BREAKING NEWS: Baby accidentally orders 20 quid worth of onions on dad's phone

[Cunty BigBollox]

43 minutes ago, King Billy said:

He’s doing the door at the ICU ward. A lot of Ramadamers have been sneaking in recently and getting cured. He ain’t happy. He’s got his new steel toe cappers on.

He might stand a fighting chance of keeping them out if they're nearly at deaths door on arrival.

[Guest 'eavensabove]

1 hour ago, King Billy said:

He’s doing the door at the ICU ward. A lot of Ramadamers have been sneaking in recently and getting cured. He ain’t happy. He’s got his new steel toe cappers on.

Didn't think they ate bacon or roll-mops? 

[Wolfie]

14 hours ago, Bill Stickers said:

The BBC are communists? You’re an idiot.

I always find it fascinating that both the right and the left wing complain relentlessly about BBC bias and favouritism.

Suggests to me they actually do a pretty good job. 

 

11 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Absolutely, if one wants an unbalanced view on terrestrial TV news then go to Channel 4. The BBC's age old problem which they seem incapable or unwilling to sort out is the top heavy management structure. Constantly rearranging the deck chairs (noticeable in the news & current affairs) and renaming depts with snappy and hip titles (BBC Sounds? BBC Vision?) is just Birtwash. Moving a reluctant staff to Media city was an expensive and unnecessary gesture.

Seeing as you both appear to be falling in love, despite the 25-year age gap, I thought I'd respond to these collectively.

Bill, you and I have always gotten along – despite the obvious politics dividing our opinions. You are, to say the least, a cut above the vast majority.

Your words above, however, appear to have fallen out of someone's festering cunt. I had feared one day we may be on a collision course, so perhaps that time has come.

In pursuit of better understanding our media, and particularly the BBC, one has to take a critical stance on the way news (and fake news) is reported – and in my opinion there have always been and remain certain obvious biases in the BBC's coverage.

There's never been and currently no other media organisation so readily influenced by a liberal narrative it wishes to push. For example, the liberal 'morality' that has taken over in Britain in the past 20 years is (almost solely) the creation of the fucking BBC. What you see on your screen, what you hear on your radio, every news story, every documentary, every drama, soap opera etc. has to pass a BBC 'agenda' test – much of which is based on multiculturalism, feminism, Islam, gays, transgenders, ensuring not to offend foreigners, and so on. When broadcast, will this show a minority group in a bad light? If the answer is 'yes' then it fails to cut the mustard and doesn't make it to the airwaves. Is this a fair (and realistic) way to report news from around the world?

Parts of the organisation border militantly liberal, so much so its staff and political editors (who masquerade as liberals) at times echo Third Reich levels of propaganda. I think you'll agree the disproportionate salaries some BBC employees receive by way of licence fee enforcement are fairly fucking non-liberal. It took the corrupt bastards years to set up an inquiry into its own salary abuse, which it then twisted into a sexism row (in favour of women) to draw attention from the fact they were all getting so much in the first place:

As for other broadcasters, Roops, have you ever noticed how none, including Channel 4, ever really departs from the lead taken by the BBC? The difference is the manner with which the BBC reports news. It's very, very biased.

Take Brexit for example. There's been airtime favouritism towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1, with the usual overemphasis on Tory Party divisions and a massive underrepresentation of Eurosceptics. Not so with Channel 4, ITV and Sky. From the comfort of your spunk-stained navy blue BHS sofa throw, can you recall how much the BBC actually reported on Farage's 15 years in the EU Parliament when compared to the non-stop claptrap from pro-EU politicians?

The most disappointing thing here is the internet has opened up a plethora of media outlets from which people can choose, and yet, the BBC sadly remains the benchmark so far as the average Wetherspoon's Sun/Mirror-reading cuntwit is concerned (that's you, @Dr Twatmagnet). And this is precisely what the BBC wants – to influence those it can. The internet at least provides millions willing to research facts a platform from which to engage. Perhaps that's why the BBC backlash continues to grow.

