Search results

Just removed some of the waffle for you. Nothing to worry about, just making it more reader-friendly for our audience.

He is quite amusing though. Completely unintentionally, but amusing all the same.

And justify why they don't need a licence. Imagine if that applied to other fields. Car Insurance companies knocking on your door demanding to know why you weren't insured with them, insisting you prove you don't need car insurance or they will take you to court. It's bonkers, but somehow...

That is clearly indefensible by the BBC, and far more serious then just editing out the waffle.

Are we playing the game of what people didn't say? Because I must have missed your condemnation of the multiple peadoes at the BBC and 'our treasured national broadcasters' role in covering them up.

My comment that mods should edit the posts was tongue in cheek given the thread topic. But I agree with what you say. I haven't blocked anyone. But I find it amusing that Wisbech liked the above post, after announcing he was blocking me for hurty words. :ROFLMAO:

Unless their posts are selectively edited by the mods to make them sound like an even bigger bellend.

Does anyone watch Black Belt Barrister? The BBC are very unscrupulous (that's being generous) in chasing and threatening people for licences, often breaking the law themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAiXj07oIic

Not great, but it's well down their list of crimes for me. The simplest thing is to cancel the licence. Provided you are sensible (cancel Iplayer accounts, etc) there is not much they can do.

Not me, I cancelled my licence long ago. I hope the Counts licence fee gets doubled to pay Orange Man. Poetic justice at its finest.

I wonder if they all had a jolly good chortle at the letter of complaints they received about Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, etc. The counts.

Weirdly I misread the headline as 'BBC blows £18 million on Trans' Bloody fuming I was.

Translation: Let's brush it all under the carpet. Child-rape and Necrophilia was much more acceptable back then so no need to judge the perpetrators, or those who looked the other way.

The irony of that damning article is that it is from the BBC themselves so almost certainly plays down their guilt. The truth was almost certainly far worse.

What absolute twaddle. Most western leaders are career politicians that are carefully selected in the back rooms of Davos, primed by the deep state and bank-rolled with billions of dirty money to toe the current establishment line- Macron, Trudeau, Carney, Blair, Sunak, Starmer, etc. Trump...

True, but it's even worse than that. The BBC is effectively an arm of the British state. For them to falsify the statements of the leader of our closest ally is an international incident, a betrayal that may have far-reaching consequences for international relations.

The line 'our treasured national broadcaster' inclines me to believe you are actually a troll. No-on is that naïve. Either a brilliant troll, or an absolute half-wit. I'm leaning towards the former option.

What are you gaslighting on about? Trumps character, good or bad, is irrelevant. This is about the fact that our state broadcaster is a fraud. You don't start a fraud investigation by saying the victim probably deserved it because I don't like him.

Don't forget the Russians. I am sure they must have had something to do with it.

Good Point. What about their own 'Misinformation' Fuhrer? The one who lied on her CV to get the job - Marianna Spring. She should be all over this.