David Keighley’s BBC Brexit Watch: May’s new spinner picks a fight with Fox

Is the BBC biased against Brexit? Overwhelming evidence produced by News-watch shows that it is.

Yet a war of words on the topic within the Conservative Party has broken out. Some of those on the Remain side – along with Theresa May herself – appear to be determined to insult those who think the Corporation’s output  is imbalanced, describing them as ‘absurd’.

Trade Secretary Liam Fox said in the House of Commons on Friday that he was deeply concerned about BBC anti-Brexit bias.

A cross-party group of MPs, including Conservatives Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone, also told BBC Director of News James Harding at a meeting last week that they had serious concerns about the deeply negative approach to almost all aspects of the Brexit process. They submitted a dossier of evidence supporting their claims.

But former BBC producer Robbie Gibb, appointed on Friday as Theresa May’s new director of communications, thinks strongly otherwise. In what he must have known was an incendiary tweet, he declared:

"It's been a privilege to work for the BBC. I will always be a supporter because of its values and commitment to impartiality."

That’s surely another way of declaring war on Dr Fox. Is that a good way to start a new job? To alienate those in the party who think otherwise?

In the same vein, the Conservative former culture minister Ed Vaizey – in a story about fears of BBC bias among Tory MPs – told the i newspaper: “Those people who question the BBC’s patriotism or declare that the BBC is somehow biased in this debate are absurd.”

He added those who level claims of bias against the BBC “have simply lost the argument”.

According to the i news story, Downing Street also distanced itself from Dr Fox’s comments. Theresa May’s official spokesman said: “Ministers and MPs and others will all have their views. It’s a matter for newspapers, broadcasters and others to determine the tone and content of their own coverage.”

He added: “The Prime Minister has always been clear on the need to have a free press and free media in this country.”

Come again? Was that the the voice of Robbie Gibb? Or the effective deputy prime minister, arch-Remainer Damian Green? And is every instinct of Theresa May now suicidal?

Whoever it was who dreamed up this nonsense, they seem to be ignorant about the the BBC Charter. It stipulates that although the BBC has wide discretion in choosing what to broadcast, an over-riding qualification is that it must be impartial.

And who is it in the Conservative Party who in the Mrs May’s estimation is against a ‘free press’? Liam Fox and Messrs Hollobone and Davies did not say they want to to muzzle the BBC or end ‘free media’. Far from it. What they do demand is that the Corporation covers the Brexit process in accordance with the Charter, and makes sure the majority who supported Brexit are not swamped on BBC programming by what amounts to a continuation of Project Fear.

(Image: WTO)

David Keighley

  • Colkitto03

    The BBC claim that because ‘both sides’ complain the this somehow proves their impartiality.
    There is for example a lot of intense dislike in Momentum against Laura Kuennsberg for the way in which she has previously reported on Corbyn.
    All this proves is that the BBC in a neo-liberal organisation. Its Blairite, Its is full of the people David Goodhart describes as ‘anywheres’ They don’t like the hard left of anything right of centre.

    It not that the BBC is biased against Left or Right. ‘Both sides’ is a red herring.
    It is biased against British people who live outside London, outside the upper middle class and outside academia.
    The BBC does not like Britain.

    • Reborn

      I have come to see Left & Right as meaningless terms, comparable to “racism”
      I think they’re useful on individual topics, but not overall.
      The BBC manages to infuriate me with its official, though unadmitted, line on most topics.
      For example, Islam.
      I’m way to the Left of Corbyn/BBC on “faith” (how I despise that word) schools.
      I also recognise Islam, to be far to the Right on all issues, financial, social, philosophical
      than even the harmless, but unpleasant BNP.
      Yet Labour is now the de facto Islamic Party of the UK.
      Your last 4 lines accurately describes the BBC.
      The complete opposite of its long trumpeted raison d’être.
      It’s questionable attitude to the Falklands War has since become its stance against any
      enemy of the UK.

