Reading you conservatives makes me so horney!

That's odd... I am certain I read some poll results that Blair was supported by a fairly comfortable majority in the UK.

Whoops:

https://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/content_objectid=13129078_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Voters-don-t-trust-Blair--says-poll-name_page.html

Two out of three dont trust Blair, where did you read those kid-on poll numbers?

Well then I stand corrected, harm. Seems the UK has fewer sensible people than I thought. I suppose the poll I saw was a couple months ago... where does the time go?

Back to the point, the Scotsman details at least one instance where they directly contradict the BBC on it's accuracy. Even other members of the UK media have problems with the BBC's acuracy.

You do not find that troubling? Our do they match your politics enough that you give them a free ride"

For all the whining you've done over FOX, I should think you would at least make an attempt at appearing to be consistent.

One other thing, if your position is to defend the BBC, you make the point of my post for me.

Damned by your being on their side.

My what a clever argument Puggs

BTW I do hope George Bush wins the election!

Heh.
harmonia has a funny post, what is the world coming to?

Yeah, it's a funny comeback, but it doesn't really answer (or negate) Pugg's point. If a communist America hater is coming to the defense of the BBC, that would seem to speak volumes about the ideological slant of said "news" organization. The BBC is no different than the Guardian or the Independent from an ideology standpoint. BUT, it is a state supported institution with a mandatory fee for every household in the UK (something like $1500/year).

At least here in the US you can choose not to support PBS if it isn't to your liking. In the UK you have to support the BBC AND listen to their left leaning horseshit.

Mollbot,

Blair did enjoy a peak in popularity a couple of months ago, but it was short lived. I'd say there is a good chance his time at number 10 Downing street is limited.

SHE'S BACK!! Our widdle baby has come home!! We all missed you so very much my dear Ms. Harmonia. Misha not providing you with the attention you need over at the Rottweiler? Well, you know that you can always come here to be admired, don't you? Without you around it was almost like, well..... rational and sane. But now that you've returned we shall rejoice! Now, go forth - and troll like you've never trolled before!!!

Oh, yeah, and I notice that in Harm's cute little comeback, she completely ignores the major point of Pugg's post, dealing with the inaccuracy of the BBC. Back to business as usual, eh Harm? I might have to get the trollinator out sooner than I thought if this keeps up.

As someone who actually saw the BBC documentary concerned I think I can safely ignore your comments. They had film of the British letting people out of Basra than claiming the Iraqi militia were firing on them, pretty conclusive stuff, no wonder the army is screaming blue murder.

The vast majority of people here trust the BBC far more than Blair, as the poll above demonstrates.

BTW We pay �100 to the BBC, not $1000!

I see your censorship programme is back.

Nice to know that even my simple arguments are scaring you so much.

Keep it up though and it's bye bye again, leaving you all here to play with each other!

The Scotsman clearly stated that they confirm the British Armies version, in effect the BBC lied. They didn't have footage of the attack, so they simply say it didn't happen. Really? Is that how it works?

If a young buck drags you into an alley and bends you over to take you for an unwilling test drive, and the BBC has no film that means it didn't happen and you'd be a liar. That's your arguement.........You really don't think on your own at all do you?

You loved the propaganda, that's nice. It also shows why we don't believe the BBC.

Happen to know the Scotsman's politics do you?

Thought not, very right-wing pro-war paper that hates the BBC, not a very good source.
It's editor is a man called Andrew Neil, who spookily enough is a very close associate of Rupert Murdoch. Starting to see a motive yet?

It is still arguing that the WMD's will be found, which in itself is rather funny

Lord Tebbit.

https://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=420272

Oh OK I see now, the BBC is to be believed because it puts YOUR point of view across. Their journalists are beyond reproach, EVERYONE one else is lying...........

You really don't see how truely absurd that statement you just made was do you. They went on the record with facts and sources that can be checked. The Beeb cranks out opinion and distortion pieces as "documentaries" and you just soak them up because they play to your prejudice.

Do you know what a lemming is?

Lord Tebbit, Thatchers biggest ally in the 1980's?

His view one of mine?

But still, trust Andrew Neil, why not?

(although it may be worth seeing the coverage befoer commenting on it)

You still haven't answered shit.