even worse, Jonathan Dimbleby did not even bother to correct Clarke when he repeatedly ‘blamed’ Galloway for the shortcomings of the last Labour government when everyone knows he was thrown out of the Labour party around 10 years ago and was certainly never part of the Government. What little he was able to say was excellent, uncompromising and honest, and was audibly well-received by the audience.
We will therefore revert to spending our time more usefully in future. We cannot bear to waste it on a programme that can no longer pretend to be a forum for reasoned and balanced debate. It remains instead a showcase for the prevailing political orthodoxy (i.e. the Coalition Government and all who sign up to it including the current Opposition) with a Chair whose job appears to have degenerated into keeping the programme as anodyne and pointless as possible.
~~~
PS Shillary’s long goodbye is finished. She’s gorn. Praise the Lord. btw no mention from our friend earlier here of the thousands of human beings that have been shredded and burned by American weaponry sent down from drones during her watch. It was obscene too hear her cackling at a ‘joke’ on some chat show that Kerry would have to fit into her Manolo Blahniks when she must knows of the extreme poverty that exists in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
I had to look up the spelling of the shoe designer. His prices range from £300 to over £1,000 a pair.
Hague was eulogising her tonight I see at a dinner he laid on for her in Washington. What an outrageous waste of our taxes.
Clinton leaves without big breakthroughs
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65ac8d04-6c84-11e2-b774-00144feab49a.html#ixzz2Jgnn0aNQ
February 1, 2013 5:43 pm
‘The praise also came from abroad. William Hague, the British foreign secretary, flew to Washington to hold a dinner for Mrs Clinton, and arranged a video message for her by members of the cast of Downton Abbey. “There is a wonderful stillness that descends on large halls full of diplomats and foreign ministers the moment Hillary enters the room,” Mr Hague told the dinner.’
What crap.
“Seriously England, Wales, Residual-UK whatever you call yourselves, sort this lot out.”
We’re working on Salmond’s pal Ruoert right now, then I think we should try and get rid of the Israeli power of veto, gain independence from America, pick off the small fry later.
Off topic but then most of above is, and with Craigs mention in this article from the NYT, thought i’d post the link here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/world/asia/uzbekistan-wants-natos-leftovers-from-afghanistan.html?ref=world&_r=0
On 2013-02-01 @ 22:39, Fred piped: “nul”
More Unionist talking points from a bowler-hatted Fred, only one other commenter here has consistently peddled this pathetic line, almost word for word, I think it must have been your former self, or someone slightly less bright keeping the seat warm for you. Do you have any idea how many people Murdoch or his companies employ in Scotland? The far side of 6000; irrespective of which Zionist gargoyle fronts NI, the First Minister actually has a constitutional obligation to safeguard those jobs, attract investment or employment, as a primary goal, simply being rude or disparaging in his public role to Murdoch or about his news organisation’s nauseating propagandist output would be a breach of his formalised job description, and seized by the Con-Lib-Lab one-party-one-policy trio of collaborators in sleazy unionist triumph. Full Independence is the solution to some constraints, but still impossible as press freedom is sacrosanct even if that press/media’s dependence on corporate advertising makes for a press that is unanimously meek and cowed; the Murdoch empire, sans Murdoch could become a powerful force for change and for good. No-one swallows Murdoch’s guff up here, have never, that pap is for southern audiences, all news media in Scotland is hostile to the SNP and Independence, even the entirely conglomerate owned ‘local’ press and the BBC is so patently biased as to foment a growing license fee revolt and public ridicule of their staff outside their bunker. No-one has ever been able to lay a glove on Salmond over his few formal contacts with News International, but the zombie smears still come. Even Salmond’s invite of Murdoch to attend a NY performance of ‘Black Watch’ – with an anti-war theme – which Murdoch declined, has been spun against Salmond; the Leveson establishment charade could find nothing of substance which could possibly stick, but not for want of desperate trying. Lose the bee in your bonnet over Scottish Independence and stop scoring own-goals to feed the troll Ms. Habblabuk’s swollen ego, Fredo.
Sorry but the idea that Salmond is merely tolerating Murdoch to safeguard Scottish jobs won’t wash. Formal contacts with the Murdoch empire, including Rebecca Brookes, have been more than a few and Salmond agreed to support Murdoch’s campaign to take over the rest of BSkyB in return for The Scottish Sun supporting the SNP.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch-and-pitfalls-of-crony-capitalism
Am I barmi? Have I confused ‘brollys’ with ‘bumbershoots?’.