If you can''t see the disproportionate airtime the BBC devotes to ensuring we think Trump is an arsehole, immigrants should be welcome by everybody in the UK, and that anything defamatory or racist or sexist or homophobic in any shape or form will go punished under the gaze of a draconian media system limiting free speech, then I pity the coercing impact the BBC sadly appears to have had on you.

[King Billy]

5 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

 

Seeing as you both appear to be falling in love, despite the 25-year age gap, I thought I'd respond to these collectively.

Bill, you and I have always gotten along – despite the obvious politics dividing our opinions. You are, to say the least, a cut above the vast majority.

Your words above, however, appear to have fallen out of someone's festering cunt. I had feared one day we may be on a collision course, so perhaps that time has come.

In pursuit of better understanding our media, and particularly the BBC, one has to take a critical stance on the way news (and fake news) is reported – and in my opinion there have always been and remain certain obvious biases in the BBC's coverage.

There's never been and currently no other media organisation so readily influenced by a liberal narrative it wishes to push. For example, the liberal 'morality' that has taken over in Britain in the past 20 years is (almost solely) the creation of the fucking BBC. What you see on your screen, what you hear on your radio, every news story, every documentary, every drama, soap opera etc. has to pass a BBC 'agenda' test – much of which is based on multiculturalism, feminism, Islam, gays, transgenders, ensuring not to offend foreigners, and so on. When broadcast, will this show a minority group in a bad light? If the answer is 'yes' then it fails to cut the mustard and doesn't make it to the airwaves. Is this a fair (and realistic) way to report news from around the world?

Parts of the organisation border militantly liberal, so much so its staff and political editors (who masquerade as liberals) at times echo Third Reich levels of propaganda. I think you'll agree the disproportionate salaries some BBC employees receive by way of licence fee enforcement are fairly fucking non-liberal. It took the corrupt bastards years to set up an inquiry into its own salary abuse, which it then twisted into a sexism row (in favour of women) to draw attention from the fact they were all getting so much in the first place:

As for other broadcasters, Roops, have you ever noticed how none, including Channel 4, ever really departs from the lead taken by the BBC? The difference is the manner with which the BBC reports news. It's very, very biased.

Take Brexit for example. There's been airtime favouritism towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1, with the usual overemphasis on Tory Party divisions and a massive underrepresentation of Eurosceptics. Not so with Channel 4, ITV and Sky. From the comfort of your spunk-stained navy blue BHS sofa throw, can you recall how much the BBC actually reported on Farage's 15 years in the EU Parliament when compared to the non-stop claptrap from pro-EU politicians?

The most disappointing thing here is the internet has opened up a plethora of media outlets from which people can choose, and yet, the BBC sadly remains the benchmark so far as the average Wetherspoon's Sun/Mirror-reading cuntwit is concerned (that's you, @Dr Twatmagnet). And this is precisely what the BBC wants – to influence those it can. The internet at least provides millions willing to research facts a platform from which to engage. Perhaps that's why the BBC backlash continues to grow.

If you can''t see the disproportionate airtime the BBC devotes to ensuring we think Trump is an arsehole, immigrants should be welcome by everybody in the UK, and that anything defamatory or racist or sexist or homophobic in any shape or form will go punished under the gaze of a draconian media system limiting free speech, then I pity the coercing impact the BBC sadly appears to have had on you.

Couldn’t agree more Wolfman. C4 makes no effort to hide its left/liberal agenda even though its charter as a public broadcaster is as a non partisan organisation. Sky News has been infected with a majority of left leaning political reporters and program content. I’m not sure how this has come about? Does Murdoch still own Sky? ITV News is about the least left of all the terrestrial news channels but who the fuck watches ITV? Question Time is a perfect yardstick to measure BBC impartiality by and I have yet to ever see a panel with an equal or even centre right make up in the fifteen or more years I’ve watched it. Brexit on the BBC before and after the referendum was so remain biased that it was embarrassing for anyone to even try to defend the BBCs impartiality. But people have started to see through  the fake news and vilifying of anyone of the non liberal PC brigade and to me that can only be a good thing. Less and less people are using BBC output every year and they’ve only got themselves to blame. 