      • Tethys

        I like your first sentence…
        Nurse..fetch me pills!

        • Reborn

          “Certainly Tethys,
          Suicide or viagra ?”

  • 00Le_Gin00

    Locate foot…load,aim…fire!

  • getahead

    Those who fail to see or refuse to admit, BBC bias, should be disposed of.

    • IanE

      BBC delenda est!

  • tomthumb015

    BBC unbiased?? Please nobody falls for that hogwash these days. The BBC is blatantly anti Brexit for all to see. If it was a fully commercial organisation then there would be not criticism, but the BBC leeching off us all via the Licence Fee £££££££££. The BBC Charter ideals is not worth the paper its written on.

  • Tethys

    David, the majority of the nation did not actually support brexit.
    By your formula, brexit should get 37% favourable coverage, but that’s a little totalitarian isn’t it?
    Objective journalism requires facts – of which there are still very few even after 13 months.
    If these facts are not favourable, who’s fault is that?
    There was no talk of a ‘divorce bill’ during the campaign – not even by project fear.

    • Colonel Mustard

      ” . . . the majority of the nation did not actually support brexit.”

      Incredible dissembling. You cannot attribute a preference for either Remain or Leave to those who didn’t vote. Peddling the Lammy nonsense that those who didn’t vote wanted to maintain the status quo won’t wash. Statistical gymnastics to try to de-legitimise the referendum result.

      • suemary

        I know several people who didn’t vote because they were so confused by the hysterical arguments from both sides. Lack of real debate was one of the shameful features of the whole Brexit nonsense. I voted to leave based on my own research but not on any sensible arguments put forward by the leave campaign.

        • Colonel Mustard

          I know lots of people who couldn’t wait to vote out, who detest what the EU has become and everything about it.

          So there we are.

      • Tethys

        The ‘attribution’ was done in the article by claiming majority support.

        • Colonel Mustard

          In the referendum the majority supported Brexit. It is a true statement.

          Adding those who didn’t vote to those who voted to Remain to make a case that Brexit is not supported is dissembling of the worst kind.

          • Tethys

            A narrow majority of voters, but a minority of the nation.

          • Colonel Mustard

            A narrow majority is still a winning majority. And those who don’t vote or can’t vote don’t count. That is the reality of referendum and not for you to change the protocols of voting just because you don’t like the result.

            Your persistence on this is like that of a spoilt child.

          • Tethys

            Two points for you.

            1. Freeloading Nigel Farage said that a 48:52% loss would be ‘unfinushed business’

            2. You don’t have to reply.

    • Bill Quango MP

      Did you think they would list everything in the treaty? And have a discussion of it all?

      For instance, there has been no talk either about the wing mirrors on commercial vehicles. That directive will end if we leave.

      Approval & Compliance – Directive 2007/38/EC
      There have been several changes to the legal requirement to install
      mirrors to commercial vehicles since the mid eighties. Although we have
      laid out the exemptions and requirements in general terms (above), the
      following is a general summary of mirror legislation, taking into
      consideration the new legislation to be introduced on 1st April 2009.
      Subject to the type/size of vehicle, there are currently 6 types of
      mirror which can be fitted to a commercial vehicle as per the table
      below.
      Mirror Type
      Fitment location
      Class I
      Interior rear view mirrors
      Class II
      Main exterior mirrors
      Class III
      Main exterior mirrors
      Class IV
      Wide angle mirrors
      Class V
      Close proximity mirrors
      Class VI
      Front mrrors
      Other factors which dictate mirror fitment are as follows
      Compliance with EU directives specified in the regulations is
      optional for a goods vehicle with maximum gross weight exceeding 3,500kg
      first used on or after 1st April 1983 and before 1st April 1985. But
      compliance is mandatory for vehicles first used after 1 April 1985.
      N3 goods vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1988 have to
      comply with the requirements in EU Directive 85/205 or 86/562 for an
      additional close proximity (kerb) mirror and, in the case of articulated
      vehicles, nearside wide angle mirrors.
      Tractors and locomotives need only one external mirror on the offside
      For definitions of vehicle categories, please refer to the Vehicle Definitions page.

