 |
| Vive la difference |
Nick Griffin, October 2009:
The audience is always the same noxious, inarticulate blend of Left-wing local government activists, NHS malcontents, trades union officials, spotty students and women in headscarves. Occasionally, they throw in a couple of comedy Tories with dandruff, for the rest of the crowd to boo.
Last time I was on the programme [...] where 93 per cent of the population is white, and which elected a Conservative MP in 2010 with 41.4 per cent of the vote [...] the audience looked as if it had been bussed in from central casting, carefully selected to reflect the BBC’s view of what Britain should look like. If 41.4 per cent of that audience were Conservative voters, they did a damn good job of disguising it.
Richard Littlejohn, February 2011:
That audience was taken from a city that is no longer British ... That was not my country any more. Why not come down and do it in Thurrock, do it in Stoke, do it in Burnley?Nick Griffin, [on his appearance on Question Time] October 2009:
Do it somewhere where there are still significant numbers of English and British people [living], and they haven't been ethnically cleansed from their own country."
That was not a genuine Question Time; that was a lynch mob...Richard Littlejohn, [on Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time] February 2011:
...this was a licence fee-funded lynching, with Dimbleby acting as head of the posse, rather than a neutral chairman.Whoops! Got one of those the wrong way round.
See what I did there?
5 comments:
Hi - I've treid to register on the MailWatch forum, but it won't take a gmail address, which is all I have I'm afraid. Could anyone help?
Hi Headcuffs - tweeted your request to @mailwatch and they've asked that you DM them with your email address. Hope you saw the tweet and got it sorted.
I had to read this item a couple of times before I figured it out. Why is RLJ going on about something that was on the telly 15 months ago? He's having a go at the BBC! And he can't recall anything more recent to use as material...? I mean there was that Eastenders thing about swopping dead babies...
My guess is that he hasn't been invited recently, or his agent has had an approach knocked back.
Hi guys
I noted an article in the Daily Mail today, entitled: "Hurrah - eating red meat is good for you! After all the warnings, Sunday roast not linked to heart disease".
Amusing, I thought, given that they had previously published such zingers as 'Red meat link to higher risk of breast cancer' on the 5/5/2007, and that 'Red meat can raise the risk of cancer by 25 per cent' on the 10/12/2007; 'Health warning for women as experts claim eating red meat twice a day can increase risk of heart disease' on 17/8/2010, 'Girls with a high meat diet more likely to start periods early AND increase risk of breast cancer and heart disease' on 12/6/2010 & 'Too much red meat could leave you blind, scientists warn' on 19/3/2009.'
Looking more closely, I noted that the article was written by the Meat Advisory Panel, which is funded entirely by - oh, the meat industry. How coincidental!
And then this evening, the Daily Telegraph published an article entitled: 'Eat less red meat, Government scientists warn'. Hmm. Reading this somewhat differing article, I found that a study funded independently of the meat trade and commissioned some time ago by the government is due to publish their findings this week coming. A government source said that 'It is important that people are not put off eating red meat entirely – but it would be irresponsible to ignore the potential health risks. The advice is very clear'.
Interestingly, this article also mentioned that the meat industry is likely to fiercely defend the role of red meat in a balanced diet.
Regards, beastly_bernard - who still can't register on the Mailwatch forum :(
Post a Comment