[Guest Dr Twatmagnet]

9 hours ago, Wolfie said:

 

Seeing as you both appear to be falling in love, despite the 25-year age gap, I thought I'd respond to these collectively.

Bill, you and I have always gotten along – despite the obvious politics dividing our opinions. You are, to say the least, a cut above the vast majority.

Your words above, however, appear to have fallen out of someone's festering cunt. I had feared one day we may be on a collision course, so perhaps that time has come.

In pursuit of better understanding our media, and particularly the BBC, one has to take a critical stance on the way news (and fake news) is reported – and in my opinion there have always been and remain certain obvious biases in the BBC's coverage.

There's never been and currently no other media organisation so readily influenced by a liberal narrative it wishes to push. For example, the liberal 'morality' that has taken over in Britain in the past 20 years is (almost solely) the creation of the fucking BBC. What you see on your screen, what you hear on your radio, every news story, every documentary, every drama, soap opera etc. has to pass a BBC 'agenda' test – much of which is based on multiculturalism, feminism, Islam, gays, transgenders, ensuring not to offend foreigners, and so on. When broadcast, will this show a minority group in a bad light? If the answer is 'yes' then it fails to cut the mustard and doesn't make it to the airwaves. Is this a fair (and realistic) way to report news from around the world?

Parts of the organisation border militantly liberal, so much so its staff and political editors (who masquerade as liberals) at times echo Third Reich levels of propaganda. I think you'll agree the disproportionate salaries some BBC employees receive by way of licence fee enforcement are fairly fucking non-liberal. It took the corrupt bastards years to set up an inquiry into its own salary abuse, which it then twisted into a sexism row (in favour of women) to draw attention from the fact they were all getting so much in the first place:

As for other broadcasters, Roops, have you ever noticed how none, including Channel 4, ever really departs from the lead taken by the BBC? The difference is the manner with which the BBC reports news. It's very, very biased.

Take Brexit for example. There's been airtime favouritism towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1, with the usual overemphasis on Tory Party divisions and a massive underrepresentation of Eurosceptics. Not so with Channel 4, ITV and Sky. From the comfort of your spunk-stained navy blue BHS sofa throw, can you recall how much the BBC actually reported on Farage's 15 years in the EU Parliament when compared to the non-stop claptrap from pro-EU politicians?

The most disappointing thing here is the internet has opened up a plethora of media outlets from which people can choose, and yet, the BBC sadly remains the benchmark so far as the average Wetherspoon's Sun/Mirror-reading cuntwit is concerned (that's you, @Dr Twatmagnet). And this is precisely what the BBC wants – to influence those it can. The internet at least provides millions willing to research facts a platform from which to engage. Perhaps that's why the BBC backlash continues to grow.

If you can''t see the disproportionate airtime the BBC devotes to ensuring we think Trump is an arsehole, immigrants should be welcome by everybody in the UK, and that anything defamatory or racist or sexist or homophobic in any shape or form will go punished under the gaze of a draconian media system limiting free speech, then I pity the coercing impact the BBC sadly appears to have had on you.

Have you not died of HIV you boring cunt . For the record I dont buy or read either of the newspapers mentioned. So go and get your crayons and book and have a nice day . Ps put your bib on , your breakfast wont be long you fucking retard.

[Guest Bill Stickers]

11 hours ago, Wolfie said:

.For example, the liberal 'morality' that has taken over in Britain in the past 20 years is (almost solely) the creation of the fucking BBC. What you see on your screen, what you hear on your radio, every news story, every documentary, every drama, soap opera etc. has to pass a BBC 'agenda' test – much of which is based on multiculturalism, feminism, Islam, gays, transgenders, ensuring not to offend foreigners, and so on.

 

It’s quite baffling someone who seems educated, eloquent and rational can believe the BBC is almost the sole driving force behind ‘liberal morality’.

I think you massively overestimate the influence of the BBC in today’s Britain. It’s far less relevant than it ever has been, with people consuming media from the most diffuse sources, mediums and channels in human history.