      Directive 2003/97/EC

      This directive introduced the mandatory fitment of class IV and V mirrors with improved fields of vision, and a class VI mirrorgiving a view across the front of the vehicle on new N2 and N3 vehicles from 26 January 2007.
      There is no requirement to fit a mirror to works trucks and pedestrian
      controlled vehicles as indicated in the exemptions noted (above).
      Directive 2007/38/EC
      This directive has been issued requiring that all vehicles of categories
      N2 and N3 not complying with Directive 2003/97/EC must be
      retrofitted, on the passenger side, with improved devices for indirect
      vision, which fulfil the compliance with a reduced field of vision
      of 95 per cent and of 85 per cent for class IV (wide angle) and class V
      (close proximity) mirrors respectively. However, the directive
      does not apply to;vehicles of categories N2 and N3 registered before 1 January 2000
      vehicles of category N2 having a maximum total permissible mass not
      exceeding 7.5 tonnes, where it is impossible to mount a class V
      mirror in a way that ensures that the following conditions are fulfilled
      where;
      no part of the mirror is less than 2 metres (a tolerance of + 10
      centimetres may be applied) from the ground,
      regardless of the adjustment position, when the vehicle is under a load
      corresponding to its maximum technically permissible weight; and
      the mirror is fully visible from the driving position

      NB There is no requirement to retrofit class VI front mirrors which became mandatory on N2 vehicles over 7.5 tonne from 26th
      January 2007.

      The new EU Directive 2007/38/EC requires that by 1st April 2009, all
      trucks over 7.5 tonnes and vehicles over 3.5 tonnes with the larger
      cab must comply with the expanded field of vision. The Directive can be
      viewed at the downloadable pdf file below. Images of the field of
      vision under the new directive as well as the old can also be viewed
      below.

      The deadline for retrofitment of mirrors is the 31st March 2009.

      Directive 2007/38/EC

      There is another thirty pages, but if you want to explore this fascinating area we should start here. What do you think will happen once we have left? No more mirrors? more mirrors? fewer mirrors? or just carry on as we are.
      BTW – The largest contributor to euroatom is the UK. So i doubt anyone bar the nose-cutting, face-spiter,remoaners would want us to quit.

      NB This was one of the first EEc areas the UK was involved in. Roy Jenkins said it was a complete waste of time as it took thirty days to establish what a side mirror actually was.

      • Tethys

        Well no-one expects Ernest Hemingway. Law is boring but necessary.
        Wing mirrors no.
        Divorce bill yes.
        Don’t start on bent bananas.

      • Bugle

        Excellent.

    • DespiteBrexit

      What an incredibly stupid argument. Only 34% supported Remain.

      And the “divorce bill” is entirely a post-event spiteful fabrication of the EU. There is no legal basis for it, as even the EU’s own lawyers have admitted. There is no obligation to pay it – although doubtless you’re the kind of person who thinks we should.

      • Tethys

        63% did not support brexit.
        Latest polls suggest that stat is growing.
        The divorce bill just serves to illuminate the futility of the vote.
        The only logical and democratic solution is to vote on the real proposed deal.
        Or is that TOO Democratic?

        • Nockian

          It’s not democratic unless you want for ever referendums in which the minutia of each deal become grounds for a further referendum. The leave side will equally claim that the remain side did not vote for items of policy that weren’t substantially written into the new contract-and any contract cannot possibly encompass everything in that respect, for if it did, it would need to be exactly the same question ( unlimited) as was the case in the original referendum.

          If you don’t grasp these facts you aren’t trying. Brexit isn’t a pragmatic decision, it was based on a binary question which left nothing open. Another referendum would simply ask the same question to which there must be the same objections-hence an infinite regression.

          • Tethys

            Nope, just one.
            The facts which need grasping are the reality of what brexit will mean in practical terms.
            False analysis there.

