Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!

"Commander Gideon"  wrote in message 
news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
>

Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)


-- 
RobertJM

On 3 Jul, 12:39, "RobertJM"  wrote:
> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>
> news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
> Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)

Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.

B2003

"Boltar"  wrote in message 
news:1183476639.466169.72200@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Jul, 12:39, "RobertJM"  wrote:
>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>>
>> Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)
>
> Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
> would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
> consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
> having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
> least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
> about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
>
> B2003



No I think you will find he is still a cunt
G

> > Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
> > would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
> > consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
> > having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
> > least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
> > about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
> >
> > B2003
>
>
>
> No I think you will find he is still a cunt
> G

A bit harsh, as Mr Parry might say!

"Commander Gideon"  wrote in message 
news:ZoNii.20669$j7.378309@news.indigo.ie...
>> > Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
>> > would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
>> > consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
>> > having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
>> > least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
>> > about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
>> >
>> > B2003
>>
>>
>>
>> No I think you will find he is still a cunt
>> G
>
> A bit harsh, as Mr Parry might say!
>
>well perhaps ,he does remind me of my uncle so I think my original 
>diagnosis
is correct

Dr G

GMK wrote:
> "Boltar"  wrote in message
> news:1183476639.466169.72200@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> On 3 Jul, 12:39, "RobertJM"  wrote:
>>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>> Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other
>>>> night!
>>>
>>> Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)
>>
>> Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway.
>> I would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
>> consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
>> having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
>> least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
>> about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
>
>
> No I think you will find he is still a cunt

But an entertaining er...cunt! When I get the chance, I like listening to his
occasional rants.

> >
> >
> > No I think you will find he is still a cunt
>
> But an entertaining er...cunt! When I get the chance, I like listening to
his
> occasional rants.
>
Whether you agree with him or not,its still entertaining radio!

Commander Gideon wrote:
> 
> Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!

Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

"Frederick Williams" <"Frederick Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in message news:468BB570.91628EC1@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid...
> Commander Gideon wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?
>
UK commercial talk radio station on DAB,AM 1053 & 1089 and digital satellite
(Sky Channel 0108)

On 4 Jul, 15:57, Frederick Williams <"Frederick
Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Commander Gideon wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?
>
It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.. If you have 2 brain cells to rub
together, I wouldn't bother finding out.

clippertyclop wrote:

> It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
> and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.

It is aimed at White-Van-Man in the main, but the non-sport stuff is 
good for a laugh. I find Gaunty is a breath of fresh air compared to the 
PC phone-ins on R5.

"Silk"  wrote in message 
news:5f7ibiF39pmn5U2@mid.individual.net...
> clippertyclop wrote:
>
>> It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
>> and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.
>
> It is aimed at White-Van-Man in the main, but the non-sport stuff is good 
> for a laugh. I find Gaunty is a breath of fresh air compared to the PC 
> phone-ins on R5.

James Whale & Mike Mendoza are generally quite good. Gaunt it a prat as is 
Galloway.

But they do spend far too much time talking about the sport of "poofball". I 
mean even in the short off season they've managed to bore us shitless 
talking about this over hyped game played by dodgy gay men.

Also their obsession with flogging frigging televisions and mobile phones is 
annoying.

Crazy Ivan wrote:

> James Whale & Mike Mendoza are generally quite good. Gaunt it a prat as is 
> Galloway.

The trouble is, Gaunt is the only one on when I'm at work in the car. I 
wouldn't give any of it the time of day when I'm at home.
> 
> But they do spend far too much time talking about the sport of "poofball". I 
> mean even in the short off season they've managed to bore us shitless 
> talking about this over hyped game played by dodgy gay men.

There is no limit to my hatred of the evil game, although I don't like 
any sport really. Wimbledon is driving me nuts already, and that's just 
the bits on the news. You can't see to get away from it. They even have 
sports news on Planet Rock - is there no escape?
> 
> Also their obsession with flogging frigging televisions and mobile phones is 
> annoying. 

I suppose they have to earn the money so Gaunt can "turn left of the 
plane" as he keeps telling us. I think he really means the cargo hold.

"Silk"  wrote in message 
news:5f7q0lF3a9a4oU1@mid.individual.net...
> Crazy Ivan wrote:
>
>> James Whale & Mike Mendoza are generally quite good. Gaunt it a prat as 
>> is Galloway.
>
> The trouble is, Gaunt is the only one on when I'm at work in the car. I 
> wouldn't give any of it the time of day when I'm at home.
>>
>> But they do spend far too much time talking about the sport of 
>> "poofball". I mean even in the short off season they've managed to bore 
>> us shitless talking about this over hyped game played by dodgy gay men.
>
> There is no limit to my hatred of the evil game, although I don't like any 
> sport really. Wimbledon is driving me nuts already, and that's just the 
> bits on the news. You can't see to get away from it. They even have sports 
> news on Planet Rock - is there no escape?
>>
>> Also their obsession with flogging frigging televisions and mobile phones 
>> is annoying.
>
> I suppose they have to earn the money so Gaunt can "turn left of the 
> plane" as he keeps telling us. I think he really means the cargo hold.

Perhaps he means working as a trolley dolly?

I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter 
instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they 
could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!

On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>
> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!

The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
wing.

clippertyclop wrote:
> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
>> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
> 
> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
> wing.

The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can 
say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.

"Silk"  wrote in message 
news:5f8u1oF3bmpvmU1@mid.individual.net...
> clippertyclop wrote:
>> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
>>> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
>>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>
>> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
>> wing.
>
> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can 
> say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.

I thought being gay and left wing was mandatory to work at the BBC? Even 
theBBC itself has admitted it is very left wing and over gay friendly in a 
recent report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nbbc119.xml

Crazy Ivan wrote:
> I thought being gay and left wing was mandatory to work at the BBC?
> Even theBBC itself has admitted it is very left wing and over gay
> friendly in a recent report
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nbbc119.xml

Thank you for the link. One of the points made in the report is that 
newspapers have no requirement to be impartial. The Telegraph's 
opening paragraph - 'The BBC is operating in a "left-leaning comfort 
zone" and has an "innate liberal bias" according to a report 
commissioned by the corporation.' - is wrong. The phrase "left-leaning 
comfort zone" doesn't appear in the report at all, and the phrase 
"innate liberal bias" is used by one of the people *quoted* in the 
report; it is not used of the BBC by the authors of the report.

Perhaps you can tell us where the report shows that "the BBC itself 
has admitted it is very left wing and over gay friendly".

André Coutanche

On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
> clippertyclop wrote:
> > On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> >> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
> >> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
> >> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>
> > The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
> > superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
> > wing.
>
> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can
> say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.


Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.