A lot of teenagers and 20-somethings like myself rarely listen to any BBC output on a daily basis, and haven’t done so for years. The odd documentary or podcast maybe in any given month, and some of the comedy output like This Country. A dose of radio 6.

Certain sections of the BBC certainly spend a lot of time focusing on minority groups in society, but you also have the left constantly suggesting there is anti-Corbin bias and so forth. 

I want the BBC to put out challenging content and if it’s not pissing off both far reaches of our political and social spectrum, it’s not doing it’s job.

[Mrs Roops]

16 hours ago, King Billy said:

Apology owed and offered. I misread your quote and I feel a right cunt now. Caught me cold today and fair play to you. TKO round 1 first punch thrown. 🥊

...and graciously accepted.

[King Billy]

8 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

...and graciously accepted.

I suppose a quick knee trembler is out of the question?

[Mrs Roops]

12 hours ago, Wolfie said:

 

Seeing as you both appear to be falling in love, despite the 25-year age gap, I thought I'd respond to these collectively.

Bill, you and I have always gotten along – despite the obvious politics dividing our opinions. You are, to say the least, a cut above the vast majority.

Your words above, however, appear to have fallen out of someone's festering cunt. I had feared one day we may be on a collision course, so perhaps that time has come.

In pursuit of better understanding our media, and particularly the BBC, one has to take a critical stance on the way news (and fake news) is reported – and in my opinion there have always been and remain certain obvious biases in the BBC's coverage.

There's never been and currently no other media organisation so readily influenced by a liberal narrative it wishes to push. For example, the liberal 'morality' that has taken over in Britain in the past 20 years is (almost solely) the creation of the fucking BBC. What you see on your screen, what you hear on your radio, every news story, every documentary, every drama, soap opera etc. has to pass a BBC 'agenda' test – much of which is based on multiculturalism, feminism, Islam, gays, transgenders, ensuring not to offend foreigners, and so on. When broadcast, will this show a minority group in a bad light? If the answer is 'yes' then it fails to cut the mustard and doesn't make it to the airwaves. Is this a fair (and realistic) way to report news from around the world?

Parts of the organisation border militantly liberal, so much so its staff and political editors (who masquerade as liberals) at times echo Third Reich levels of propaganda. I think you'll agree the disproportionate salaries some BBC employees receive by way of licence fee enforcement are fairly fucking non-liberal. It took the corrupt bastards years to set up an inquiry into its own salary abuse, which it then twisted into a sexism row (in favour of women) to draw attention from the fact they were all getting so much in the first place:

As for other broadcasters, Roops, have you ever noticed how none, including Channel 4, ever really departs from the lead taken by the BBC? The difference is the manner with which the BBC reports news. It's very, very biased.

Take Brexit for example. There's been airtime favouritism towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1, with the usual overemphasis on Tory Party divisions and a massive underrepresentation of Eurosceptics. Not so with Channel 4, ITV and Sky. From the comfort of your spunk-stained navy blue BHS sofa throw, can you recall how much the BBC actually reported on Farage's 15 years in the EU Parliament when compared to the non-stop claptrap from pro-EU politicians?

The most disappointing thing here is the internet has opened up a plethora of media outlets from which people can choose, and yet, the BBC sadly remains the benchmark so far as the average Wetherspoon's Sun/Mirror-reading cuntwit is concerned (that's you, @Dr Twatmagnet). And this is precisely what the BBC wants – to influence those it can. The internet at least provides millions willing to research facts a platform from which to engage. Perhaps that's why the BBC backlash continues to grow.

If you can''t see the disproportionate airtime the BBC devotes to ensuring we think Trump is an arsehole, immigrants should be welcome by everybody in the UK, and that anything defamatory or racist or sexist or homophobic in any shape or form will go punished under the gaze of a draconian media system limiting free speech, then I pity the coercing impact the BBC sadly appears to have had on you.

Well, I find it interesting that you offer no data save from your own biased perception that airtime was given to pro-Brexit speakers on a ratio of 2:1. In fact you had to strengthen your case by throwing in a schoolboy insult. Despite me being the victim of the alleged "coercing impact" of the BBC's impartiality on Brexit, you will recall that throughout the debate I was resolutely pro-Brexit.