          • Nockian

            None of us know what exactly it means, neither do we know what remaining would mean.

            The only interest I have is to leave a crumbling behemoth that wastes our money like dirty water, makes our laws without a democracy, allows the free movement of people without restriction and prevents free trade-even amongst its own members. Apart from those things I have no bother at all with it.

            All I want is to leave and I couldn’t give a stuff about exactly what the negotiators will decide is an appropriate bill. I would quite happily trade on WTO terms like every other country outside the EU. If that makes us poorer then so be it, the Government will then need to free off our own markets to allow greater competition and flexibility. In other words we will likely be forced towards a laissez faire politics which will sting at first, but, like every opportunity it must be worked at to aquire the wealth that capitalism can bring.

          • Tethys

            Which is your personal view, and which if shared by sufficient others in full knowledge of the options would be fair and logically democratic.
            The key point is that we can & shall know substantially what will happen upon leaving.
            You may be happy to leave unconditionally but others may not, just as they may prefer not to be made ‘poorer’ as you put it.
            Why deny them that voice?
            Why be less democratic?

          • Colonel Mustard

            Your view is personal too. But like so many on the left of politics you presume to speak for everyone and presume that only your answer is the right answer.

          • Tethys

            Yes it is personal as is every entry here, and you are free to explain your view on why an informed vote would be less democratic.

          • Nockian

            Most people I talked to on the doorstep accepted that there would be a cost, they gladly accepted it. They also felt it would offer more opportunity to their children.

            The official campaign groups were both offering visions of the future, neither could be said to be wholly accurate, if my personal view had been shared (I did so on the doorstep), then there would have been no need for campaign groups-but people generally want someone to make their minds up for them.

            Operation fear told them of all the horrors that would befall the leave voters, not just on leaving, but on the day the votes were counted. We were told in no uncertain terms what it would mean by everyone from pop stars, the CBI, president Obama, the IMF and a whole panoply of glitterati and the wise. We still voted to leave despite that vision.

            Everyone had a chance to vote, we did so in full knowledge of what we were voting for, we all understood what a referendum was and what the impact of voting would be. No ones voice was denied-no one was prevented from voting or had their vote discarded or changed. It is what it is. It wasn’t a pragmatic vote,it was binary, its implications can’t be twisted and corrupted to mean something more/less than what it was.

          • Tethys

            The vote was not held in full knowledge of what it was for or what the impact would be.
            So how would an informed vote detract from that?

          • Nockian

            No one has complete certainty about the future, that’s why we had two campaigns that tried to give us their view of it. In actuality I never listened to either one and many I know did not either, they preferred to research the issue themselves.

            If we, God forbid, were asked to vote on a war, then we would look at the potential outcome of either fighting, or remaining neutral. All we know is that whichever we choose we cannot fully know the outcome, we have to take our best shot. Maybe refusing to fight would leave us occupied by some vicious regime, or in fighting we may lose our lives. However we choose, we don’t have another referendum once the battle has begun because we had a change of heart, then another one because we now predict the danger of not fighting would be worse.

            It doesn’t matter what ‘deal’ we get because that’s the only one we will be getting, that is seperate from our vote to leave. If we had voted to remain, then should we have had referendums on every new law and change the EU put through ? No, of course not, we vote in a Government to decide and negotiate the details. We can’t keep saying ‘oh look the EU looks a bit worse, so now we need another referendum. We have to draw a line under the decision to leave, then we negotiate as close to a free trade deal as we can manage.

            If we have already decided to have yet another referendum on the ‘deal’ we set ourselves up to fail in the negotiations- the EU can simply give us nothing at all and wait for us to change our minds. It’s just another ploy by those who wish to remain to overturn the democratic vote by stealth.

          • Tethys

            This is neither a war or a trip to the supermarket…not even a general election.
            It is no more or less than our medium term future, so to say
            It doesn’t matter what deal we get is just a bit darft.