On 7 Jul, 10:40, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> "Silk"  wrote in message
>
> news:5f8u1oF3bmpvmU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > clippertyclop wrote:
> >> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> >>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
> >>> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
> >>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>
> >> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
> >> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
> >> wing.
>
> > The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can
> > say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.
>
> I thought being gay and left wing was mandatory to work at the BBC? Even
> theBBC itself has admitted it is very left wing and over gay friendly in a
> recent report
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nbbc1...

 "Andrew Marr, the BBC's former political editor, said at a seminar
last year that the BBC is "a publicly funded urban organisation with
an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic
minorities and almost certainly of gay people compared with the
population at large."

First  of all if he did say that, it's hardly pc from someone who's a
key BBC presenter and contradicts what the Telegraph claim. Secondly
how  would Andrew Marr know what proportion of BBC employees are gay?
Did he do a personal survey? Like "Excuse me, are you gay?. Sounds
like typical Telegraph bullshit or misquoting to me.

"clippertyclop"  wrote in message 
news:1183809464.714402.157030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
>> clippertyclop wrote:
>> > On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>> >> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
>> >> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish 
>> >> they
>> >> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>
>> > The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>> > superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
>> > wing.
>>
>> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can
>> say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.
>
>
> Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
> left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
> understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.

You have to define what you mean by "left wing" There is the old traditional 
left wing world, that proclaimed by the likes of Galloway, Scargill and Lord 
Wedgwood Benn, those who support Communism and the like.

Then there is the modern "liberal left" this can consist of people of all 
political persuasion and is more of a mind set than a political ideaology. 
It's this category that the BBC falls into. As an example take the "Climate 
change" debate. The BBC only ever gives airtime to the liberal left view 
that man made climate change is happening, even though there is no evidence 
to support it.

As an exampe, recent studies show that the temperature in the Antartic is 
falling, yet this is not mentioned in the media. Why is the BBC covering the 
event at Wembley? Would it cover a BNP rally?

It's not just the BBC, but we are all forced to pay for the BBC. No one 
forces you to buy the Daily Telegraph. Of course the Guardian is supproted 
by large amounts of public money, but this seems to be OK with the left.

It's always double standards. The BBC should stick to reporting the news as 
FACTS, not left wing opinions.

Here's a few quotes

"...Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. 
It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number 
of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not 
so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal 
bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against 
America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help 
him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America 
with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior 
news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the 
reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it 
promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was 
rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of 
intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to 
attention during God Save The King'. .."



http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/08/bbc_presenter_h.html



Even that right wing paper the Guardian reported it the same way

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1890380,00.html



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm

Crazy Ivan wrote:
> "clippertyclop"  wrote in message
> news:1183809464.714402.157030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
>>> clippertyclop wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>>>>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning
>>>>> presenter instead of the usual left wing (probably gay)
>>>>> presenter. God I wish they
>>>>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>>
>>>> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>>>> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even
>>>> left wing.
>>>
>>> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you
>>> can say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC
>>> comfort zone.
>>
>>
>> Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
>> left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
>> understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.
>
> You have to define what you mean by "left wing" There is the old
> traditional left wing world, that proclaimed by the likes of
> Galloway, Scargill and Lord Wedgwood Benn, those who support
> Communism and the like.
> Then there is the modern "liberal left" this can consist of people of
> all political persuasion and is more of a mind set than a political
> ideaology. It's this category that the BBC falls into. As an example
> take the "Climate change" debate. The BBC only ever gives airtime to
> the liberal left view that man made climate change is happening, even
> though there is no evidence to support it.


In the BBC documentaries about climate change, there was plenty of evidence 
to support it, actually, such as a graph that had almost a perfect 
correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.


> As an exampe, recent studies show that the temperature in the
> Antartic is falling, yet this is not mentioned in the media. Why is
> the BBC covering the event at Wembley? Would it cover a BNP rally?


I would hope that a BNP rally wouldn't be covered by the BBC, simply because 
the people at the top of the BNP are absolutely obviously extremely racist. 
Now, if there were a British nationalist party that was against immigration 
and so on without having racists leading it, then it would be out of order 
for the BBC not to cover such a rally.

And BTW, I don't like the way the BBC reports the "Islam issue", and I think 
this is the place where it's liberal left credentials are most apparent. For 
example, last week on one day there was a bloke from Bolton jailed for 
encouranging terrorism and two people banged up for 10 years for incitement 
to terrorism, but the 6 o'clock news had literally about a 10 second piece 
covering one of these two cases and completely ignored the other one. The 
only reason I found out about the other one was on our North West evening 
news, but the rest of the country now will never know about it. I turned on 
CBS or whichever American news at about 1.30am, and they had a 2 minute 
article about *our* news which the BBC near enough ignored. Now that's what 
I call a liberal bias by the BBC, and ironically there has just been a 
report about this that showed that the BBC did have a liberal bias, so 
clearly that report has had a huge impact.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

On Jul 7, 5:38 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> I call a liberal bias by the BBC, and ironically there has just been a
> report about this that showed that the BBC did have a liberal bias, so
> clearly that report has had a huge impact.

Almost all media is biased unfortunately. The annoying thing about the
BBC is its insidious , it doesn't just limit itself to the news and
current affairs programs , it makes it into all their output. Who
these days hasn't noticed the obligatory token ethnic for example in
virtually every drama whether appropriate or not? The most blatant
recent example of this was the indian actress they managed to
shorthorn into Robin Hoods gang in the new series under some nonsense
storyline about her being an arab slave from the Crusades. Oh come off
it FFS BBC.

The best unbaised news I've yet seen was on a Ukranian TV channel on a
program called Without Commentary which does exactly what it says on
the tin. Just unedited pictures and sounds from a news event , no
reporter , no studio presenterbot - you're just left to make your own
mind up. Superb.

B2003

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message 
news:JjPji.12027$aJ3.5233@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Crazy Ivan wrote:
>> "clippertyclop"  wrote in message
>> news:1183809464.714402.157030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
>>>> clippertyclop wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>>>>>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning
>>>>>> presenter instead of the usual left wing (probably gay)
>>>>>> presenter. God I wish they
>>>>>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>>>
>>>>> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>>>>> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even
>>>>> left wing.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you
>>>> can say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC
>>>> comfort zone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
>>> left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
>>> understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.
>>
>> You have to define what you mean by "left wing" There is the old
>> traditional left wing world, that proclaimed by the likes of
>> Galloway, Scargill and Lord Wedgwood Benn, those who support
>> Communism and the like.
>> Then there is the modern "liberal left" this can consist of people of
>> all political persuasion and is more of a mind set than a political
>> ideaology. It's this category that the BBC falls into. As an example
>> take the "Climate change" debate. The BBC only ever gives airtime to
>> the liberal left view that man made climate change is happening, even
>> though there is no evidence to support it.
>
>
> In the BBC documentaries about climate change, there was plenty of 
> evidence to support it, actually, such as a graph that had almost a 
> perfect correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.

