BBC Bias is Clear and Indisputable 267


Unless the BBC takes firm disciplinary action against Nick Robinson for this, they cannot keep pretending that the UK any longer holds free and fair elections. For a state broadcaster to show this level of venom and bias against the opposition leader is utterly unacceptable.

It is indisputable that Robinson’s history is as a high ranking Conservative Party activist. They dominate BBC News, as a plain matter of fact. They have changed the culture of the BBC so they no longer feel any need to disguise their Tory cheerleading.

This is an Uzbek style election.


267 thoughts on “BBC Bias is Clear and Indisputable

1 2 3 4
  • reel guid

    That is a wake up call to anyone who was still clinging to a belief that the BBC is impartial. Robinson is senior in the BBC News set up and he’s clearly not just being biased but is sneering openly at the Opposition Leader.

  • Republicofscotland

    Beady eyed Robinson, lied through his teeth about Alex Salmond it caused a ruckus.

    People in Scotland are well aware of BBC bias, it’s been going on since the days of Lord Reith. Corbyn will continue to be demonised by the establishments mouthpiece.

    The Tories have got England in the palm of their hand. Heaven help the poor and disabled folk, and the draconian measures set to follow.

          • Republicofscotland

            Habb.

            That Lord Reith, but what has his nationality got to do with it?

          • Harry Vimes

            For the terminally brain dead the relevant descriptive term here is “proud Scot, But.”

            Do try and keep up with rest of the class rather than lurking at the back preening yourself and displaying your ignorance Hab.

          • D_Majestic

            Do you mean the one who was 6 foot 6, or the one who was 4 foot 9, Habbabkuk? There were at least three. Lol.

          • Habbabkuk

            RoS

            I thought I’d enquire about Lord Reith’s nationality since you saw fit to mention him in the course of some dubious statement or other (” BBC bias, it’s been going on since the days of Lord Reith”).

            Very rude of you to leave it to one of your friends to answer, btw.

            All clear now, I hope?

      • Merkin Scot

        Habbakuk’s racism shows through yet again with his reference to Reith’s nationality.
        Still, hardly surprising coming from his background of supporting people who claim that their religion is a God-given free pass to carry out slow genocide in Palestine.

  • D_Majestic

    No-one should be surprised that the BBC is utterly biased. Especially if that person has registered a complaint recently, and received a high-handed, kiss my **s reply which addresses absolutely none of the complainant’s carefully-listed points. Sometimes accompanied by a ‘Service feedback’ link, which simply doesn’t work.

  • reel guid

    Corbynite Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, E&W Greens, Scottish Greens, Sinn Fein and the SDLP should all get together and agree not to co-operate in any way with the BBC until they sort this kind of thing out.

    • fred

      Sinn Fein should put their foot down and demand that their voices are replaced by actors.

          • reel guid

            If Theresa May has her authoritarian way there might well be plenty of underground clubs springing up where we can all have a go at stand up.

          • Habbabkuk

            Oh dear, Reel Guid, you’re not seriously buying into that “fascism”, “suppression of dissent” and “Uzbekistan-type elections”, are you?

            Seriously?

            I had you down as more intelligent than that.

            Take our host himself.

            He’s been dissenting for years now, on this blog and elsewhere.

            Has he or his family been suppressed, persecuted, threatened, physically attacked, financially punished (eg withdrawal of FCO pension rights), censured, administratively harassed, etc, in any shape or form?

            Have any of the regular contributors on here, despite their manifestly unhealthy and anti-democratic views and their racially hateful discourse?

            The answer is no, of course not.

            So all this talk about fascism and suppression is bollocks.

          • RobG

            Keep maintaining the illusion.

            It’s your job.

            A better world is coming, and I will demand tickets for all the trials that will result from it.

          • reel guid

            Habba

            I never said we were heading for fascism, but democratic systems can become very controlled. Hard Brexit is being railroaded through when 48% in the UK voted against even a milder version. Scotland and NI are being dragged out the EU against democratically made choices.

          • Clark

            Has Craig been suppressed? YES:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/11/the-hottest-potato/

            One of many examples.