I am seeing, more and more, that the idiocy of the neocons is beginning to punch though the Public Crust. i’m not talking media or blogtalk. I am hearing it from conservatives. I live in a verrrry conservative, libertarian/conservative ‘gubmint’ is bad theology.
Nevertheless I am getting some genuine reticence to self-identify with the current conservative malatrope from everyday Joe Lunchbuckets I know and talk to in the market or the street. It’s almost the reverse of those who had to tamp down their position of liberal to ‘moderate’ independent in the 80’s and 90’s, not to mention the New Millennium.
The CRAZEEEEEE in conservative may have reached a political perihelion, and will melt away like ice cream on a hot summer’s day.
The current spike in their stupidity seems to be a discouraging word, but IMO it the the wondrous rattle of death; the last spasms of a death throe.
Am I an optimist, or what?
Kempe: Formal or any other contacts have been few and open, your other assertion is a completely baseless smear which both Alex Salmond and Murdoch have each disavowed forcefully.
Anyone interested might like to compare the full article from Demos think-tank wonk Hassan that Karel linked to and the much mangled version of it that appeared in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/26/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch
“• For legal reasons, this article will not be opened to comments”
They omitted the parts that didn’t suit them.
They cut out:
“Scottish self-government has been shaped by a belief that Scotland can govern itself, mobilise resources and do better than the British state with its record of Afghanistan and Iraq, market fundamentalism and a broken political class.
That is still true, and up until now it has been aided by a decent, competent government led by a popular leader. The Scottish government and civil service are still, despite the Murdoch saga, not in hock to the corporate classes, outsourcers and vulgarians of Anglo-American capitalism. Scotland’s public services are not being broken up and handed over to private interests. Yet, the events of the last few days show that Salmond has a blind spot to crony capitalism and the manipulated politics and democracy which fed it.”
Motes and fucking beams. Labour face complete electoral wipe-out in Scotland.
Independence is a step to a better society for Scotland and the rest of the UK in turn, I’m neither an SNP member or particular supporter of Salmond, though he’s achieved a minor miracle in swatting the Unionist parties, forcing them to show their true anti-democratic colours and has loosened forever their grip on power, changing the political landscape irreversibly. Once independence is attained, many people, including myself, who support Independence, will probably vote Green or SNP depending on their specific policies offered.
The Guardian’s censorship / redacting of the letter from the Sam Adams Associates: http://pastehtml.com/view/cr1juki1y.html
Original letter from the Sam Adams Associates and the
Edited/redacted letter in the Guardian re ASSANGE
http://pastehtml.com/view/cr1juki1y.html#Assange
interesting glimpse of the liberty taken by the Guardian–which world are they living in?
With Assange in Diplomatic Limbo, Sweden in No Rush to Press Rape Charges
Friday, 01 February 2013 00:00
By Alissa Bohling, Truthout | News Analysis
“With Julian Assange remaining in diplomatic limbo in London, Sweden refuses his offer for an interview, leading some to suspect they are not anxious to pursue allegations of rape that have been lodged against him.”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14196-with-assange-in-diplomatic-limbo-sweden-in-no-rush-to-press-rape-charges
Arbed this is what i was saying to you the other day.Where is the sense of urgency in Sweden to get on with this case on behalf of justice to the alleged ‘victims’. Its a sign of their insincerity.
The Guardian has automatically referred my posts for moderation for some time now. I consider it a badge of office and now I boycott the pauper and even refuse to visit the website In case it gives their advertisers the idea that people are actually reading this impoverished simalcrum of its former glory. Shame that a once great newspaper has been reduced to this.
It is a sign of the sad treasonous times in which we live, “the decades of deceit” .
Remember Its allegations of (not wearing a condom)rape;
Not wearing a condom.
I think?
Far from being open Salmond’s contacts with Murdoch only came to light during the Leveson enquiry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9712278/Leveson-Report-Alex-Salmond-had-striking-willingness-to-lobby-for-Rupert-Murdoch.html
War on Want, good for them, will have nothing to do with Cameron’s big push on world poverty. It is a scam to promote him at the forthcoming G8 to be be held at the posh Lough Erne golf resort.
‘Repeated references to a ‘big moment’ or a ‘gold moment’ throughout the memos show how, from the start, the campaign has been planning with DfID to create a pro-government splash in the immediate run-up to the G8 summit, being held this year in the Lough Erne golf resort-turned-fortress in Northern Ireland.’
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2013/02/if-campaign-was-agreed-with-government-a-year-in-advance/
PS As I mentioned on an earlier thread, the said resort-turned-fortress is in administration, the developer/creator having gone bust for £millions. The resort is up for sale by the adninistrators. Says it all about Broken Britain. Good choice Dave!