          • Nockian

            The deal we get comes second to leaving the EU. The democracy bit is over, it’s time for the politicians to get whatever deal they can get, I don’t make predictions over that deal. One thing that is clear from Europe’s insistence on a big bunch of cash from the British taxpayer, is that they are a dis-functional economy that not exists by sucking on the teat of the most productive countries in order to survive in the current state. That they carry on demanding cash first shows just how corrupt and dishonest they really are-we should never ever want to be part of that kind of club, it’s life will be short and nasty once Britain has left.

          • Colonel Mustard

            You cannot predict what Brexit will mean in practical terms.

            You also cannot predict what Remain would have meant had we voted to stay in. However the current conniving of that unelected gang of foreign chancers in Brussels provides a clue.

          • Tethys

            Don’t think many voted for big DUP influence either.

          • Colonel Mustard

            That is a completely irrelevant comment to the question of the referendum thrown out because you have no other argument to make.

            Why are you even here? You are clearly no conservative.

        • Colonel Mustard

          More dissembling. It was a referendum. The result was determined by voting not by not voting.

          • Tethys

            Better or proper referenda operate on the basis of defined mandate thresholds, and with proper oversight to correct wilful misrepresentation in the campaigns. ie New Zealand.
            Oh and they also have a question which is fit for purpose to start with.
            Whether I like the result is not relevant but I do care about the process, and what that says about us, just as I care about false constructions being put on the vote.
            Not many countries would consider what happened here to be adequate.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Unfair comparison. The NZ flag referendum was based on tangible, physical objects, first to choose one of five flags to compete with the existing flag, then to decide whether it should replace the existing flag. New Zealand is also sovereign whilst the UK is beset with EU federal law and its puppet and slave organisations.

            A committee to decide on EU relationship options before the referendum would have been pie in the sky. Firstly it would never have got off the ground or agreed your so-called “defined mandate”, there being too many partisan and vested interests here in respect to the EU. Secondly Cameron’s woeful re-negotiation attempt demonstrated EU intransigence and arrogance. The referendum had to be simple and binary because everything else had to flow from that.

            Of course whether you like the result is relevant. That is the basis for your whole argument. Instead of accepting the result you dissemble to represent it as illegitimate and/or inadequate. It is you who is creating “false constructions”.

    • Nockian

      We didn’t require the details, we accepted that there might be a price for freedom-there usually is. Out means out with as little dust and heat as we can manage, but fully accepting that there will be a degree of dust and heat.

      We had a referendum-despite my own reservations about conducting politics in that way-the result was clear and with the lawyers now out of the way, democracy must prevail. Should democracy be confounded there will be a reaction and it will occur alongside a revitalised hard left. The result would not be pretty. Remember the hard left want Brexit.

      • Tethys

        Out means out means what?
        You may be able to welcome or tolerate ‘heat and dust’ but others may be more affected.
        Do you feel that the referendum was a democratic exemplar ??
        I think your view is all about the result rather than democracy.
        Do you not agree?

        • Nockian

          Means leaving the EU. As if we never joined it.
          I can’t speak for others, I’m doing the best for me personally as everyone else surely did when they placed their vote.

          It was most certainly a democratic exemplar, but then I don’t regard democracy highly, it literally is about the mob, which is why we have a parliamentary democracy rather than true democracy.

          The fact is that the Conservatives were voted in with the referendum as part of their manifesto- UKIP took a substantial share of the vote at the same time. Cameron promised that we would personally steer us to leave the EU if he couldn’t get the EU to reform. He went with very little in terms of demands and returned with nothing.

          Every attempt was made to hinder, scare and weasel out of the result of the referendum-from Maria Miller to the HoL rejection through amendment. It can’t be said that those who wish to remain haven’t had a good run by parliamentary democracy and through the courts. At this stage it couldn’t be more democratic.

    • noix

      Very strange how things that existed prior to us joining the EEC, as it then was, are now part of the EU. No doubt Eurovision as well then.