            As a former moderator of this site, my e-mail is routinely interfered with. Just today I compared my Sent Items with a friend’s Inbox; political e-mails I had sent had gone to her Spam folder where they had remained unnoticed, many had been lost because Spam is emptied automatically. This is just the latest example; it’s been going on for years, and sometimes they don’t get through at all.

            Of course I can’t PROVE that these aren’t simple failures and false-positives – ie. it’s plausibly deniable – but it is notable that political e-mails are consistently affected more often. If you look at your e-mail headers, you may find that much of your e-mail is diverted to the US and back en route. Try checking the time-stamps to see which time zones they passed through.

          • Clark

            Has Craig been persecuted, threatened, financially punished, administratively harassed, etc, in any shape or form?

            YES. He was sacked, smeared, and stitched up on over fifteen false “disciplinary charges”.

            “Oh, but that wasn’t under a Conservative government”

            But the Conservative attorney general is blocking action against Jack Straw who did it:

            https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/16/uk-attorney-general-in-bid-to-block-case-against-tony-blair-over-iraq-war

  • Loony

    The BBC is a completely irrelevant organization – made relevant by people that complain about them.

    That the lie, spin and dissemble is obvious – as is the solution – which is simply to ignore them. The internet allows for politicians to reach the people directly, there is no longer any need for the corporate media to act as interlocutor. Donald Trump has proven this.

    I have no idea who Nick Robinson is – why is his view any more relevant than my view?

    Maybe people with weak arguments need the BBC – ah it was not the paucity of my intellect that failed me, it was the bias of the BBC. Screw the BBC – no-one cares.

    • John O'Dowd

      Unfortunately you are wrong, Loony.

      Despite its clear bias and increasingly propagandist output, it still claims to be an objective unbiased broadcaster, and a large number of people still believe that.

      Robinson lied disgracefully about Alex Salmond. The proof is still there on Youtube. Nothing happened – indeed the bespectacled rodent is even more prominent.

      • Loony

        The BBC can claim anything it wants – claiming something does not make it true.

        Do a large number of people believe that the BBC is an unbiased objective reporter? How many people today believe that Iraq was a repository of a vast cache of WMD. How many people really believe that Libya has been improved as a consequence of the destruction of that country?

        These are not hard questions – and there is plenty of evidence to determine an answer. Just check out the number of British holidaymakers in Libya – their absence tells you all you need to know as to whether anyone believes the BBC. Just ask the BBC to publish pictures of the WMD captured in Iraq.

        Anyone can tell lies – the person being lied to has a responsibility to determine the truth for themselves.

        • Habbabkuk

          “The BBC can claim anything it wants – claiming something does not make it true.”
          ____________________

          Indeed so.

          You would agree that the same holds good for all the stuff the regulars (including yourself) claim on here?

    • Alcyone

      Good fresh perspective Loony.

      Corbyn might start by declaring that he will scrap the TV licence and privatise the BBC. It’s out of date.

      • Bill Rollinson

        Corbyn doesn’t need to scrap TV licence, if you don’t use Iplayer or watch live TV you don’t need a licence! Simply change your viewing habits. Even the footy is 25 seconds late [not live]

    • Habbabkuk

      Loony

      “Screw the BBC – no-one cares.”
      _________________

      Craig and some of his more unthinking followers obviously do.

      How else to explain their constant wittering on about the BBC?

      Rather than discussing substance.

      • D_Majestic

        Don’t see much discussion of substance from you, H. Just underlining the wavy threads supporting the status quo. We can say what we like about it. (A). We have that right. (B) Some of us have been paying up-front for years for it. (C) Since 1972 in my case-so I feel entitled to give them ‘What-for’. On any occasion I please.

        • Habbabkuk

          Since 1972, eh?

          Thank you for indirectly and belatedly confirming that you are one of the “middle-aged and older” contingent making up almost the entirety of those who post regularly on here.

        • Habbabkuk

          D_Majestic

          ” (A). We have that right. (B) Some of us have been paying up-front for years for it”

          __________________

          So tell us how you’ve been “paying” for it.

          What persecution or disadvantage have you ever suffered?

          Share your story and become a witness.

          • D_Majestic

            What the hell are you on about, Mr.Ageism? Which part of ‘At a Post Office with cash’, followed by ‘At a post Office by cheque’, then ‘A direct debit’, don’t you understand? And as a student of posts elsewhere and in the past-have they found those WMD yet? I have a really good memory and piles of notes, going back years……..