If you want my own observations, the 2:1 ratio in favour of Remainer talking heads is roughly accurate as far as covering the politicos as this was broadly the actual state of play in Westminster and the devolved govt seats. However, when it came to soliciting soundbites from the man-in-the-street (i.e. the people who would finally make the ultimate political decision) and the news reporters' own analysis it was pretty well balanced.

[Mrs Roops]

22 minutes ago, King Billy said:

I suppose a quick knee trembler is out of the question?

Hey, you don't need my permission to self-gratify.

[Wolfie]

2 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Well, I find it interesting that you offer no data save from your own biased perception that airtime was given to pro-Brexit speakers on a ratio of 2:1. In fact you had to strengthen your case by throwing in a schoolboy insult. Despite me being the victim of the alleged "coercing impact" of the BBC's impartiality on Brexit, you will recall that throughout the debate I was resolutely pro-Brexit.

If you want my own observations, the 2:1 ratio in favour of Remainer talking heads is roughly accurate as far as covering the politicos as this was broadly the actual state of play in Westminster and the devolved govt seats. However, when it came to soliciting soundbites from the man-in-the-street (i.e. the people who would finally make the ultimate political decision) and the news reporters' own analysis it was pretty well balanced.

I'm sorry for the schoolboy insult re: spunk-stained BHS sofa throw, however, if you didn't want repurcussions of it, perhaps you shouldn't upload images of yourself naked onto the site.

Re: the 2:1 ratio, when I was writing the post I knew any kind of statistic or data in numerical form would have you frothing at the knickers, and your response didn't disappoint. I took the facts from a report complied by a team of researchers employed by Lord Pearson of Rannoch – a leading Eurosceptic of the 1990s & 2000s, who, like me and millions of others, became increasingly frustrated by what he saw as the BBC's obvious bias. He decided to bankroll a detailed analysis of BBC output in which researchers watched and listened to thousands of hours of BBC news and current affairs output over a five-year period. This massive undertaking resulted in a series of complaints to the BBC – all backed up with statistical data. On the basis of the figures, the researchers concluded there was a long-standing bias towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1.

Here you go:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf

[Wolfie]

5 hours ago, Dr Twatmagnet said:

Have you not died of HIV you boring cunt . For the record I dont buy or read either of the newspapers mentioned. So go and get your crayons and book and have a nice day . Ps put your bib on , your breakfast wont be long you fucking retard.

Such is your obvious inexperience of sites such as this, I knew you'd bite like an angry little stickleback – and you didn't let me down.

Amateur.

[Stubby Pecker]

24 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

I'm sorry for the schoolboy insult re: spunk-stained BHS sofa throw, however, if you didn't want repurcussions of it, perhaps you shouldn't upload images of yourself naked onto the site.

Re: the 2:1 ratio, when I was writing the post I knew any kind of statistic or data in numerical form would have you frothing at the knickers, and your response didn't disappoint. I took the facts from a report complied by a team of researchers employed by Lord Pearson of Rannoch – a leading Eurosceptic of the 1990s & 2000s, who, like me and millions of others, became increasingly frustrated by what he saw as the BBC's obvious bias. He decided to bankroll a detailed analysis of BBC output in which researchers watched and listened to thousands of hours of BBC news and current affairs output over a five-year period. This massive undertaking resulted in a series of complaints to the BBC – all backed up with statistical data. On the basis of the figures, the researchers concluded there was a long-standing bias towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1.

Here you go:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf

You know for a fact she isn't going to take this lying down wolfie...

[Guest Bernard Fuck]

53 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

perhaps you shouldn't upload images of yourself naked onto the site.

Oh really?

[Stubby Pecker]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Fuck said:

Oh really?

Make sure you haven't just eaten before you start you concerted search for fresh wank material bernie boy, you dirty little cunt

[Guest Bernard Fuck]

I'm bored, it won't phase me.

