I think you're wrong that this has changed in recent weeks. It looks like the BBC's standard political coverage to me. NuLab good, Conservative bad. It's just the way things are at the BBC.

I agree with the above post, apart from a blip during the Iraq war where the Beeb's loathing of Bush overcame their love of New Labour, they have always been slavishly Blairite. Paxman's fawning over Tony Blair in 2001 was vomit inducing, particularly when compared to his sneering at William Hague.

The BBC will treat any Labour spin uncritically wheras anything the Tories say will be bracketed with lots of opportunities for Government spokesman to criticise them.

The BBC plays the part of Pravda in the New Labour totitarian state that we now suffer. Its social engineering obsessions (women and blacks) are both relentless and risible. Its take on itself is grandiose and global. Britain is just a rather unpleasant little white remnant of empire still infested by rotting right-wing Daily Mail hangovers of the past held up by grovelling deference to monarchy by those who know no better. Thank god (no, the UN) that this stinking past will soon be swept away thanks to the diligent efforts of all left-thinking people.

I think you are way off target here.

In my opinion the beeb is inherently left- leaning. It is nothing to do with new labour and Alistair Campbell. Take the recent article from
Rod Liddle (ex editor of the Today programme and the man who hired Gilligan to 'sex up' BBC news):

"But this isn’t a left-liberal bias on the part of the BBC, it is rather an institutional and simplistic sentimentality, a naivety borne of a wish that we all might live happily ever after. "

A more cynical view, to which I subscribe, is that the BBCs very existence requires proof that the private sector does not work. Turkeys don't vote for xmas.

I much preferred Nick Cohen's assessment of the documentary in the Observer. He seems to suggest that the lack of coverage of Howard's campaigning this week was because he was otherwise engaged.

"last night there was a fair and well-made portrait of Michael Howard on BBC2. It had one tiny flaw. It forgot to say that Howard's cousin ran with a psychopathic gangster to whom Howard gave a 'get out of jail free' card."

The phenomenon Alastair Campbell is well understood in Belgium. The local equivalent calls Noël Slangen, although in Belgium it’s prime-minister Verhofstadt himself who calls the newspaper redaction demanding to fire a certain journalist.

Certainly, there actually is a BBC bias against the Tories, but sooner or later the “Veritas” (truth) will emerge. But I wonder whether it is the “Flemish model” with “Flemish Interest” that Tony Blair really wants to promote in the long run.

But perhaps Tony Blair’s political horizon ends with next elections and he perhaps thinks that by dividing the right he can win another election? How short-sighted.

Flanders,

Johan Van Beek

What is the method by which the British public is going to demand objectivity by the BBC?
There is nothing new about its left-liberal leaning bias. This has been exposed over and over again in the last twenty years.
Who is going to correct it? The next Labour administration?
Is political objectivity possible anyway? The most we can hope for is a diversity of bias.

What is the method by which the British public is going to demand objectivity by the BBC?
There is nothing new about its left-liberal leaning bias. This has been exposed over and over again in the last twenty years.
Who is going to correct it? The next Labour administration?
Is political objectivity possible anyway? The most we can hope for is a diversity of bias.

Belgium: about the journalist mentioned above.

For the case you don’t believe me, ask the journalist himself. The journalist calls Derk Jan Eppink from the Belgian daily De Standaard. Fortunately he only lost his column on Friday in which he was too critical for prime-minister Verhofstadt.
Email : opinie@standaard.be
Isn’t there some kind of an “award” for such cases in Britain?

I concur with Mr. Hartup. The only way to meaningfully hit at the BBC is to remove its extortion rights (TV licence fee) and I cannot see any British government doing, especially a Labour government.

The whole structure of the BBC renders them immune from customer dissatisfaction. So suck it up, chaps and chapesses.

I agree with Mr Hartup's first post, but not the second.

I agree with Mr Hartup's second post, but not the first.

I find that theory hard to believe.
Losing a public argument to someone who calls you up and tells you to "f*** off" does not tend to produce less criticism (unless there is also a threat of physical violence). Quite the contrary.
Of course, perhaps the Brits are different.

And anyone who doubts the anti-Semitism not just of the BBC but also of the "great" British public should read the comments here, many of which would not have looked out of place in Der Sturmer.

Should Livingstone apologise for Nazi jibe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4266931.stm

Similarly on Today this morning Michael Howard got a grilling over his immigration policy. A few minutes later Des Browne (Gov immigration minister) was handled with kid gloves, allowed to blether on irrelevantly about students and lamely permitted to avoid a salient question on links between immigration and TB.