    • Jo

      I beg to differ!

      The BBC has an absolute requirement within its code of conduct to maintain political impartiality. It is publicly funded. People absolutely SHOULD care that public money is being misused in this way.

  • Manda

    I stopped listening to BBC radio4 not long after Robinson took up his post… it was the last show I watched or listened to on BBC, I used it as a weather vane for the political agenda push of the day. I stopped tuning in because I could no longer stomach the extreme bias any longer, it was negatively affecting my health, my blood pressure was soaring!

    I don’t hold out any hope the BBC will take any disciplinary action, if enough well argued complaints are received they might do the usual white wash and conclude “the BBC is impartial” and the claim it is a ‘public service provider’. There’s is an election ‘to win’, possibility of criminal charges against 30 individuals (including some MPs) involved in the Tory election expenses scandal to brush under the carpet, or rather, to be covered fully in a fair and unbiased manner…

  • AAMVN

    The reason this matters so much is despite the evident bias going back decades now the majority of floating voter types still regard it as fair and ‘true’. Robinson should resign. In disgrace.

    • Manda

      Couldn’t agree more. Lots of work to do showing the bias and helping people to see. I still read comments claiming BBC has a pro ‘left’ bias! I often wonder what leaning these commentators have, surely not extreme right? So many don’t see the pro establishment bias or have any inkling what that even means. It may sound old fashioned but the class struggle is still the fundamental issue.

  • Alcyone

    Addendum: “Corbyn has won the Parliamentary “Beard of the Year Award” a record six times, as well as being named as the Beard Liberation Front’s Beard of the Year, having previously described his beard as “a form of dissent” against New Labour.”

    Is he still in dissent mode?

  • Stu

    It wouldn’t surprise me if certain journalists were hoping for ‘Trump style’ attacks on the media.

  • Alcyone

    “Corbyn’s second son Sebastian worked on his leadership campaign and is now employed as John McDonnell’s Chief of Staff.[253][254][255]”

    Any nepotism involved here?

  • Merkin Scot

    Shocking and chilling.
    Still, nothing we didn’t know before about BBC bias.

  • Anne Stanford

    Robinson should not be employed by the BBC.he is a Tory and it shows. He is completely biased against labour. The today program is like a party political broadcast for the Tory party. John Humphrey’s interview with Emily thornbury this am 20th April was disgraceful.

  • Alcyone

    No Bias here then:

    “Disciplinary action should be taken against the policeman for the harassment of that driver – who it should be noted had already been forced to halt and pull aside for a period of time to let May’s convoy pass, and had complied. That we have a police force who think you are not allowed to show dissent to the Prime Minister is deeply troubling.”

    Showing my bias:

    Disciplinary action (by demanding an apology), should be taken against the writer for the harassment of that policeman – who it should be noted had already signalled passing drivers to halt and pull aside for a period of time to let May’s convoy pass, to comply with standard security protocol. That we have an activist who thinks you are allowed to show dissent to the Prime Minister by flogging the human rights of a policeman on duty, is deeply troubling.

    • glenn_uk

      “Harassing a policeman” – that’s why they get all the training, protective clobber and the big bucks. If they cannot stand up to a little provocation without – as that thug Habbabkuk said he would like to see – smashing the skull of the individual, then they shouldn’t be in the job.

      Unless we don’t want our police forces to (supposedly) be the envy of the world, of course. If we’re to cower and expect brutal treatment, and never to raise our eyes from the floor as our Lords and Masters pass by (plus their overpaid protectorate), then we should proceed right along the route we’re heading.

      • Alcyone

        I may be misunderstanding you Glenn, but i fear you may have got the wrong end of the truncheon.

        I was quoting Craig to begin with and was then suggesting that by him demanding “Disciplinary action should be taken against the policeman for the harassment of that driver” that he is indeed harassing the policeman himself. He should retract that. Have you read Ba’al in the last thread? I believe you’re a mo’biker too?

      • fred

        ” that’s why they get all the training, protective clobber and the big bucks.”

        None of which has benefited Keith Palmer much.

      • Habbabkuk

        Glenn

        Cool that fiery Welsh rhetoric (it reminds me of the young Neil Kinnock) and learn to read properly.