[Mrs Roops]

51 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

I'm sorry for the schoolboy insult re: spunk-stained BHS sofa throw, however, if you didn't want repurcussions of it, perhaps you shouldn't upload images of yourself naked onto the site.

Re: the 2:1 ratio, when I was writing the post I knew any kind of statistic or data in numerical form would have you frothing at the knickers, and your response didn't disappoint. I took the facts from a report complied by a team of researchers employed by Lord Pearson of Rannoch – a leading Eurosceptic of the 1990s & 2000s, who, like me and millions of others, became increasingly frustrated by what he saw as the BBC's obvious bias. He decided to bankroll a detailed analysis of BBC output in which researchers watched and listened to thousands of hours of BBC news and current affairs output over a five-year period. This massive undertaking resulted in a series of complaints to the BBC – all backed up with statistical data. On the basis of the figures, the researchers concluded there was a long-standing bias towards pro-European speakers of about 2:1.

Here you go:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf

An exercise in weasel wordsmanship if ever there was one. Pray tell, how does a nudie pic relate to advocating a POV unless the argument furthered is weak? 

As for the "report" paid for by Lord Pearson, a former leader of UKIP, you should know that Civitas shares the same business address as the Eurosceptic "Business for Britain" and "Vote Leave". The clue is in one of the trustee's, a certain Paul Rudd who is the centre of all this - and there's you pontificating about "coercive impact". Incredible. 

[Wolfie]

2 hours ago, Bernard Fuck said:

Oh really?

Sadly I can't find the image Bernie. (Hmm.. I wonder why, @Mrs Roops?)

If I recall, she was trying to make a point about 'liberal progression' or something, via how normal it is to display using a tampon – a photo of which was taken by her partner at the time when she was on all-fours on her living room sofa, with it dangling out of her gash. She may try to deny it, but it is true.

Unsurprisingly, it was in all likelihood taken 20-30 years ago, before the lure of the South Pole started to materialise. The mere site of it had @Neil & @Eddies' maggots twitching like an electric fence.

[Guest Bernard Fuck]

Playing devils advocate here Wolfie, but I'd have downloaded it and put a print on the ceiling with the other incumbents.

Still, appreciate the effort. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

 

 The mere site of it had @Eddies' maggots twitching like an electric fence.

Fucking right it did, it was the start of the attraction 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

Sadly I can't find the image Bernie. (Hmm.. I wonder why, @Mrs Roops?)

The mere site of it had @Neil & @Eddies' maggots twitching like an electric fence.

It was just before I joined  actually and I can confirm that I never saw the images.There is so much gash on t'internet so I assume it's nothing that I 'ain't seen before.Im off for a jodrell

[and]

19 hours ago, Wolfie said:

In pursuit of better understanding our media, and particularly the BBC, one has to take a critical stance on the way news (and fake news) is reported – and in my opinion there have always been and remain certain obvious biases in the BBC's coverage.

There's never been and currently no other media organisation so readily influenced by a liberal narrative it wishes to push. For example, the liberal 'morality' that has taken over in Britain in the past 20 years is (almost solely) the creation of the fucking BBC. What you see on your screen, what you hear on your radio, every news story, every documentary, every drama, soap opera etc. has to pass a BBC 'agenda' test – much of which is based on multiculturalism, feminism, Islam, gays, transgenders, ensuring not to offend foreigners, and so on. When broadcast, will this show a minority group in a bad light? If the answer is 'yes' then it fails to cut the mustard and doesn't make it to the airwaves. Is this a fair (and realistic) way to report news from around the world?

Parts of the organisation border militantly liberal, so much so its staff and political editors (who masquerade as liberals) at times echo Third Reich levels of propaganda. I think you'll agree the disproportionate salaries some BBC employees receive by way of licence fee enforcement are fairly fucking non-liberal. It took the corrupt bastards years to set up an inquiry into its own salary abuse, which it then twisted into a sexism row (in favour of women) to draw attention from the fact they were all getting so much in the first place:

I should have seen which way the wind was blowing when they cancelled The Black & White Minstrel Show 😢