I'm not sure if the spectre of Alistair Campbell was hovering in the background. It seemed more to me that Today is viscerally uncomfortable with the fact that Howard has decided to tackle immigration head-on/pander to the less pleasant attitudes of the electorate and presenters can't disguise their deeply held principles/prejudices.

Having not heard the two interviews to which Stephen refers to I am unable to comment on his most recent allegations of bias against the Beeb. However, if the Corporation was as anti-Tory as he suggests, would they not have picked up on the recent press story about Michael Howard when Home Secretary having released a violent drug dealer early from prison (early, as in 2 years into a 14 year sentence), whose accomplice in crime happened to be Howard's first cousin? One would have thought that James Naughtie might have mentioned it duing his interview with the Tory leader this morning, no?

I think the difference now is that the Beeb does not even bother to disguise its prejudice against the Tories (and anyone else of right persuasion). They seem to believe the centre should be to the left of Labour and anyone to the right of Labour should be refered to as far right.

The Howard piece could have been far-worse but to refer to it as even the slightest bit objective is a nonsense. How could the Tories been foolish enough to let them do a documentary on their leader? What did they expect?

"It is not Labour which the BBC should fear, but the British people - the license payers. We pay its salaries. We have a right to demand objectivity." True, but the rot is deeper than simple political bias, which has been present for decades.

I toured Auchwitz last year, an extremely interesting and harrowing visit, which I strongly recommend. As we entered the one remaining gas chamber, the guide, an appropriately serious woman, explained how the Polish people relied on the BBC during the war as the only source of reliable news. Momentarily, our chests swelled in pride.Then a fellow British visitor mumbled audibly "How things have changed. Now, they would probably just send more gas".

Especially, but not exclusively, during the war in Iraq and the last days of Arafat, the BBC has broadcast many reports with a racist anti-semetic and anti-American bias. If a football manager can be ousted for a single remark, the entire BBC newsroom should be unemployable by now.

Add this to the undoubted domestic political agenda and there is hardly an issue where one can trust the BBC to give an objective account. Science is a particular casualty. I have just heard another hopelessly unbalanced account of Kyoto, designed for one purpose, to paint Bush as black as distorted 'facts' will allow.

I am ashamed of the 'British' in BBC and outraged that I am required to support an organisation so bigoted and so morally bancrupt. Like the RUC at its nadir, the BBC should be taken apart and restructured without the current tainted staff.

Steve your post is too long by exactly seven words. The last seven.

Alastair Campbell? Pull the other one. The reason the BBC is as it is and has been for some time is this:

Half of those who work there are arseh@les.

It is that simple. And if the Beeb tick you off, you best avoid Channel 4 News.

Anthony Browne of the Times absolutly hammered Victoria Derbyshire this morning on R5L, when she suggested all this immigrant thing was a Right wing myth all across the anglosphere world...catch it again on the site. 42 minutes in!!

I would appreciate it if you would view my Blog. It deals with the issue of BBC Bias. www.bbc-bias.blogspot.com

If Labour win the election, they can owe it to the fact that most of their campaigning being done on the BBC 24 hours a day, every day. Look at the recent wave of Conservative negativity, and the way that Labour are almost 'promoted'.

If the Tories were ten points ahead in the polls, the Beeb would be sucking up to them. It's a bureaucracy: it has to keep in with the politicians who fix its regulations and licence fee.

There is no party-political bias, just a predisposition towards adolescent suspiciousness and rebelliousness such as is always found among journoes. It's a matter of temperament. Solid, substantial, mature, uncritical people run things; journoes heckle from the sidelines.

I notice Pollard never criticises the Beeb when its collective prejudices coincide with his own, e.g. its sneering attitude to the monarchy.

Most people use and value the BBC chiefly for output other than its current affairs coverage. Viewers reckon that just over two quid a week is better value than the likes of Murdoch could dish up at the price. They grumble but cough up. That will go on being the case for at least another decade, so all this fuming about bias from a small minority of partisan wonks will be so much piffle in the wind.

“If the Tories were ten points ahead in the polls, the Beeb would be sucking up to them.”

When Thatcher was in power the BBC output was mostly a long air raid siren of despondency, panic, and scare mongering.

“It's a bureaucracy: it has to keep in with the politicians who fix its regulations and licence fee.”

Even if this were true that would not be a reason for keeping it. In reality of course turkeys do not vote for Christmas, and so you will wait until Doomsday before you hear anybody on the BBC suggests that a low taxation regime with privatised services is desirable.

“There is no party-political bias”

That most BBC journalists find Blair and New Labour too Tory does not exclude them from hating the ‘Tories’.