        “..as that thug Habbabkuk said he would like to see – smashing the skull of the individual”

        Could you quote us where I said anything about smashing the yobbo’s skull?

        Thanks.

    • Sharp Ears

      Your posts today on this thread and on the previous one addressed to Craig are most revealing as to your true self.

      • Habbabkuk

        Speaking about posts revealing the true self, and since we’re talking about Nick Robinson:

        I distinctly recall you having a laugh at the expense of Nick Robinson’s voice (I think you called him “Whispering Nick Robinson) soon after he returned to the BBC after his operation for throat cancer.

        Still proud about your little quip ?

  • Habbabkuk

    Craig

    You use to be able to discuss domestic policy cogently and calmly (eg your post on housing benefit).

    What happened?

  • Sharp Ears

    It is common knowledge that the BBC is controlled by Zionist supporters.

    Apologists for Israel take top posts at BBC
    https://electronicintifada.net/content/apologists-israel-take-top-posts-bbc/12395

    How Israel pressures BBC into changing headlines
    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/how-israel-pressures-bbc-changing-headlines

    and so on.

    The reason why they and others are shafting Jeremy is for his support of the Palestinians over decades.

    Years back, I was listening to Test Match Special from Lords on Radio 4 and they had Robinson on for a chat in the tea interval. Amongst his voluble contribution, he recounted how he had taken his son to Israel and what a marvellous country it was – democratic and all that rot.

    Treeza and Philip like cricket. They might even bump into Nick at a match. Treeza is a member of CFoI.
    Here she is at their lunch
    Prime Minister Theresa May vows to mark Balfour Declaration centenary with “pride” at CFI’s biggest ever Annual Business Lunch
    December 13 2016
    https://cfoi.co.uk/prime-minister-theresa-may-vows-to-mark-balfour-declaration-centenary-with-pride-at-cfis-biggest-ever-annual-business-lunch/

  • Mark Cunliffe

    Disgusting. I sent a complaint in when Laura Kuenssberg tweeted about the Tory electoral ‘mistake’ (you know, like The Great Train Mistake and the Brinks Mat Mistake) and their reply was that Twitter can only use a certain number of characters. OK, I said in my follow up, second complaint, so how about ‘irregularity’ rather than mistake? Since guilt shouldn’t be attached until an investigation comes to its conclusion, innocence should not be suggested either. I still got the brush off. Robinson even went to Twitter to proclaim the BBC’s job is to say things you don’t want to hear. Fine, but why is always what the left wing or the pro-Scottish independence don’t want to hear? Why is it never what the Tories don’t want to hear hmmm?

  • Jane Finney

    He is despicable(Nick Robinson) undermining Democracy with his biased rhetoric and misleading statements. Clean up your act BBC. Wish we all had the same fortunate media platform then politics may be a tad fairer and Nick would have some “in his face” opposition to his antiquated, probably corrupt views

    • Loony

      Good to read that the BBC is undermining democracy. Obviously your consumption and dissemination of this bilge leaves you entirely innocent of undermining democracy.

      The internet gives everyone access to the media platform you claim that you are denied. The most popular YouTube channel has 54 million subscribers. If you have something interesting to say then you can say it and there is ready access to market.

  • The Wrodl Turned Upside Down

    An Uzbek style election? Mais non. This is a US style election. That’s the way CIA runs them now.

  • SJ

    It’s the BBC. They did not take decisive action on s long-term culture of child abusers, why would you imagine they would do anything about political bias?

  • Gerry

    In breach of his own charter, which he should adhere to and be aware of as a condition of his employment.

    “The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality

    Nick is quite clearly in breach as his account name includes “bbc”

    • Mark Cunliffe

      I’ve complained, again (wasn’t long back I complained about Ms Keunssberg’s use of the phrase ‘Tory election mistake’ – yeah, like the Brinks Mat Mistake eh?) but I very much doubt it’ll do any good

  • Irene Short

    There have been at least three pieces on University led research (Cardiff more than once) confirming media bias against Jeremy Corbyn from the first day of his appointment. The Guardian included. Polly Toynbee’s piece on Corbyn yesterday was a toxic, destructive rant.
    Today R4 programme is one of the worst with constant heckling and interruption for shadow cabinet and generally velvet glove approach for government ministers. Women always get a worse deal, particularly from John Humphrys. In the days when the BBC complaints line had real people answering I was once told that complaints against JH were frequent ‘but nobody tackles him’.
    Sit tight as the right wing press now go for a total destuction of yet another Labour leader.
    BBC have a great deal to answer for following their long term, unjustified promotion of Farage
    Apart from BBC Trust admitting Laura Keunssburg bias on Corbyn, I can’t recall any other sincere apology for such bias from BBC.