      • Longstone253

        Hm, yes, I’ve noticed how pro-EU commentators are increasingly referring to the EU as ‘Europe’ and EU-countries as ‘Europeans’?! Nobody seems to remark on this or argue against it. Eurovision is an anomaly for the EU, so never mentioned: For Eurovision to be similarly ‘culturally appropriated’ by the EU, Azerbaijan might need to accept the Euro and Free Movement?

  • Robert

    Joe Blogs: ” I see a chap says here that the BBC is ‘impartial’. Fair enough. Must be true.”
    Jayne Public: ” Huh! Says the chap from the BBC!”
    Joe Blogs: (frantically waving his hand in front of his face) “Get away! Shoo!”
    Jayne Public: ” What’s the matter?”
    Joe Blogs: “There’s something irritating in front of my face.”
    Jayne Public: “That’s your nose!”

  • grumpyashell

    My distrust of the BBC happened years ago,every morning whilst driving to work I would listen to radio 4. This was during the Blair years of coarse, and I started to notice a distinct change in how the questioning changed between those in government and the opposition,in fact it came to the point that I could actually predict the questioning and the answers especially from the Labour spokesman.
    Since then it has become more Londoncentric,more multicultural,more full of its own self importance,plus what really gets me is how the news is picked to fill its own narrative. Anything that does not fit is ignored, the sooner the license fee is abolished the better,then it would have to actually compete and get into the real world

    • Bill Quango MP

      Agree entirely.
      Same thing happened to me. Loyal R4 listener for twenty years. I was even listening on the day they suddenly announced that Blair had sexed up the dossier for Iraq.
      So they weren’t always Blairite fanboys.

      But over the years it just became tiresome and a repetitive attack on any Tory in office .And a spin all of their own to fit their narrative. The non-reporting of any bad news to do with Europe. Favourable climate change stories only. Wittering on about brexit chaos as if they were the official state broadcaster for the EU itself.

      So off it went. BBC TV too.

      Not that they care about losing viewers. The money comes in whether anyone is watching or not.

      • ScaryBiscuits

        I stopped paying my licence fee over a decade ago. I haven’t watched the BBC since and watch very little scheduled TV of any sort. If I really want a presenter to read the news for me I can go to Sky or ITV, which are much the same. If I want to watch a drama or a documentary with the Mrs, Netflix or Amazon have far better catalogues in a more accessible format.
        I would urge everybody who feels the same about the BBC to stop paying or watching them. It’s not true that their money comes in anyway and it really will hurt them if enough people do it.

    • suemary

      No question about it being Londoncentric.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      It began during Heath’s reign, when he instructed Aljabeeba to sack Jack DiManio for being against joining the EEC.

  • ScaryBiscuits

    In what he must have known was an incendiary tweet…
    Keighley is far too kind to the BBC-oids. Robbie Gibbs has no idea that stating the impartiality of the BBC is a controversial opinion. Everybody he knows agrees with him. Ed Vaizey doesn’t know anybody who dislikes the BBC either. That’s why he thinks criticism of it is absurd. Generally, it’s the same people who think the BBC is great as thought the same of the EU and couldn’t understand why anybody would vote to leave it.
    These are not calculated views but visceral. If they were calculated, it wouldn’t be so bad because we could appeal to their self-interest. Instead it is much worse in that the BBC and much of the Tory genuinely think they are being sensible and are deaf to any other opinions. They will be no reasoning with them; only removing them from elected office or their over-priced chairs in Media City will solve the problem.

  • Andrew Mitchell

    I’m beginning to think that Mrs May actually wants to see her own term as PM finish as fast as possible and in the most damaging way to the Tory party, and I think she’s not the only one within the Tory party with this weird aim, nobody is that dull, quiet or soft that they would welcome someone into a position of power within their own office just after having to sack two advisors, who’s advice insured going from a win, win situation to a losing one, who’s kicked off their new role by telling those who actually support May, that their wrong and that the very people responsible for attacking them and their party, is actually a great thing that needs to be supported? Nobody is that thick, which is why I now believe Mrs May isn’t making mistakes, she and some within her circle are doing these insane things on purpose, I feel sorry for Davies, Fox and Johnson, their sticking up for her and trying to insure a good Brexit, but she’s going out of her way to screw it up, I’ve argued with many that she needs to be trusted, that she’ll pull through and do a good Brexit, I won’t be making that mistake again.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      What took you so long to realise how devious and crooked the Tory party is?