“More Unionist talking points from a bowler-hatted Fred,”
It’s much simpler, you suck Murdoch’s dick because he decides who the next government will be.
Even the queen can’t do that.
So how is Agent Cameron to covertly wangle an Iranian adventure on the public before the 2014 Scots Referendum. An overt decision would be a God send for Salmond & Co. And only Erdogans Turkey can supply the boots on the ground for NATO, he being up for presidential election in 2014 as well, with a good chance of ending up like the USraeli puppet Saakashvili. The fuzzy voiced Hague should herald the start in the next couple of months (with impeccable “nuyowk” gaju logic of course).
O/T
Been busy yesterday with sitting in a meeting and helping to change the face of party politics in Norfolk as they exist.
Thanks for all the great posts, it is no wonder that the guardian is utter tripe these days, a loss maker, when they curtail free speech as they are. Tol curtail free speech in the days of the internet, twitter and a plethora of other social networking sites, is suicide, long may they demise.
Whjat terrible redactions, but, this story is equally sordid and the Eastern Daily Prattle is still aiding and abetting Derrick Murphy, despite him being found guilty of parag. 5 of the members code of conduct.
The complaints came from members of the public, not cllr.s, nauseatingly they did not saw fit to reprimand DM for using his political assistant as a punch bag, lying and bringing the Authority into disrepute.
Today, smelling a civil case for having his phone conversation taped, like we all are when we phone councils or the police, he is now pursuing money, being the one who was integral to a get out clause of 20 million, in case the Kings Lynn incinerator would not get build. And it will not!
get active and even! May is just around the corner.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/former_norfolk_county_council_leader_quits_as_conservative_group_chairman_to_pursue_action_against_county_council_after_chief_executive_secretly_taped_him_1_1856808
“Kempe: Formal or any other contacts have been few and open, your other assertion is a completely baseless smear which both Alex Salmond and Murdoch have each disavowed forcefully.”
So the man who swore blind he had legal advice Scotland would definitely remain in Europe says he didn’t do it. The man who told a bare faced lie about the number of jobs in renewable energy says he didn’t do it.
Sweden’s legal system is very strange. This case was highlighted on Radio 4 Today this morning.
Convicted Swedish serial killer Sture Bergwall, aka Thomas Quick, who ultimately confessed to 20 murders and was convicted of 8 in 1978-1998, was considered Sweden’s worst serial killer — until December 2008 when he recanted his confessions and his convictions began to be overturned. In fact since then five of the eight murders for which he was convicted have been overturned, because the only evidence in those cases was Bergwall’s own confessions. No witnesses ever saw him near the scenes of the murders, and there was never any forensic evidence to tie him to the crimes. In light of the lack of evidence, prosecutors declined to retry. On February 1, 2013, a judge ordered retrials of the remaining two cases: The 1976 murder a boy, 15, whose remains were found in 1993; and the 1984 murders of a Dutch couple. It is unlikely that prosecutors will choose to retry in either case. Depending on how things go, Bergwall could be a free man in 2013.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/2013/02/01/swedens-most-prolific-serial-killer-maybe-just-compulsive-liar/index.html
I believe there is a book called Releasing but I cannot give the name of the author nor the name of the Swedish lady who spoke as the BBC have stopped giving the programme running order and linked clips of separate segments. So helpful to our democratic process. They cannot easily be quoted now. What’s the saying? Knowledge is power. The BBC service deteriorates in inverse proportion to the £multi billion costs of their new premises across the realm.
BBC – Today – Today
4 days ago – Today, BBC Radio 4 logo ·
This website is no longer active. Please click on the link above to visit our new home, where you will also find our live page – updated with stories, tweets, emails and links throughout the programme.
Old website http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QSRgRl3CSJUJ:www.bbc.co.uk/today+radio+4+today&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
New improved whiter than white dumbed down website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z
Ben – 12.46am
Optimism may very well be in order:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
I think that counts as “the idiocy of the neocons [is] beginning to punch though the Public Crust” even in very conservative constituencies, as you describe. Check the comments.
@Cryptonym – The ‘queen’s’ office, forced to respond, said that they hadn’t refused consent except on advice. This deceitfully gives people to believe that they mean advice by politicians. In actual fact, the civil servants have to send any proposed bills that might affect the queen’s private financial interests to Julian Smith, a partner at Farrers in the City (his pages at Farrers, in Debrett’s, an in The Peerage), seeking permission to allow them to be debated in parliament.
