tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post4217678390756807090..comments2024-01-01T17:21:52.555+00:00Comments on Is the BBC biased?: Lies, damned lies and the BBCCraighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08741318067991857821noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-68644334893734677672016-09-25T04:48:23.921+01:002016-09-25T04:48:23.921+01:00Indeed. I tried to suggest to people that £175 mil...Indeed. I tried to suggest to people that £175 million per week is outrageous enough, why bother exaggerating, but so many couldn't drop it. I lost respect for Douglas Carswell over that, as well as the molecule of it I had left for Boris Johnson.<br /><br />Still, as you say, the dishonesty on the other side was worse.David Preiser (USA)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00055001852090086556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-25616404750037846472016-09-25T04:44:38.601+01:002016-09-25T04:44:38.601+01:00What a load of crap Paul Johnson said about the BB...What a load of crap Paul Johnson said about the BBC and "climate change". They absolutely did make it official policy that the majority of 'scientists' say AGW is real, it's fact, shut up, you "opponents of the consensus" who are probably either paid by the oil companies or just ignorant. The braver thing my @$$.David Preiser (USA)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00055001852090086556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272054900018746845.post-18506336913953810432016-09-24T19:24:54.761+01:002016-09-24T19:24:54.761+01:00Effing outrageous! I would never have chosen the £...Effing outrageous! I would never have chosen the £350 million figure myself (I prefer the rock solid £10 billion per annum) but even so it is a defensible figure, because is represents a liability that is currently ameliorated by a time-limited rebate, and the rebate could be sacrificed by a future government. <br /><br />But let's talk about the dishonesty of the IFS and its spokespersons...why did they never declare their financial interest in the outcome of the EU Referendum, as significant recipients of EU largesse? Do the IFS think that unlike everyone else indpendence and objectivity cannot be jeopardised by receipt of money? <br /><br />I really found the IFS's intereventions the most objectional from that angle. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com