“I notice Pollard never criticises the Beeb when its collective prejudices coincide with his own.”

Pollard notes that even though he is a Labour voter he finds the BBC leftist agenda tiresome.

“Most people use and value the BBC chiefly for output other than its current affairs coverage.”

Which even if it were true would be irrelevant, because what is at issue is its political output.

“all this fuming about bias from a small minority of partisan wonks”

The BBC [those that is who reflect upon such matters] is fully aware of the fact that it is a joke amongst by non-leftist specialists, but they are not its target audience. The BBC extracts money from the British public in order to instruct them in correct thinking.

You can pay for it if you want to – you obviously find it great value for money – but I don’t want to thank you. Nor do I want to be fined or put into prison because I do not want to pay for it.

Chris Goodman's comments are spot on. The BBC was deeply anti-Tory during the Maggie years, though arguably it gave Labour a pretty rough ride when Michael Foot was leader and indeed during the early Kinnock years. However, since the late 1980s its bias has been all one way.

But I don't think one will ever get rid of all bias. We need to scrap the licence fee and be upfront about the differences of opinion out there, such as is the case with the likes of Fox news in the US. It is time the people of this country were treated like adults rather than as the sort of unruly children imagined by Lord Reith and successors. What we need is as much diversity as possible.

rgds

Well said Jon and spot on. There is no way to reform the BBC away from its prejudices, save making it stand on its own two feet.

I don't agree that it has an obvious bias, especially in comparison with other media outlets. To me its coverage of news is far more neutral. Listen to the Today program, or watch Newsnight. Labour ministers get the same treatment as the Tories; they both get verbally beat up by Humphries and Paxman.

For me ITV news seems to lean towards the Tories, or at the least is very much anti Labour, while C4 news, largely Left wing in it's outlook, is very critical of a lot of Labour policies. The BBC criticises each party equally, if you look at the bigger picture, and is questioning of both main parties. Of course that's not to say it's not biased, as all the individuals within the organisation have political allegiances of some sort, and this will seep through no matter what safe guards on objectivity are in place.

If my view is seen to be one that is naïve to the ways the media works, so be it. I follow the media, but not that in depth. My opinion is based on the overall picture I gather from watching and listening to the news/other political programs on the BBC, and other news outlets. And isn't coloured by knowing the ins and outs of the political games between BBC and Government and opposition.

The best description of BBC bias I've read was in an article by Rod Liddle in The Spectator last year in which he described the BBC's news output as being controlled by a "mushy soft-left consensus". The BBC's politics are actually a little to the left of New Labour, the two may not always agree (eg Iraq, foundation hospitals), but with an election approaching the beeb has clearly decided which side it's on.

BBC staffers are recruited via The Guardian jobs page from a small pool of left liberal opinion. There is one BBC world view - statist, leftist, anti-business, anti-war - you will never find a BBC journalist who expresses an opinion of the basic Guardian values. It was amusing, for example, to listen to a woman presenter on Radio 5 interviewing someone from the Countryside Alliance - she might as well have been talking to a man from Mars for all they had in common.

Incidentally, when did The Mail decide to go with the American spelling of 'licence'?

No, you doctrinaires are spitting into the wind. Labour knows the public's mind better than you do, and it has already agreed to keep the BBC afloat with all flags flying for at least ten years, thank God.

If Mr Chris Goodman dislikes paying for the BBC, all he has to do is cripple his TV so it can't receive it. The rest of us will go on rejoicing in the best system of broadcasting the world has ever enjoyed, and no stupid bloody ads to interrupt the programmes. With all these new digital channels the licence fee is better value than ever.

It is noticeable that the terms "liberal" or "liberal left" (see comments above) are assuming the same meaning as in the US and are being increasingly used in a denigratory context .

Left-wingers are generally not liberal - they believe in taking your money from you and spending it themselves. They believe in an over-mighty state. They are authoritarian.

These are not liberal qualities. I believe in personal choice and responsibility with as few restrictions as possible - liberal values.

What exactly is the point of a state owned broadcasting company?

None of the arguments stand up to scrutiny except maybe, to broadcast government propaganda.

I don't care about the bias, just privatise it and be done with it.

This is less party-political bias than just simple political bias. Those at the BBC want to impose their views on their viewers, who they know - by in large - trust them. It takes a big person to be objective and fair-minded.

The notion that the BBC are scared of Labour over the Hutton episode is just wrong and you can easily see this by watching BBC footage pre-Hutton. The Liberal Democrats, for a party of their size and nature, get a great deal of "browny points" at the BBC.

Your Alastair Campbell connection is just wrong in my opinion.

