Unthreaded
SG. Go to the opticians : hundreds OR thousands, not hundreds OF thousands.
Supertroll
Alan the alarmists didn't get 100s of thousands at their march did they ?
stewgreen
Alan tell the BBC that 52% voted Brexit'
And surveys show most remainders capitulated and want us to get in with Brexit' quickly.
stewgreen
SG. When will you ever get it? - the BBC considers you as a fringe minority and treats you accordingly. Get hundreds or thousands out onto the streets, gets hundreds of viewers/listeners to write/phone in espousing your cause, get ONE influential group to take your stand, and you might gain some recognition*. As it is we don't stand a chance. Only when/if the climate begins to turn colder will there be a chance. As it is the BBC [but why keep picking on the BBC?] is doing what it believes its remit is - to represent what informed opinion says. You (we) represent in it's eyes uniformed, potentially crank, opinion says.
*Note that your opposition can do, and does, this every day at the drop of a hat.
Supertroll
Equal balance ?
Gore got 13 mins
Other alarmists got 10 mins
Lawson got 5 mins and in that spoke for 3
Non experts are allowed to make unchallenged super alarmist claims very very often
They air ice melt predicter Peter Wadhams without airing a challenging voice.
On Inside Science Michael Mann got 12 mins unchecked with presenter lining up endless free-kicks for him.
stewgreen
SG if in your opinion the Exeter case was eminently newsworthy (and I'm not saying it wasn't) which news item that was covered would you have left out? The news controllers have a difficult task deciding what of the numerous news stories that cross their desk to choose to incorporate into the main news programme. You may disagree but you must be able to justify your selection. It is not sufficient to moan that a particular story was omitted. Are you sure it wasn't on the BBC local news?
Personally I'm only too pleased if stories involving rapists, drug merchants and other villains are downplayed. Those low lifes get too much publicity as it is.
Supertroll
Bet the 10pm BBC report didn't include some of these apects of the attack :
"Terror suspect drove at police outside Buckingham Palace yelling 'Allahu akbar'
As police approached his Toyota Prius, he reached for 4ft sword in the footwell
The 26-year-old from Luton wrestled to ground and incapacitated with CS gas"
stewgreen
So last nights news failed to report the 2 different cuckhooing drug gang trials
Where the immigrant gangs were convicted.
The 3 Somalis in the Exeter case got 60 years between them.
stewgreen
Rhoda.
1. The Wilson and Callaghan years were Labour, Heath was Tory. I used them to illustrate the fact that the BBC was always biased, and usually anti government (of whatever stripe) and even more partisan.
2.Yes I would like more balance (and, at the moment it still means anti government). With regard to climate what is balance? Equal billing to recognized science and any crackpot - do all health items have to have a homeopathy spokesperson to represent their viewpoint, does a discussion on the Middle East require a Zoroastrian on the panel? Explain to me why the BBC should give equal space to climate sceptics when we represent a tiny minority of what the BBC understands to be informed opinion? Ask yourself the simple question - what benefits do the BBC receive by being biased in favour of AGW? The answer to this was exemplified by what occurred or didn't occur after the Gore and Lawson interviews.
Supertroll
Super troll,
If SG got hundreds of thousands out on the street in support of anything al BBC doesn't support and they would instantly be labelled race hating right wing extremists.
Mailman