    • Mark Cunliffe

      I cannot stand Humphreys. He ruins Mastermind for me; he needs to realise he serves no purpose in hectoring the contestants and acting like they’re something to be amused or disgusted by like he does in his day job (well, like he does with women and any MP’s who aren’t Tory obviously)

      • Loony

        Who cares whether some nonentity ruins your enjoyment of some totally irrelevant,inane and mind numbing trivia.

        If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Throw away your TV and free your mind. Alternatively you can voluntarily submit to mental slavery. It is your choice, but I fail to see any grounds for complaining about your situation when you have actively chosen it, and undoubtedly spent your own money on incarcerating your own mind.

        • Mark Cunliffe

          Where did I say I was still watching? I haven’t watched since he took over. You’re quick to jump the gun aren’t you? You seem to be complaining about a comment unnecessarily, which is something you’re actively choosing to do and I fail to see the grounds for. Practice what you preach instead of looking for someone to swat down

          • Loony

            Apologies English is not my first language, and it is possible that I have made an error in comprehension.

            However when you say “I cannot stand Humphrey’s. He ruins Mastermind for me” then it is logical to conclude that in order for you to know that he has ruined Mastermind for you then it is necessary for you to have watched Mastermind.

            If, as you say, you have not watched Mastermind since he (Humphrey;s) took over then I do not understand on what objective basis you can reach the conclusion that he has ruined it for you. In purely linguistic terms if you meant to convey the impression that you no longer watch Mastermind then perhaps “ruined” would have been more appropriate than “ruins” – which, in the context of your post, implies an activity that is continuing.

            Do please let me know if my understanding of the language is in error as it is possible that I can still claim a refund from my English teacher.

          • Mark Cunliffe

            Loony, as Mastermind is a series that is still running with Humphreys in the chair I can legitimately say he ‘ruins’ it for me, as the fact that I don’t want to tune in with him presenting is an ongoing issue for me. His presenting is the activity that is continuing causing my complaint. I stopped watching after a couple of episodes with him, and have seen glimpses since – all point to him being hideous.

  • RobG

    This is from 20 years ago, when I used to run a campaign against the TV Licence. Things are now many, many, many times worse…
    ____________________________________________________

    What would you spend £2.8 billion on..? This is what it cost in the year 1988-99 to run the BBC. That’s £2,800,000,000… takes your breath away, doesn’t it.

    Where does this money come from..? the vast majority of cash, 75% of it, comes from the British public in the form of the Licence Fee.

    There is also the BBC’s various business interests…

    BBC Worldwide, which sells BBC products and brands, made £81 million profit in the year 1998-99.

    Sales of programmes to the Open University made £25 million.

    Subscriptions to the World Service brought in £15 million.

    Income from other sources, such as sales of assets and investments, made £15 million

    And most delicious of all, interest earned on cash paid in advance by licence payers (who use the TV Licence Savings Stamps Scheme) raked in £36 million.

    In the year 1998-99 the BBC businesses made a gross profit of, wait for it… £172 million.

    This is not a British public service broadcaster, it’s a huge multinational corporation.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    20 years ago ‘Aunty Beeb’ was still the nation’s favourite and could apparently do no wrong. Back then, people like me who tried to highlight the underlying corruption were vilified. With the following rise of the internet the BBC is now also raking it in with all things online. As I often say, if you access BBC news sites from the UK there are no adverts, but if you access BBC news sites from outside of the UK there are adverts. As far as I’m aware, this is totally illegal and against the BBC’s Charter. They are making buckets of money from a licence fee that is screwed out of the British public under threat of imprisonment.