Effra says: ... and no bloody stupid ads to interrupt the programmes ...

In which alternate universe do you watch the BBC? On the BBC, there is a constant stream of self-congratulatory, noisy, hard sell commercials for .... the BBC! For upcoming programmes ... not just on the channel one is watching, but other channels. For publications. For trailers for programmes you wouldn't watch if you were alone on a desert island. I suspect the BBC stuffs more commercials into its broadcasts than are legally allowable for commercial channels, although I don't know this for sure. Perhaps the BBC's ads just seem more intrusive because they are iron-fisted (being state privileged) and don't have the polish that some private sector commercials have.

Hello Effra

If the BBC is as good as you say (I disagree- I believe it is complete rubbish), then surely the BBC has nothing to fear from privatisation/subscription, rather than the current system of jailing people for non- payment. As all the people who believe it is the 'best braoadcasting system in the world' will pay for it, perhaps even more than the current licence fee. CNN, which is a left- leaning, media organisation, does not have a problem standing on its own two feet.

I think there is a need for a left wing channel such as the BBC, but that the competition for debate in our country should at least be done on an equal footing.

Verity: The BBC only shows promos between programmes, not during them; therefore they are not interrupted. Its total non-programming airtime during peak hours is five minutes an hour, compared with seven on the commercial terrestrial networks. It confines itself to publicising the productions we pay for, not to irrelevant messages for soap powder and loans. This is a useful service for the licence payer.

Lee: The BBC exists primarily for the lower orders of society: those who would be deprived of information and culture if they had to pay for them through a commercial service, which is more wasteful and provides a narrower range of material. The overall cost of the BBC is not exorbitant per household, and I am content to go on subsidising the poor. It is a matter of noblesse oblige, and a fine illustration of the philanthropy that flourishes under our divinely ordained constitutional monarchy.

Don't forget that news is a relatively unimportant part of what public service broadcasting has to offer, so comparisons with CNN are inapt.

Effra writes, "If Mr Chris Goodman dislikes paying for the BBC, all he has to do is cripple his TV so it can't receive it. The rest of us will go on rejoicing in the best system of broadcasting the world has ever enjoyed, and no stupid bloody ads to interrupt the programmes. With all these new digital channels the licence fee is better value than ever."

Tosh. Arguably the logic goes the other way. With all the extra digital channels etc, there is less, not more, need for a state funded broadcasting service. There has never been so much choice. If the kind of fare served up by the Beeb is so wonderful it will survive quite well in the marketplace. To assume otherwise is to assume that the only way to produce good telly is to bully people into paying for it, which seems to be the logic of Effra's argument.

It is time to put Auntie into the grave.

Also, I could not help notice the extremely patronising element of Effra's argument, which comes straight out of the Lord Reith handbook, namely, that the "lower orders" need to have the BBC imposed on them by their wealthier betters.

Actually, a lot of ordinary, working class folk are just as fed up with the trash on television as anyone else. Much of it caters to London's media elite and the associated values thereof.

Hello Effra

I think your logic is the wrong way round, the Licence Fee is the working class subsidising the middle class. You have obviously never been to BBC HQ at White City to see all the Empires there.

Even if that were not the case, I am quite happy to redistribute income. I would also be quite happy for the money to go to the NHS as health is a 'public good'.

You will still be able to give your money to the lower orders, perhaps they might spend it on their childrens education. Though somehow I think your definition of them as the ‘lower orders’ would lead you to assume that they would spend it on booze and fags.
You are the only person I know who regards the BBC as efficient. If you think of the improved performance of industries that were privatized (have you noticed those lower phone bills and electricity bills?), I think even a hardened sceptic would accept that, generally speaking, the private sector is more efficient. As a quick benchmark the total headcount at Channel 4 is less than the BBC Human Resources department. And Channel 4 is of immeasurably higher quality than the BBC.

I think the comparison with CNN is perfectly apt, since the only potential argument for the BBC is as a potentially unbiased news organization. If you speak to senior people at the BBC, I am sure that they will tell you that the BBC is a counter to Rupert Murdoch and private interests- CNN is the obvious example of a left wing media organization that can cut it).

There is absolutely no argument to support the BBCs other output, comedy, drama, etc. The private sector has a track record in producing better drama (Sopranos) and comedy (Will and Grace) and drama (The West Wing).

I may agree with the world service as providing a service for people who cannot pay, i.e in 3rd world countries.

The BBC is a rotting corpse - left lying around far too long.

Ugh- ha. Corporation, corpse.......coffin.

