Fuck the BBC

Either they’ve invented him or misrepresented him so badly that this bears no relation to the truth or found someone so earth-shatteringly stupid that no sensible journalist would ever try and present them as anything other than a weird outlier. I’ve just read it again because I really hate myself and this quote jumped out:

Annoyingly for me, I happen to have a lot of wealthier friends and so the idea of my mum taking money from me instead of giving me money towards rent seems absurd.

The nerve it must take to present a quote like that as typical of an adult child living with their parents.


This was the first thing I read this morning and it’s made me angry all day. ffs


This gets a “fuck the BBC” from me. Not sure how other news outlets are reporting this but I can’t help but feel like the BBC are blaming the victim for being out in heels and “having fun”

I dunno. I didn’t read it that way and to me those details make it more tragic. She was out having fun and happened to be in a vulnerable position when approached by the attackers. But that’s just my reading of it.

Yeah maybe it’s either just the salient information from the day’s evidence or as you say, just an attempt to help the reader picture the events of the night. I guess it just plays into a certain trope, that’s all.

1 Like

Gotta say I didn’t read it like that at all

But not everyone was impressed with the broadcast. One Twitter user questioned PBS Kids’s agenda. And someone on Facebook called it “grooming kids and wrong”

why is it so important to give ‘someone on facebook’s’ view, it is a settled issue and and depicting a legally permitted event, someone complaining about interracial marriage wouldn’t be given the both sides treatment, should be the same here, and to to use the word “grooming” with the connotations that has


It’s just lazy, isn’t it?

Why bother finding people to comment when you can just copy and paste an opinion?

1 Like

I think they shouldn’t even need to find people to comment, if there was a story about gay pride you would hope that they wouldn’t include a ‘but not everyone is happy…’ bit, if there is a significant backlash then that is fair enough to report, as long as it is framed correctly as a worrying number of people objecting to the legal rights of others, not as an argument that is on equal footing, but to seek out some twitter and facebook comments just to present two sides of a one sided issue for the sake of it is fuck the abc worthy


god i hate the BBC News site’s ‘Features’ sidebar



Fuck offfff

1 Like

A few days ago (and it’s gone now), you could filter the leadership candidates by male and female candidates. Why would anyone want to do this?

Alternative debates are available.

This seems like a particularly worrying development. Previous debates have been around choosing a party to vote for in a general election, or a side to back in a referendum - doing this is like presenting the Tories as the rightful, inevitable, people to run this country. They should be forced to get someone on for balance.

“If I may ask my floppy faced friend to the left, why is it since you’ve been in charge everything is shit? Is it deliberate? If so, well done.”

1 Like

I don’t necessarily agree that this presents the Tories as being the rightful people to run this country. I would argue that this is rather unique in that the next blotch on humanity that the Tories choose as leader will be the blotch on humanity that will lead us crashing out of the EU in one way or another. Regretably, that affects every single one of us and I think we should be given the opportunity - even if we can’t vote - for the candidates to undergo as much scrutiny as possible. In this case having someone from the opposition on for balance serves absolutely no purpose.

Now, if Emily Maitlis was to stand there once Pob Gove has slobbered his way through a soundbite about pushing for a Green Brexit and lick his shoes - or applaud as Boris once again likens a minority group to an inanimate object then yes, we have problems. But giving them a platform to show themselves as self-serving disunited arseholes, that’s not the end of the world.

1 Like

I see where you’re coming from but I disagree.

If there were a couple of non-Tories on there for balance, then the Tories would close ranks and lay into them rather than one another - they’ll only attack each other if there’s nothing else to scavenge on

Then the ‘winner’ would be whoever landed the spiciest zingers on the straw men, which is what debate-club-debate really is. These twats have been training for it since prep school

But then I don’t like the look of an all-Tory wankfest either - don’t give platforms to extremists etc, and it’s not like the moderators are gonna give them anything but the smoothest of rides

Hoping for a King Ralph scenario personally: a freak electrical accident wipes out all the frontrunners, somehow leaving John Goodman as leader of the Conservative Party

Surely winning a debate with a Torry is just pointing out the window and rubbing their noses in it like the bad puppies they clearly are.

Am I being a simplistic knob now, probably.