Oh well if  the BBC showed a graph it must be true? There is plenty of 
evidence to show that human influences are not as marked as many want us to 
believe. The issue is what the job of the BBC is. The BBC is NOT THERE to 
give us the left wing liberal view of the world (as the Islington elite see 
it) but to report facts and give a balanced view.

The BBC is NOT an organisation that you can rely on for scientific facts. In 
fact if I remember correctly for several years the BBC "Science" 
correspondent was in fact someone with a degree in the arts.

Oh and there are some very obvious mistakes in the reporting from the BBC. 
Much of the Artic ice floats and therefore if it melts won't add anything to 
the ocean levels. This is basic 12 year old school physics, yet the BBC seem 
incapable of understanding this and report after report claims this ice 
melting will raise sea levels.

Yes some Artic ice is land bound and if that melts it will add to the sea 
level, but not to the levels claimed in numerous BBC reports.

Climate change is real and it always has been. So what? Why doesn't a 
politician like Al Bore actually run for President and say if elected he 
will shut down all car plants and airports? Let people vote and decide.

There is a very strong legitimate debate to say that not only should be more 
sparing with the resources of the Earth, but we should take more care of the 
planet. It's the only one we have. I'm 100% in favour of that. However, 
taxing 4X4's more or charging people an extra £10 on every flight will do 
nothing except help give more money to Nu Labour to piss up against the 
wall, so to speak.

The real debate is to reduce the human population of the planet. heavy taxes 
on those that have more than one child and rewarding Countries in Africa 
that enforce the use of contraception.

In the UK, some 6-7 million people have come here in the Tony Bliar years. 
All want a car, a home and no doubt want at least one holiday a year. That 
generates the need for more houses, more power stations and more flights. 
Hardly an environment friendly policy.

Why didn't Al Bore do anything during the 8 years he was butt boy to 
Clinton? Are you aware that during the Al Gore years, they relaxed the rules 
on the production of the SUV (CAFE Standards) look it up yourself.

Here's a little snippet of what Al Bore actually got up to when in the white 
House with Billy boy

"...Al Gore has resisted calls by the environmental community to press for 
stricter CAFE standards, opting instead to "join with the Big Three 
automakers to create the Public/Private Partnership for a New Generation of 
Vehicles [designed] to help industry efforts to triple the fuel efficiency 
of today's vehicles..."

"Boltar"  wrote in message 
news:1183845365.834451.281060@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 5:38 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>> I call a liberal bias by the BBC, and ironically there has just been a
>> report about this that showed that the BBC did have a liberal bias, so
>> clearly that report has had a huge impact.
>
> Almost all media is biased unfortunately. The annoying thing about the
> BBC is its insidious , it doesn't just limit itself to the news and
> current affairs programs , it makes it into all their output. Who
> these days hasn't noticed the obligatory token ethnic for example in
> virtually every drama whether appropriate or not? The most blatant
> recent example of this was the indian actress they managed to
> shorthorn into Robin Hoods gang in the new series under some nonsense
> storyline about her being an arab slave from the Crusades. Oh come off
> it FFS BBC.
>
> The best unbaised news I've yet seen was on a Ukranian TV channel on a
> program called Without Commentary which does exactly what it says on
> the tin. Just unedited pictures and sounds from a news event , no
> reporter , no studio presenterbot - you're just left to make your own
> mind up. Superb.
>
> B2003

ITV did the same with that terrible series "Ultimat Force" about the SAS. 
They had to have a woman in the SAS, yet there are no women serving in the 
SAS nor will there ever be.

"Crazy Ivan"  wrote in message 
news:6c-dnbFnjJ1VkQ3bnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt.com...


< snipped for brevity >

> There is a very strong legitimate debate to say that not only should be 
> more sparing with the resources of the Earth, but we should take more care 
> of the planet. It's the only one we have. I'm 100% in favour of that. 
> However, taxing 4X4's more or charging people an extra £10 on every flight 
> will do nothing except help give more money to Nu Labour to piss up 
> against the wall, so to speak.
>
> The real debate is to reduce the human population of the planet. heavy 
> taxes on those that have more than one child and rewarding Countries in 
> Africa that enforce the use of contraception.
>
> In the UK, some 6-7 million people have come here in the Tony Bliar years. 
> All want a car, a home and no doubt want at least one holiday a year. That 
> generates the need for more houses, more power stations and more flights. 
> Hardly an environment friendly policy.
>


A good post, and I have to agree with the fact that the planet is being torn 
apart to satisfy the needs of its ever burgeoning population, something 
which mainly scientists and politicians in the west appear to be doing 
everything in their power to actively encourage, whilst at the same time 
bemoaning the disastrous impact it's having on the environment and wildlife 
around the globe.

Like some others in this discussion, I'm not really interested sport (along 
with I suspect tens of millions of other listeners) and have to ask why does 
it appear impossible to find sufficient bandwidth to launch a topical news 
based talk radio station which is 'totally sports free' ?.. especially as 
there appears to be little problem in finding digital capacity for extra 
sports and endless 'yoof' music channels.

"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:_K3ki.20191$p8.18744@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Crazy Ivan"  wrote in message 
> news:6c-dnbFnjJ1VkQ3bnZ2dnUVZ8s6gnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
> < snipped for brevity >
>
>> There is a very strong legitimate debate to say that not only should be 
>> more sparing with the resources of the Earth, but we should take more 
>> care of the planet. It's the only one we have. I'm 100% in favour of 
>> that. However, taxing 4X4's more or charging people an extra £10 on every 
>> flight will do nothing except help give more money to Nu Labour to piss 
>> up against the wall, so to speak.
>>
>> The real debate is to reduce the human population of the planet. heavy 
>> taxes on those that have more than one child and rewarding Countries in 
>> Africa that enforce the use of contraception.
>>
>> In the UK, some 6-7 million people have come here in the Tony Bliar 
>> years. All want a car, a home and no doubt want at least one holiday a 
>> year. That generates the need for more houses, more power stations and 
>> more flights. Hardly an environment friendly policy.
>>
>
>
> A good post, and I have to agree with the fact that the planet is being 
> torn apart to satisfy the needs of its ever burgeoning population, 
> something which mainly scientists and politicians in the west appear to be 
> doing everything in their power to actively encourage, whilst at the same 
> time bemoaning the disastrous impact it's having on the environment and 
> wildlife around the globe.
>
> Like some others in this discussion, I'm not really interested sport 
> (along with I suspect tens of millions of other listeners) and have to ask 
> why does it appear impossible to find sufficient bandwidth to launch a 
> topical news based talk radio station which is 'totally sports free' ?.. 
> especially as there appears to be little problem in finding digital 
> capacity for extra sports and endless 'yoof' music channels.