  • Greenslime

    It is always difficult for those inside the forest to see all of the trees. That can be the only reason why Mr Gibb might think that the BBC is an unbiased beast. I suspect he doesn’t believe his own comments either, but that they are part of a longer term diplomatic attempt to bring the Guardianistas who dominate the news department at the BBC around. I hope he is patient and doesn’t mind disappointment!

  • The PrangWizard of England

    I’m in Ed Vaisey’s constituency – I’m proud to say voted UKIP precisely because of him and his views. He is insufferably smug, mixes a lot with insufferably smug around here.

    • Longstone253

      Ditto.

      • Longstone253

        Even though the UKIP candidate looked a bit scary and lived in the North East! 🙂

  • derekandclive

    Faux Tory party appoints remain supporting ex-BBC producer as director of communications because he and his former organisation think exactly as they do – any conservatives (with a small ‘c’) that thought for a moment that the faux Tory party were running anything other than a faux Brexit campaign have certainly been put right now.
    Meanwhile foreign aid(that darling of the BBC and the Labour progressive Islington 3rd sector) and HS2 (darling of the EU transport commission) remain completely out of bounds – it’s as though Tony and Peter and their mini-me clones Dave and Gideon never left.

  • Kaiser

    Robbie Gibb, yet another kick in the teeth for leavers courtesy of Sharia May

  • SonofBoudica

    BBC = left wing agenda and propaganda. End of.

  • herding cats

    In the same vein, the Conservative former culture minister Ed Vaizey – in a story about fears of BBC bias among Tory MPs – told the i newspaper: “Those people who question the BBC’s patriotism or declare that the BBC is somehow biased in this debate are absurd.”

    He added those who level claims of bias against the BBC “have simply lost the argument”.

    Why doesn’t this cretin just say we are all little Englanders and Swivel Eyed Loons. Conservatives it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for you again.

  • Mojo

    Mrs May is definitely not only on a mission for her own suicide but that of the Conservative Party. I was hoping she would last long enough to see us through Brexit. However, it seems that every opportunity she has to support the Leavers she chooses instead to kick us down. It may be now that many Leavers will also think about replacing her.

  • Nockian

    It’s never going to be impartial and if it’s to be a ‘free press’ then it must be part of the free market so that people can choose to buy it if they so wish. Their days are numbered anyway, the Internet news hounds have made them as redundant as the knocker up man in a world full of personal digital alarm clocks. It’s only a matter of time before they cease being a media force for anyone but those who are too old to have adopted the digital age. The Government uses the BBC for propaganda and that’s the only reason it still exists as a tax payer funded entity.

  • Kenneth

    The BBC has a chilling affect across media.

    It is the only serious long term employer and therefore it’s inevitable that journalists will ape the BBC meme in order to keep in its favour.

    We need a free and plural media that is not dominated by one point of view.

    The best way is for the BBC to STOP having a point of view.

    • Harley Quin

      The way to get a genuine spread of opinion is to put in place management which would split up the organisation into three . This could be done by allocated one of their channels as follows:

      1. Left leaning to radical left
      2. Centrist
      3. Right leaning to radical right.

      Each of these channels should recruit individuals who conform to their category according to personality etc tests.

      This way, bias would be open an honest rather than covert and lying.

  • Bugle

    “It’s a matter for newspapers, broadcasters, and others to determine the tone and content of their own coverage.” Not when we are obliged to pay for it, it isn’t.

