Thursday, 10 December 2009

Bully boy Balls on 5 live drive

Did anybody else hear Peter Allen trying to interview Ed Balls yesterday evening on Radio 5? (Here, starting about 2:07 in).

It's the worst I've heard him. He was bullying, repugnant, rude to Allen. He accused his interviewer of failing to do the BBC's duty to "impartially" stress the blatent electioneering of what he was saying, and that it was wrong to question what he said, and what Darling said in the PBR, even to challenge him. He's an evil, wicked bastard. Listen to it if you can.

I'd like to say it's unbelievable, but it's not.

Monday, 7 December 2009

BBC bias - unbelievable!

I still find it hard to believe that the BBC are so badly biassed.

When I heard them discussing the "hacked" emails, and asking what the Russian connection might be, after so many days history of this episode, I couldn't help but shout at my poor radio.

You know they were not hacked, they were leaked.

You know the only Russian connection was that the leaker first tried to leave the data on a Russina hosted FTP server.

And, above all, you know it's not just a few emails. It's data, models and so much more.

Why lie to our people so blatently, so you entirely discredit yourself?

Sunday, 6 December 2009

A call to action - climategate

This article is so distorted and deceitful and outright lying that it needs to be refuted and placed in the gutter.

Please, sieze on it and bury it. I'm horrified at how something like this can be published somewhere like the Times. It's such a heap of lies and bile and deceit. They should be ashamed.

Come on, please sort this out!

Friday, 4 December 2009

Bankers' bonuses - a small thought.

I listened to the phone-in on fivelive this morning on this subject, and find myself torn as to what the sense of the situation really is. I can very well understand those people (like me, and most others, I think) who struggle to keep afloat and simply feel aghast at the obscene amounts given in bonuses to "bankers".

One argument, though, seems on the face of it to be entirely false. Some say that it's good for the treasury, because income tax is paid on the bonus. Surely, if the bonus wasn't paid, it would increase the bank's profits and therefore incur extra corporation tax? The profit after tax would be available to add to the bailout repayments too.

Have I got that wrong?