You might want to check this link out.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2742854.ece

There are lots of double standards out there with our politicans. On the one 
hand Bob Gandalf and Bonzo keep going on about fair trade with Africa, but 
then we get told that we shouldn't be shipping food or goods half way around 
the world from places like Africa!!!!!!!!

It's all utter nonsense. The media ignore the fact that shipping generates 
more CO2 that aeroplanes and that all these Government plans will do nothing 
to change the planet. I watched the awful BBC 1 Question Time last week with 
"da youff" of Britain (for some reason mostly politics students, not really 
selective then BBC?) and they were all cheering away in the audience when 
some lefty liberal (including the awful Davina McCall opened her big trap) 
prattled on about cutting back on emissions. Yet I wonder how many of this 
bunch of unwashed Socialists will happily fly around the world backpacking 
in Australia or go off on Easy Jet to Ibiza for a big booze and drugs piss 
up?

They are all full of shit, just like Madonna who tries to preach about 
needing to be more careful about energy, yet she owns probably a dozen 
massive houses that she hardly ever lives in that need to be heated all the 
time (or have the A/C on)

I'm fed up with these losers and failed politicans not practicing what they 
preach. They can't all plant trees. If Carbon offsetting works, what's the 
problem with global warming? All we need to do is plant billions of new 
trees and problem solved?

"Crazy Ivan"  wrote in message 
news:Oaidnc6rIa_0mgzbnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> >
> You might want to check this link out.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2742854.ece
>
> There are lots of double standards out there with our politicans. On the 
> one hand Bob Gandalf and Bonzo keep going on about fair trade with Africa, 
> but then we get told that we shouldn't be shipping food or goods half way 
> around the world from places like Africa!!!!!!!!
>
> It's all utter nonsense. The media ignore the fact that shipping generates 
> more CO2 that aeroplanes and that all these Government plans will do 
> nothing to change the planet. I watched the awful BBC 1 Question Time last 
> week with "da youff" of Britain (for some reason mostly politics students, 
> not really selective then BBC?) and they were all cheering away in the 
> audience when some lefty liberal (including the awful Davina McCall opened 
> her big trap) prattled on about cutting back on emissions. Yet I wonder 
> how many of this bunch of unwashed Socialists will happily fly around the 
> world backpacking in Australia or go off on Easy Jet to Ibiza for a big 
> booze and drugs piss up?
>
> They are all full of shit, just like Madonna who tries to preach about 
> needing to be more careful about energy, yet she owns probably a dozen 
> massive houses that she hardly ever lives in that need to be heated all 
> the time (or have the A/C on)
>
> I'm fed up with these losers and failed politicans not practicing what 
> they preach. They can't all plant trees. If Carbon offsetting works, 
> what's the problem with global warming? All we need to do is plant 
> billions of new trees and problem solved?
>
>

Our highly principled government who were going to eliminate sleaze, and 
then recently put the kibosh on the bribery investigation into BA Systems, I 
believe the reason given was that they were worried about the amount of jobs 
and exports which may have been adversely affected should there have been an 
unfavourable outcome.

"Crazy Ivan"  wrote in message
news:Oaidnc6rIa_0mgzbnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> >
> You might want to check this link out.
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2742854.ece
>

It certainly looks like it could be promising, but we will have to wait and 
see how it pans out.
After all Talk sport originally started out as a purely Talk Radio station 
and AIUI the reason why the format was changed was that the new owners came 
to the conclusion that even with a substantial drop in listeners, the sort 
of people who listened to sports programmes had more disposable income to 
spend with advertisers.

> There are lots of double standards out there with our politicans. On the
> one hand Bob Gandalf and Bonzo keep going on about fair trade with Africa,
> but then we get told that we shouldn't be shipping food or goods half way
> around the world from places like Africa!!!!!!!!
>
> It's all utter nonsense. The media ignore the fact that shipping generates
> more CO2 that aeroplanes and that all these Government plans will do
> nothing to change the planet. I watched the awful BBC 1 Question Time last
> week with "da youff" of Britain (for some reason mostly politics students,
> not really selective then BBC?) and they were all cheering away in the
> audience when some lefty liberal (including the awful Davina McCall opened
> her big trap) prattled on about cutting back on emissions. Yet I wonder
> how many of this bunch of unwashed Socialists will happily fly around the
> world backpacking in Australia or go off on Easy Jet to Ibiza for a big
> booze and drugs piss up?
>
> They are all full of shit, just like Madonna who tries to preach about
> needing to be more careful about energy, yet she owns probably a dozen
> massive houses that she hardly ever lives in that need to be heated all
> the time (or have the A/C on)
>
> I'm fed up with these losers and failed politicans not practicing what
> they preach. They can't all plant trees. If Carbon offsetting works,
> what's the problem with global warming? All we need to do is plant
> billions of new trees and problem solved?
>
>

Our highly principled government who were going to eliminate sleaze, and
then recently put the kibosh on the bribery investigation into BA Systems, I
believe the reason given was that they were worried about the amount of jobs
and exports which may have been adversely affected should there have been an
unfavourable outcome.

Crazy Ivan wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
> news:JjPji.12027$aJ3.5233@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

>>> You have to define what you mean by "left wing" There is the old
>>> traditional left wing world, that proclaimed by the likes of
>>> Galloway, Scargill and Lord Wedgwood Benn, those who support
>>> Communism and the like.
>>> Then there is the modern "liberal left" this can consist of people
>>> of all political persuasion and is more of a mind set than a
>>> political ideaology. It's this category that the BBC falls into. As
>>> an example take the "Climate change" debate. The BBC only ever
>>> gives airtime to the liberal left view that man made climate change
>>> is happening, even though there is no evidence to support it.
>>
>>
>> In the BBC documentaries about climate change, there was plenty of
>> evidence to support it, actually, such as a graph that had almost a
>> perfect correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.
>
> Oh well if  the BBC showed a graph it must be true?


The person explaining the graph to the person from the BBC was a professor 
at the Met Office who was the person in charge of modelling the effects of 
climate change going into the future. That is, if you wanted to ask someone 
in the UK what the temperature would be in a few decades' time and why it 
would be that temperature, you would be hard pressed to find anybody better 
qualified than him to provide the answer.


> There is plenty of
> evidence to show that human influences are not as marked as many want
> us to believe. The issue is what the job of the BBC is. The BBC is
> NOT THERE to give us the left wing liberal view of the world (as the
> Islington elite see it) but to report facts and give a balanced view.
>
> The BBC is NOT an organisation that you can rely on for scientific
> facts. In fact if I remember correctly for several years the BBC
> "Science" correspondent was in fact someone with a degree in the arts.