    • Countrywatch

      What a weak response from May. Does she not realise her responsibility to the electorate to ensure that the BBC adheres to the terms of the Charter. If she does not step in, then it would seem that she is happy with their anti Brexit stance. Hugely worrying.

      • Bugle

        Agreed. I have been trying to think the best of May, but there are two pieces of evidence which make me wonder if we have been stitched up. First, the senior Tories thrust May upon us. Second, May’s policy positions appear to be entirely aligned with globalism: the only exception being Brexit.

  • Dave S

    Continued discussion about BBC bias is a waste of time. It cannot be so because it says it never is. That it favours Remain hates Trump favours each and every progressive idiocy is just the BBC behaving normally.

    • Harley Quin

      The sneers at Trump are routine on the ‘balanced and impartial’ BBC.

      An aristocrat may go to goal for offering £5000 to anyone who would run over Gina Miller.

      I look forward then to seeing those several BBC individuals I could name who have suggested that President Trump should be assassinated, also behind bars,

  • Great Briton

    On the 18th October the BBC is 95 years old.
    Law abiding citizens have no easy way to show their disapproval with the BBC.
    Join me in a Day of Inaction on that date.
    Hit the BBC where it hurts, in their viewing figures.

    Please get behind this, in every comments section let people know about the protest of the silent majority

    • TheRightToArmBears

      There’s only one way to hit Aljabeeba.
      Stop paying the TV tax.
      bbctvlicence.com will show you what a paper tiger it is.
      Become a patriot again.

  • Nick

    brexit is going to be the opposite of what the public wonted as outlined by this briefing
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08ws22b/briefings-britain-and-europe-one-year-on

    Professor Vernon Bogdanor explains very clearly on what brexit is and how it relates to this country and to those who thought there might be some benefit to the average person

    I suggest everyone watch it and learn including Davis and fox and any other know all kicking about who knows nothing in reality

    • springmellon

      If you think the BBC are still a worthwhile source to refer to for objective opinion, you are an imbecile.

  • springmellon

    Mrs May way an appallingly bad Home Secretary, so it is unsurprising that she is an awful PM.
    When she took over we thought we had another Margaret Thatcher, when we actually have another John Major.

    Mrs May’s fundamental problem is that she has poor judgment and surrounds herself with others that are equally inadequate. The likes of Jeremy Hunt, Hammond and Rudd are just useless third rate politicians

    The Party has shining talents in it, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Daniel Hannan, yet they are shamefully left on the sidelines.

    In short, Mrs May needs to go at the earliest opportunity; she is just not up to the job and no amount of fancy clothes and snazzy shoes can disguise it.

  • Ravenscar

    Doesn’t the EU via Brussels……….well via the UK taxpayer [a double whammy!] remit funding directly to the beeb, duh!? dey is gonna be for da EU innit?

    As I said oft’ and on all about theresa may, that, she was more gung ho PC than was mad hattie harperson, so it has proved to be the case. I cannot perceive it but she might, get us out of the slave Empire – I could alter my feelings but it’s a leap, a chasm in fact.

  • UKCitizen

    THEY AND SHE ARE NOT TORIES!

  • JabbaPapa

    hmmmm, President Macron just said something interesting :

    http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2017/07/13/reformes-macron-maintient-le-rythme_5159797_823448.html

    Il a réclamé sur ce sujet « une articulation avec l’accès des Britanniques à nos marchés financiers dans le cadre du Brexit » car « sinon, si toutes vos entreprises peuvent aller opérer depuis Londres, qui se lancera dans le dumping fiscal, avec les mêmes droits qu’à Paris ou à Francfort, elles vont toutes partir »

    Basically, unless the EU gets Brexit right, he’s worried about massive loss of business as companies leave the Paris and Frankfurt trading platforms to keep their ties through London to the rest of the world, especially if they’re not hindered in their trading with Europe from the UK.

    He’s therefore campaigning for a more or less maintaining of the status quo post-Brexit, and implying that some sort of taxation and trading deal with the UK is necessary.