Well, I listened to last night’s Any Questions as well and therefore think I’m also entitled to comment briefly on MiriamW’s comment on Medialens as brought to our attention by Mary (22h36 yesterday). I should perhaps say that I listen quite regularly to the programme.
Firstly, MiriamW analyses this particular edition of the programme through the lens of her dislike of and scepticism about the programme in general, this dislike and scepticism being clearly expressed at the beginning and the end of her article. One would not, therefore, be led to expect a favorable analysis of this particular edition of the programme and so in fact it turns out.
More specifically, and following the order of MiriamW’s comments:
1/. To say that Galloway was interrogated in a hostile fashion by Dimbleby about Mali is tendentious. I would say that he was questioned no more and no less severely than other panellists holding non-conventional views on a particular subject are usually questioned. So I think the words “interrogated” and “hostile” are inaccurate and designed to mislead.
2/. What is meant by saying that Galloway was “derailed” by Dimbleby asking him about what he’d previously said about Syria? Dimbleby’s question referred to the question which Galloway had put to the Prime Minister in the HoC, in which Galloway himself linked Mali and Syria and was, therefore, fair enough I think; he took up something Galloway had himself said. And “derailed” also gives a false impression – Dimbeleby’s question didn’t silence Galloway (I don’t think it was intended to) who carried on talking with great gusto and the audience were obviously able to hear enough since they gave him a good round of applause on that one.
3/. Food banks, etc : yes, Ruth Porter’s intervention was pitiful – even embarassing.; She woffled and the point she did finally managed to make was intellectual unsound in that it was self-contradictory. But again, MiriamW reports tendentiously when she says that Porter “..was allowed..to woffle” for several minutes. Why “allowed”? She was asked to answer the question and she tried to do so. Is MiriamW suggesting that she should have been cut off very speedily? And if so, how would that square with MiraimW’s complaint that Galloway and other non-conventional thinkers always get cut off too quickly?
4/. “Ken Clarke was given a lengthy slot…” : same comment as above. He was answering the question and was not given more time or less time than anyone else, whether in this edition of the programme or as far as the programme in general is concerned.
5/. “George Galloway, the only one able to articulate the growing despair and anger of the majority of people in this country…” : here, MiriamX is making a political remark which is out of place in what is supposed to be a critical anaysis of what happened in a programme. Apart from that, I don’t remember any other panellist welcoming the growth in food banks, and is it correct to say that the majority of people in the UK are experiencing despair and anger?
6/. Lastly, there was no need for the Chair to pull up Kenneth Clarke for his remarks about Galloway’s membership of the Labour party until 2005; Galloway was well able to defend himself against the charge and porceeded to do so very effectively. If the Chair of Any Questions intervened every time a panellist slanted a fact or made an inaccurate point he’d be talking for 80% of the time.
************
And now I’ll be tendentious. Why such a hostile review from MiriamW of an edition of Question Time which in my opinion seemed to run not very differently to other editions? Perhaps MiriamW had it in for this particular edition precisely because of the presence of George Galloway on the panel; that presence disproving the received wisdom that the BBC only ever invite conformist, mainstream thinkers?
Are all Liam Fox’s friends called Adam?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9840718/Liam-Fox-denies-claims-that-plotter-Adam-Afriyie-is-his-stalking-horse.html
The corporate media (Independent, Guardian, Times etc) are nearly all wading in to support Cameron. Best leader the Tories have ever had. Best chance of winning the next election etc.
St Theresa of May obviously fancies her chances though.
Tory women want Theresa May as next party leader: As PM is forced to defend his Chancellor
Allies see her as Britain’s answer to Angela Merkel and best Cabinet candidate to take on Boris Johnson
Has broad appeal across the party and backing of senior female MPs
Senior government source: ‘Osborne has the Prime Minister’s full backing’
Theresa May has decided to run for the Tory leadership when David Cameron quits, with allies touting her as Britain’s answer to Angela Merkel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272228/Tory-women-want-Theresa-May-party-leader-As-PM-forced-defend-Chancellor.html#axzz2JjgVuy00
LOL
Following my earlier comment on the changes to the BBC Today programme website, I returned to the site and found that after several clicks through you can actually access segments from the revised running order page which is now full of comments and tweets.
eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qctqm/live followed by another click to an audio boo?? which uis a new one on me.
Thus http://audioboo.fm/boos/1189358-swedish-serial-killer-wanted-attention
The old version seemed a lot simpler.
re BBC website – so you’re happy now, Mary? Ready to take back your complaints as posted at 09h33 this morning?