I'm well aware that the BBC is shit at science, but the vast majority of 
academics think that global warming is due to what humans are doing to the 
planet. The usual stock response to that is "they would say that, wouldn't 
they, because they need to say that to get their research funded", but I 
have sufficient faith in academics that there would be a large enough number 
of them who would speak out against global warming if they didn't believe it 
were true. As it is, there are very few that are willing to go on record to 
oppose the generally accepted view.


> Oh and there are some very obvious mistakes in the reporting from the
> BBC. Much of the Artic ice floats and therefore if it melts won't add
> anything to the ocean levels. This is basic 12 year old school
> physics, yet the BBC seem incapable of understanding this and report
> after report claims this ice melting will raise sea levels.
>
> Yes some Artic ice is land bound and if that melts it will add to the
> sea level, but not to the levels claimed in numerous BBC reports.


A mistake made by an incompetent BBC science journalist doesn't mean that 
global warming isn't happening. That's like saying that the BBC wrongly 
accuses a single muslim of being involved in terrorism therefore no muslims 
are involved in terrorism.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

"clippertyclop"  wrote in message 
news:1183746254.876371.103380@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Jul, 15:57, Frederick Williams <"Frederick
> Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> Commander Gideon wrote:
>>
>> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other 
>> > night!
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?
>>
> It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
> and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.. If you have 2 brain cells to rub
> together, I wouldn't bother finding out.
>

:)

Spot on.

AC

On Jul 8, 4:48 pm, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> prattled on about cutting back on emissions. Yet I wonder how many of this
> bunch of unwashed Socialists will happily fly around the world backpacking
> in Australia or go off on Easy Jet to Ibiza for a big booze and drugs piss

There was a report today on the BBC (yeah, I know , ironic) about the
mess left behind at Glastonbury. Something like 10,000 tents were just
left along with god knows how many tons of rubbish and other junk. So
much for the crusty brigade being tree hugging enviromentalists. Seems
it doesn't apply when they're off their thick heads on weed and cheap
booze.

> I'm fed up with these losers and failed politicans not practicing what they
> preach. They can't all plant trees. If Carbon offsetting works, what's the

Trees (or any plants) don't even help in the long run. They only soak
up CO2 while they're growing to full size. Once they reach that size
they start to give out as much as they take in over the course of a
year. The only effective way to get rid of C02 is to bury it somehow ,
either via plankton at the bottom of the sea turning to limestone ,
dead plants being buried in enviroments they can't rot in to form peat
or coal or sequesting the raw gas itself. Nothing else is a long term
solution.

B2003

> The person explaining the graph to the person from the BBC was a professor 
> at the Met Office who was the person in charge of modelling the effects of 
> climate change going into the future. That is, if you wanted to ask 
> someone in the UK what the temperature would be in a few decades' time and 
> why it would be that temperature, you would be hard pressed to find 
> anybody better qualified than him to provide the answer.

Is this the same Met office that can't give us the correct weather for 
tomorrow?


> I'm well aware that the BBC is shit at science, but the vast majority of 
> academics think that global warming is due to what humans are doing to the 
> planet. The usual stock response to that is "they would say that, wouldn't 
> they, because they need to say that to get their research funded", but I 
> have sufficient faith in academics that there would be a large enough 
> number of them who would speak out against global warming if they didn't 
> believe it were true. As it is, there are very few that are willing to go 
> on record to oppose the generally accepted view.

The vast majority of "Academics?" That's a bit of a sweeping statement is it 
not? I think the vast majority of Scientists that the BBC and other media 
types bother to interview might be a more accurate statement.  I don't think 
anyone doesn't believe that climate change is occuring, the issue is are 
humans or external factors responsible. There is NO evidence to show that 
human activity is mostly responsible. It's crazy not to think the Sun and 
the Earth's rotation don't have a significant impact as well.

Even if most of it is human activity, blaming america and turning your TV 
onto standby won't make any difference.

We have a growing population (up some 7 million in the last 10 years) that 
is simply wiping out any savings we might be making.

What I want to see is for the BBC to cut this left wing dirge and actually 
have a debate on the issue, just look at all the shite that was left behing 
at Wembley stadium last night (none of it being re-cycled by the way)

> A mistake made by an incompetent BBC science journalist doesn't mean that 
> global warming isn't happening. That's like saying that the BBC wrongly 
> accuses a single muslim of being involved in terrorism therefore no 
> muslims are involved in terrorism.

No, but the first job of the BBC is to report the facts, not opinion. 
Especially the opinion of some arts graduate.

As an example, can you ever remember the BBC reporting that CO2 emission 
from shipping actually exceeds that of aviation?
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport.htm

This is actually about an excuse for taxation. Explain to me how a 
Government can stick £10 on flying as a "green" tax, yet happily agree to 
massive expansions of airports all over the UK? Hardly green is it?

The BBC has a crap attitude towards reporting science and technology issues. 
The recent Panorama programme on wifi was just typical of the "chav" 
housewife dumbing down that the BBC is up to.

Have you seen this hyped up on the BBC?

http://www.cinematical.com/2006/05/08/the-truth-about-an-inconvenient-truth/

Don't expect it to either. I'm not saying it's right, but look at the hype 
fatso got with Fahrenheit 9/11 on the BBC.

There is a real debate to be had about climate change and how we look after 
our planet, but getting a bunch of over hyped pop stars and a fat man who 
couldn't beat an idiot like George Bush in an election are not the ones to 
have the debate with.

Crazy Ivan wrote:
>> The person explaining the graph to the person from the BBC was a
>> professor at the Met Office who was the person in charge of
>> modelling the effects of climate change going into the future. That
>> is, if you wanted to ask someone in the UK what the temperature
>> would be in a few decades' time and why it would be that
>> temperature, you would be hard pressed to find anybody better
>> qualified than him to provide the answer.
>
> Is this the same Met office that can't give us the correct weather for
> tomorrow?


Yes, why, what do you predict the weather will be 4 days from now?


>> I'm well aware that the BBC is shit at science, but the vast
>> majority of academics think that global warming is due to what
>> humans are doing to the planet. The usual stock response to that is
>> "they would say that, wouldn't they, because they need to say that
>> to get their research funded", but I have sufficient faith in
>> academics that there would be a large enough number of them who
>> would speak out against global warming if they didn't believe it
>> were true. As it is, there are very few that are willing to go on
>> record to oppose the generally accepted view.
>
> The vast majority of "Academics?" That's a bit of a sweeping
> statement is it not?


The implication was obviously that I was referring to academics in the 
relevant field - not computer science lecturers and so on...


> I think the vast majority of Scientists that the
> BBC and other media types bother to interview might be a more
> accurate statement.


