Nick Robinson - News at 10

[nickle]

What a biased interview. If we take the section with Alan Johnson where the allegation that it was the banks that caused the problem is left unchallenged, with the assumption from the BBC that its true. It's not and that's a very serious pro Labour bias, as usual from the BBC.

What the evidence against the contention that the banks caused the problem? It's very simple. Just look at the scale of the problems.

Labour choose to bail out the banks because it wanted, in part to nationalise them. At the time they were making lots of statements about how the taxpayer would profit. However, if you look at share prices and money spent, the cost so far is about 20 billion. Quantatative easing hasn't had a cost because its the government buying and agreeing to sell back later assets.

Now what about the government? 1,050 billion in Gilts, 1200 billion in civil service pensions, 1,600 billion in state pensions, ... about 5,000 billion in total. The Gilt part alone is rising at 160 billion a year.

20 billion compared to 5,000 billion? No wonder Alan Johnson wants to blame the banks, and Nick Robinson is either too stupid to realise the deception, or is in on the scam. We've already heard his confessions that he knew what was going on in 10 Downing street prior to the election but choose not to report it.

[Teddy Bear]

"...Nick Robinson is either too stupid to realise the deception, or is in on the scam."

While I'm well aware of the BBC pro-Labour bias nickle, I don't pretend to be 'financially aware' of the ins and outs of the particular topic in discussion here, as you appear to be. What I would comment on relates to the sentence I copied above. No doubt there are those working at the Beeb who buy into the propaganda produced there, and merely carry it forward. There are those who see it as a meal ticket and use it to serve themselves. There are those who combine the two. Whatever the individual reason, stupidity lies at the root cause since if they really saw what they were doing to the society, instead of what they should be doing, they would know how twisted and damaging their agenda is.

As an recent example, we have Angela Merkel voicing the realisation that 'multicultural society' without central dominant values accepted by all doesn't work. Yet this is a cause that the BBC has been championing for years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you have divergent practices that threaten the existing indigenous values it's doomed to failure. So the state of our society has been made more complicated and damaged because even the means to have genuine debate where all voices would be fairly heard and considered were removed from the very public service channel that was created for that very purpose.

The fact remains that the Conservatives must recognise how skewed the BBC truly is against them. Why don't they have the courage or conviction to do something about it?