    • RobG

      Typo: “This is what it cost in the year 1988-99 to run the BBC. That’s £2,800,000,000… takes your breath away, doesn’t it.”

      That should read ‘1998-99’; ie, £2.8 billion every year. It’s probably double that now.

      • Mark Cunliffe

        Staggering Rob, truly staggering. I’m reminded of Stewart Lee’s wonderful rant about Richard Hammond’s car crash and subsequent book deal; “why wasn’t the book published by BBC Worldwide? We paid for that crash, we should see some of the benefit, right?”

  • Loony

    Is it not slightly odd that substantially everyone posting on here have absolutely no problems in identifying rampant BBC bias and yet are deeply concerned that their fellow citizens may be unable to comprehend the depth and breadth of the bias.

    Viewing your fellow man as being to stupid to comprehend is probably the same kind of attitude that informs the purveyors of lies in the BBC.

    • Hmmm

      Not odd. Echo chamber.
      The fact people repeat total bollocks that they’ve read in RWMSM to me down the pub or online does indicate they are taken in by the lies.

  • bevin

    I’m inclined to sympathise with Loony’s views, regarding the importance of the BBC. And, for that matter, the rest of the media. But the Trump analogy doesn’t quite work: he made the media a target, taking the battle to them and profiting from the fact that most people distrust it.

    As to the argument that the BBC has always been biassed, there is no doubt of the truth of this. What has changed is that those running the BBC no longer feel that it is necessary to persuade. Instead they assert. If they wished to persuade people that Corbyn’s policies are unworkable they would affect to give them fair play, whilst ensuring that the last word always went to his opponents. That is the way that it used to work, very effectively, and that is why Blair and his acolytes concluded that all they needed to do to win the support of the media was to adjust their policies. Slightly at first but, before very long, totally, so that NewLabour became indistinguishable from Thatcherism.

    Now, and this is what is ominous, just as there is no longer any pretence that “we are all in this together”, so it is held that those chosen to work by the BBC are in a position, thanks to a brief period of indoctrination/education to tell the masses what needs to be done. And they appear to have no compunction in telling them- the arrogance of these superficially educated rejects from drama school is astonishing.
    The empire has come home and the class which knew better than Nigerians and Indians, which knew what was good for the Iroquois and the Chippewa, and which no longer needs to flatter Mrs Atkins’ boy Tommy so that he will enforce their will on the ‘natives’, now concentrates all its arrogant authoritarianism on domestic politics. Representative institutions are an anomaly in a society dominated by capitalism, so is the ‘free market of ideas.’
    The only question is whether May and her crypto fascist advisors have ramped up the temperature underneath the pot so quickly that the ‘frog’ might jump out before June 8th. If so that will be the end of May and her set.

  • Ian Anderson

    Withhold the licence fee I say! They are pushing right-wing Tory Fascist propaganda.

  • Republicofscotland

    Why should anyone be surprised by the machinations of the worlds largest propaganda machine. Its World Service spews out its narrative in 29 languages 24 hours a day.

    Here in Britain it has supreme position on the airways and on your tv, with multiple tv and radio stations pumping out the narrative, either demonising or promoting.

    Add in that the BBC tv arm is a extortion racket, that prosecutes those who don’t want to pay to watch the propaganda (courts are complicit with the narrative) and you have a very well funded propaganda machine that can change opinions, promote and frighten those who watch and listen to it.

    • Loony

      How is BBC TV an extortion racket? Surely if you do not have a TV then you do not need a TV licence. I am aware of no law that compels you to own a TV

      • RobG

        Loony, I don’t watch tv, either, but there are some things I will occasionally watch. If you are in the UK, even if you occasionally watch a tv programme that is not BBC, by law you are required to pay a TV Licence fee.

        What is your native language, by the way?

        Your written English is very good. It puts my French language skills to shame!

    • Habbabkuk

      ” Its World Service spews out its narrative in 29 languages 24 hours a day.”
      ____________________

      Nothing compared to Radio Moscow in the good old day, eh, Republicofscotland? 🙂

      I bet you miss those Kremlin bells. Never mind, if you’re lucky you might one day be able to tune in to the Edinburgh balls.

      _______________________

      BTW, you’re factually wrong. The World Service does not broadcast all 29 languages 24 hours a day. Far from it, actually.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.