Ah, the conspiracy theory stuff is starting to appear


> I don't think anyone doesn't believe that
> climate change is occuring, the issue is are humans or external
> factors responsible.


Absolutely.


> There is NO evidence to show that human activity
> is mostly responsible.


The academics I referred to would beg to differ.


> It's crazy not to think the Sun and the
> Earth's rotation don't have a significant impact as well.


I would be staggered if the academics haven't already researched this.


> Even if most of it is human activity, blaming america and turning
> your TV onto standby won't make any difference.


Well, American consumes more energy per capita than any other country, and 
there's about 300 million Americans, so if they changed their ways it would 
certainly be a start.


> We have a growing population (up some 7 million in the last 10 years)
> that is simply wiping out any savings we might be making.
>
> What I want to see is for the BBC to cut this left wing dirge and
> actually have a debate on the issue,


Agreed.


> just look at all the shite that
> was left behing at Wembley stadium last night (none of it being
> re-cycled by the way)
>> A mistake made by an incompetent BBC science journalist doesn't mean
>> that global warming isn't happening. That's like saying that the BBC
>> wrongly accuses a single muslim of being involved in terrorism
>> therefore no muslims are involved in terrorism.
>
> No, but the first job of the BBC is to report the facts, not opinion.
> Especially the opinion of some arts graduate.


Agreed.


> As an example, can you ever remember the BBC reporting that CO2
> emission from shipping actually exceeds that of aviation?
> http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport.htm


No.


> This is actually about an excuse for taxation. Explain to me how a
> Government can stick £10 on flying as a "green" tax, yet happily
> agree to massive expansions of airports all over the UK? Hardly green
> is it?


You have the makings of a convincing conspiracy theory there.


> The BBC has a crap attitude towards reporting science and technology
> issues.


Couldn't agree more.


>The recent Panorama programme on wifi was just typical of the
> "chav" housewife dumbing down that the BBC is up to.


Absolutely.


> Have you seen this hyped up on the BBC?
>
> http://www.cinematical.com/2006/05/08/the-truth-about-an-inconvenient-truth/
>
> Don't expect it to either. I'm not saying it's right, but look at the
> hype fatso got with Fahrenheit 9/11 on the BBC.
>
> There is a real debate to be had about climate change and how we look
> after our planet, but getting a bunch of over hyped pop stars and a
> fat man who couldn't beat an idiot like George Bush in an election
> are not the ones to have the debate with.


Maybe, but just because that is what's happened doesn't necessarily mean 
that climate change isn't happening due to what we're doing to the planet.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

On 8 Jul, 23:11, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> > The person explaining the graph to the person from the BBC was a professor
> > at the Met Office who was the person in charge of modelling the effects of
> > climate change going into the future. That is, if you wanted to ask
> > someone in the UK what the temperature would be in a few decades' time and
> > why it would be that temperature, you would be hard pressed to find
> > anybody better qualified than him to provide the answer.
>
> Is this the same Met office that can't give us the correct weather for
> tomorrow?

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Predicting the climate is
a bit like predicting that if you light some wood it will probably
burn. Predicting the weather is like trying to predict the exact shape
of the flame at a given point in the future.

>humans or external factors responsible. There is NO evidence to show that
>human activity is mostly responsible. It's crazy not to think the Sun and
>the Earth's rotation don't have a significant impact as well.

Theres plenty of evidence. As for the sun argument, thats been
discounted many times. Despite what that channel 4 program a few
months back said, the suns output does not correspond with current
warming trends. There may well be an argument that what we've done
shouldn't have been enough to cause the warming seen, but we've
actually tripped some feedback loop which is causing a large amount of
it , but either way we still shouldn't be complacent, sit on our hands
and claim its all natural so to hell with it. Reducing CO2 if for no
other reason than fossil fuels are finite so we need to find
alternatives anyway is still a good thing to aim for.

B2003

"Boltar"  wrote in message 
news:1183972988.005627.186990@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Jul, 23:11, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>> > The person explaining the graph to the person from the BBC was a 
>> > professor
>> > at the Met Office who was the person in charge of modelling the effects 
>> > of
>> > climate change going into the future. That is, if you wanted to ask
>> > someone in the UK what the temperature would be in a few decades' time 
>> > and
>> > why it would be that temperature, you would be hard pressed to find
>> > anybody better qualified than him to provide the answer.
>>
>> Is this the same Met office that can't give us the correct weather for
>> tomorrow?
>
> Weather and climate are not the same thing. Predicting the climate is
> a bit like predicting that if you light some wood it will probably
> burn. Predicting the weather is like trying to predict the exact shape
> of the flame at a given point in the future.
>
>>humans or external factors responsible. There is NO evidence to show that
>>human activity is mostly responsible. It's crazy not to think the Sun and
>>the Earth's rotation don't have a significant impact as well.
>
> Theres plenty of evidence. As for the sun argument, thats been
> discounted many times. Despite what that channel 4 program a few
> months back said, the suns output does not correspond with current
> warming trends. There may well be an argument that what we've done
> shouldn't have been enough to cause the warming seen, but we've
> actually tripped some feedback loop which is causing a large amount of
> it , but either way we still shouldn't be complacent, sit on our hands
> and claim its all natural so to hell with it. Reducing CO2 if for no
> other reason than fossil fuels are finite so we need to find
> alternatives anyway is still a good thing to aim for.
>
> B2003

Sorry but there is NO EVIDENCE that humans are causing climate change. If so 
how do you explain previous periods of extreme hot and cold on the planet?

Also the issue of the Sun cannot be written off and your comment that this 
has been discounted is wrong. Perhaps you might like to explain why Mars is 
suffering similar problems?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

You clearly believe all this crap from politicians. So are you giving up 
your car and your holidays?

On 9 Jul, 12:57, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> Sorry but there is NO EVIDENCE that humans are causing climate change. If so

Theres plenty of evidence. You saying there isn't in caps doesn't make
the slightest difference to the facts. I'm sure you're capable of
googling for them.

> how do you explain previous periods of extreme hot and cold on the planet?

Err , because the earth goes through cycles? So what? Theres more than
one way of skinning a cat. Just because it warmed or cooled naturally
in the past doesn't mean that dumping a few hundred gigatons of CO2
into the atmosphere won't also warm the earth.

> Also the issue of the Sun cannot be written off and your comment that this
> has been discounted is wrong. Perhaps you might like to explain why Mars is
> suffering similar problems?

We've only been measuring the temperature on mars for a few decades
and accurately only for a few years. It could undergo this every
decade or so , who knows. On the other hand the naysayers such as
yourself could be right , but do you want to take that risk? If we do
nothing and you lot are wrong we're screwed. If we do do something and
you're right , ok we've wasted some money. But then politicians do
that quite nicely anyway.

> You clearly believe all this crap from politicians. So are you giving up

See you're problem is you're just as blinkered by your hate for all
things left as the lefties are for all things right. You automatically
assume anything said by a politician is BS and refuse to believe
otherwise. FYI it took decades to persuade politicians there was
anything wrong in the first place. Climate scientists beat their head
against the walls over this until those idiots in suits took notice ,
just the same as with the acid rain issue. So the "crap" from
politicians is little more than what they've been told by scientists.

> your car and your holidays?

Nope. But nor on the other hand and Ii'm not going to buy some penis
extension gas guzzling 4x4 and drive half a mile to the shops in it or
travel to florida 3 times a year. Everything in moderation.

B2003

In message 
          Boltar  wrote:
> 
> The best unbaised news I've yet seen was on a Ukranian TV channel on a
> program called Without Commentary which does exactly what it says on
> the tin. Just unedited pictures and sounds from a news event , no
> reporter , no studio presenterbot - you're just left to make your own
> mind up. Superb.

Euronews does the same thing. The trouble is, even that's not free
from bias, because someone has selected the event, the camera position
and the bit they've let you see. Any kind of selection involves 'bias'
of some sort, unless its's entirely random. But most people simply
don't have the time or the inclination to trawl through raw news copy
for themselves -- they want someone else to locate and highlight the
relevant bits for them, preferably someone with an understanding of
their significance. Selection may introduce 'bias', but it also adds
value. That's why people are paid to do it.

-- 
Richard L.

"Commander Gideon"  wrote in message 
news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
>

Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)


-- 
RobertJM

On 3 Jul, 12:39, "RobertJM"  wrote:
> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>
> news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
> Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)

Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.

B2003

"Boltar"  wrote in message 
news:1183476639.466169.72200@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Jul, 12:39, "RobertJM"  wrote:
>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>>
>> Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)
>
> Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
> would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
> consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
> having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
> least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
> about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
>
> B2003



No I think you will find he is still a cunt
G

> > Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
> > would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
> > consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
> > having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
> > least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
> > about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
> >
> > B2003
>
>
>
> No I think you will find he is still a cunt
> G

A bit harsh, as Mr Parry might say!

"Commander Gideon"  wrote in message 
news:ZoNii.20669$j7.378309@news.indigo.ie...
>> > Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway. I
>> > would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
>> > consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
>> > having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
>> > least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
>> > about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
>> >
>> > B2003
>>
>>
>>
>> No I think you will find he is still a cunt
>> G
>
> A bit harsh, as Mr Parry might say!
>
>well perhaps ,he does remind me of my uncle so I think my original 
>diagnosis
is correct

Dr G

GMK wrote:
> "Boltar"  wrote in message
> news:1183476639.466169.72200@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> On 3 Jul, 12:39, "RobertJM"  wrote:
>>> "Commander Gideon"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f6dcbd$bis$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>> Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other
>>>> night!
>>>
>>> Sony award winning Gaunty now bringing success to the station ;)
>>
>> Pity they dont' get rid of that preening marxist hypocrite Galloway.
>> I would say he talks rubbish but his entire presenting style seems to
>> consist of reading out peoples emails and putting on callers without
>> having any sort of discussion worthy of the name with them. Or at
>> least he used to , perhaps he's changed. I gave up listening to him
>> about 2 months after he took over the late Mike Dickins old slot.
>
>
> No I think you will find he is still a cunt

But an entertaining er...cunt! When I get the chance, I like listening to his
occasional rants.

> >
> >
> > No I think you will find he is still a cunt
>
> But an entertaining er...cunt! When I get the chance, I like listening to
his
> occasional rants.
>
Whether you agree with him or not,its still entertaining radio!

Commander Gideon wrote:
> 
> Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!

Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?

-- 
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid," 
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

"Frederick Williams" <"Frederick Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in message news:468BB570.91628EC1@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid...
> Commander Gideon wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?
>
UK commercial talk radio station on DAB,AM 1053 & 1089 and digital satellite
(Sky Channel 0108)

On 4 Jul, 15:57, Frederick Williams <"Frederick
Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Commander Gideon wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to all at talkSPORT for their awards the other night!
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is talkSPORT?
>
It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.. If you have 2 brain cells to rub
together, I wouldn't bother finding out.

clippertyclop wrote:

> It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
> and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.

It is aimed at White-Van-Man in the main, but the non-sport stuff is 
good for a laugh. I find Gaunty is a breath of fresh air compared to the 
PC phone-ins on R5.

"Silk"  wrote in message 
news:5f7ibiF39pmn5U2@mid.individual.net...
> clippertyclop wrote:
>
>> It's the radio radio station that caters for the terminally  stupid
>> and pig ignorant  twats in the UK.
>
> It is aimed at White-Van-Man in the main, but the non-sport stuff is good 
> for a laugh. I find Gaunty is a breath of fresh air compared to the PC 
> phone-ins on R5.

James Whale & Mike Mendoza are generally quite good. Gaunt it a prat as is 
Galloway.

But they do spend far too much time talking about the sport of "poofball". I 
mean even in the short off season they've managed to bore us shitless 
talking about this over hyped game played by dodgy gay men.

Also their obsession with flogging frigging televisions and mobile phones is 
annoying.

Crazy Ivan wrote:

> James Whale & Mike Mendoza are generally quite good. Gaunt it a prat as is 
> Galloway.

The trouble is, Gaunt is the only one on when I'm at work in the car. I 
wouldn't give any of it the time of day when I'm at home.
> 
> But they do spend far too much time talking about the sport of "poofball". I 
> mean even in the short off season they've managed to bore us shitless 
> talking about this over hyped game played by dodgy gay men.

There is no limit to my hatred of the evil game, although I don't like 
any sport really. Wimbledon is driving me nuts already, and that's just 
the bits on the news. You can't see to get away from it. They even have 
sports news on Planet Rock - is there no escape?
> 
> Also their obsession with flogging frigging televisions and mobile phones is 
> annoying. 

I suppose they have to earn the money so Gaunt can "turn left of the 
plane" as he keeps telling us. I think he really means the cargo hold.

"Silk"  wrote in message 
news:5f7q0lF3a9a4oU1@mid.individual.net...
> Crazy Ivan wrote:
>
>> James Whale & Mike Mendoza are generally quite good. Gaunt it a prat as 
>> is Galloway.
>
> The trouble is, Gaunt is the only one on when I'm at work in the car. I 
> wouldn't give any of it the time of day when I'm at home.
>>
>> But they do spend far too much time talking about the sport of 
>> "poofball". I mean even in the short off season they've managed to bore 
>> us shitless talking about this over hyped game played by dodgy gay men.
>
> There is no limit to my hatred of the evil game, although I don't like any 
> sport really. Wimbledon is driving me nuts already, and that's just the 
> bits on the news. You can't see to get away from it. They even have sports 
> news on Planet Rock - is there no escape?
>>
>> Also their obsession with flogging frigging televisions and mobile phones 
>> is annoying.
>
> I suppose they have to earn the money so Gaunt can "turn left of the 
> plane" as he keeps telling us. I think he really means the cargo hold.

Perhaps he means working as a trolley dolly?

I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter 
instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they 
could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!

On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>
> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!

The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
wing.

clippertyclop wrote:
> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
>> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
> 
> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
> wing.

The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can 
say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.

"Silk"  wrote in message 
news:5f8u1oF3bmpvmU1@mid.individual.net...
> clippertyclop wrote:
>> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
>>> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
>>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>
>> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
>> wing.
>
> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can 
> say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.

I thought being gay and left wing was mandatory to work at the BBC? Even 
theBBC itself has admitted it is very left wing and over gay friendly in a 
recent report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nbbc119.xml

Crazy Ivan wrote:
> I thought being gay and left wing was mandatory to work at the BBC?
> Even theBBC itself has admitted it is very left wing and over gay
> friendly in a recent report
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nbbc119.xml

Thank you for the link. One of the points made in the report is that 
newspapers have no requirement to be impartial. The Telegraph's 
opening paragraph - 'The BBC is operating in a "left-leaning comfort 
zone" and has an "innate liberal bias" according to a report 
commissioned by the corporation.' - is wrong. The phrase "left-leaning 
comfort zone" doesn't appear in the report at all, and the phrase 
"innate liberal bias" is used by one of the people *quoted* in the 
report; it is not used of the BBC by the authors of the report.

Perhaps you can tell us where the report shows that "the BBC itself 
has admitted it is very left wing and over gay friendly".

André Coutanche

On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
> clippertyclop wrote:
> > On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> >> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
> >> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
> >> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>
> > The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
> > superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
> > wing.
>
> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can
> say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.


Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.

On 7 Jul, 10:40, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> "Silk"  wrote in message
>
> news:5f8u1oF3bmpvmU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > clippertyclop wrote:
> >> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
> >>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
> >>> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish they
> >>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>
> >> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
> >> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
> >> wing.
>
> > The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can
> > say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.
>
> I thought being gay and left wing was mandatory to work at the BBC? Even
> theBBC itself has admitted it is very left wing and over gay friendly in a
> recent report
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nbbc1...

 "Andrew Marr, the BBC's former political editor, said at a seminar
last year that the BBC is "a publicly funded urban organisation with
an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic
minorities and almost certainly of gay people compared with the
population at large."

First  of all if he did say that, it's hardly pc from someone who's a
key BBC presenter and contradicts what the Telegraph claim. Secondly
how  would Andrew Marr know what proportion of BBC employees are gay?
Did he do a personal survey? Like "Excuse me, are you gay?. Sounds
like typical Telegraph bullshit or misquoting to me.

"clippertyclop"  wrote in message 
news:1183809464.714402.157030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
>> clippertyclop wrote:
>> > On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>> >> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning presenter
>> >> instead of the usual left wing (probably gay) presenter. God I wish 
>> >> they
>> >> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>
>> > The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>> > superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even left
>> > wing.
>>
>> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you can
>> say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC comfort zone.
>
>
> Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
> left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
> understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.

You have to define what you mean by "left wing" There is the old traditional 
left wing world, that proclaimed by the likes of Galloway, Scargill and Lord 
Wedgwood Benn, those who support Communism and the like.

Then there is the modern "liberal left" this can consist of people of all 
political persuasion and is more of a mind set than a political ideaology. 
It's this category that the BBC falls into. As an example take the "Climate 
change" debate. The BBC only ever gives airtime to the liberal left view 
that man made climate change is happening, even though there is no evidence 
to support it.

As an exampe, recent studies show that the temperature in the Antartic is 
falling, yet this is not mentioned in the media. Why is the BBC covering the 
event at Wembley? Would it cover a BNP rally?

It's not just the BBC, but we are all forced to pay for the BBC. No one 
forces you to buy the Daily Telegraph. Of course the Guardian is supproted 
by large amounts of public money, but this seems to be OK with the left.

It's always double standards. The BBC should stick to reporting the news as 
FACTS, not left wing opinions.

Here's a few quotes

"...Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. 
It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number 
of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not 
so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal 
bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against 
America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help 
him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America 
with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior 
news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the 
reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it 
promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was 
rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of 
intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to 
attention during God Save The King'. .."



http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2004/08/bbc_presenter_h.html



Even that right wing paper the Guardian reported it the same way

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1890380,00.html



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6763205.stm

Crazy Ivan wrote:
> "clippertyclop"  wrote in message
> news:1183809464.714402.157030@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 7 Jul, 08:35, Silk  wrote:
>>> clippertyclop wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jul, 22:33, "Crazy Ivan"  wrote:
>>>>> I agree about Gaunt that if Radio5 got a decent mid morning
>>>>> presenter instead of the usual left wing (probably gay)
>>>>> presenter. God I wish they
>>>>> could persuade Jeremy Clarkson to do it!!!!
>>>
>>>> The current  one  Matthew Bannister is ok, not brilliant but vastly
>>>> superior to twat Gaunt. Bannister is certainly not gay or  even
>>>> left wing.
>>>
>>> The problem is, the subjects are just so dull. I don't know how you
>>> can say it's not left wing. The BBC never stray out of the PC
>>> comfort zone.
>>
>>
>> Well John Major was pc and  David Cameron even more so,  but hardly
>> left wing though. PC and left wing are not the same thing. I don't
>> understand why some  people mistakenly seem to to confuse the two.
>
> You have to define what you mean by "left wing" There is the old
> traditional left wing world, that proclaimed by the likes of
> Galloway, Scargill and Lord Wedgwood Benn, those who support
> Communism and the like.
> Then there is the modern "liberal left" this can consist of people of
> all political persuasion and is more of a mind set than a political
> ideaology. It's this category that the BBC falls into. As an example
> take the "Climate change" debate. The BBC only ever gives airtime to
> the liberal left view that man made climate change is happening, even
> though there is no evidence to support it.


In the BBC documentaries about climate change, there was plenty of evidence 
to support it, actually, such as a graph that had almost a perfect 
correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.


> As an exampe, recent studies show that the temperature in the
> Antartic is falling, yet this is not mentioned in the media. Why is
> the BBC covering the event at Wembley? Would it cover a BNP rally?


I would hope that a BNP rally wouldn't be covered by the BBC, simply because 
the people at the top of the BNP are absolutely obviously extremely racist. 
Now, if there were a British nationalist party that was against immigration 
and so on without having raci