Effra
The BBC licence fee is a poll tax and therefore hits the lower paid harder than the better off.
Surely a leftie like you can understand this simple concept.

Efra

If by 'lower order' you are referring to intellect, rather than wealth, I would have to agree with you, the BBC is for the 'lower orders'

Peter: no such thing as left and right, but the proper comparison is between what the lower orders pay today for the BBC and what they would have to pay-- or forgo-- for a fully commercialised system. Precedents from the USA, Canada and Australia are discouraging. A large, dominant public sector is preferable in delivering a wide spread of good-quality programmes more cheaply.

The licence fee is levied on households, not individuals. Hence it is not a poll tax. It is sufficiently good value for a one-person home, and a steal for those multiply occupied.

Luckily the argument is academic. The BBC is set fair to sail majestically on, growing ever bigger-- the most universally admired media brand in history.

Lee: Your opinions about programme quality are subjective. I happen to disagree with all of them, but there are more reliable ways of gauging public preferences. In the absence of any widespread disinclination on the public's part to replace the BBC (e.g. licence fee strikes) and in view of its rising share of listening and viewing at the expense of the commercial operators, we can adopt the good conservative principle: 'I it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Your comparison with C4 is maladroit on two counts. First, C4 is itself a nationalised industry, with less editorial independence than the BBC enjoys since it is a private company owned by a government department and has no royal charter or governors. Secondly, that "the total headcount at Channel 4 is less than the BBC Human Resources department" proves less than nothing. C4 operates one mainstream and one satellite channel plus a few spin-offs, whereas the BBC has two mainstream networks, a clutch of digital ones, five radio networks and chains of local stations, plus the busiest website in Europe and a stable of publications.

Johnathan: You are quite right. I am an elitist; I am not a democrat in any shape or form. I rejoice at what Reith, the most lastingly influential Briton of the past century, called the brute force of monopoly and its power to introduce my intellectual, social and moral inferiors to delights of which Rupert Murdoch recks not. I just wish we could take the other terrestrial networks out of the stock market too. There is no reason why financing yourself by selling spot airtime should be the preserve of companies which squander their profits on daft diversifications, as ITV's have so often done, instead of ploughing them back into service to the consumer.

Efra

Firstly:

"the proper comparison is between what the lower orders pay today for the BBC and what they would have to pay-- or forgo-- for a fully commercialised system. Precedents from the USA, Canada and Australia are discouraging. A large, dominant public sector is preferable in delivering a wide spread of good-quality programmes more cheaply. "

This could be the one good source of information you have provided. What is your source for this claim, I am very interested. Or is this your subjective opinion?

Secondly

"there are more reliable ways of gauging public preferences... in view of its rising share of listening and viewing at the expense of the commercial operators,"

I think that this is true only if you exclude the far superior Sky TV, since the bbcs tv viewing figures

"have fallen to an all-time low in the week that the director general, Mark Thompson, announced swingeing cutbacks.
BBC1's share of all television viewing falls through the psychologically important 25 per cent barrier for the first time in the broadcaster's history, according to audience figures for this year up to 9 December."

It would seem that by your own standards the BBC is in decline. Perhaps the 'lower orders' are moving up market.

Thirdly

Who is this Reith bloke, never heard of him...

Efra

"Luckily the argument is academic. The BBC is set fair to sail majestically on, growing ever bigger-- the most universally admired media brand in history. "

Seems wishfull thinking, since the government has decided that the Charter will end in 2012. As for being the most univaersally admired brand in history. I think that would be your 'subjective opinion', I would call in imagination, but that is personal preference. However, there is growing evidence that CNN is probaly the most admired brand. Have a look at this:

http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/49072.html

"It reaches more than three times as many viewers as BBC World during the morning and evening prime viewing periods. "

Roll on 2012

All taxation is theft. Even if I thought the BBC made the best programmes on the planet (and I do not believe it comes close anymore) I would vote to get rid of the licence fee tax and make the BBC stand or fall based on what the public will voluntarily pay for it. Effra, and others of a similar elitist (is that similar to authoritarian?), if you value the BBC you can pay for it just allow me (one of the lower orders) to make my own choices.

Effra: "...I am an elitist; I am not a democrat in any shape or form. I rejoice at...power to introduce my intellectual, social and moral inferiors to delights..."

Listen Adolf, or Joe, or whatever your real name is, we fought wars against people like you for good reason.

Since the BBC is supported by your kind, there's all the more reason to dump it. You're not on their payroll by any chance, are you? In the bunker at Shepherds Bush?

Either that or your an ace wind-up merchant.

I agree with comments above, but the real damage done by the BBC is not politcal but social. Most of its popular TV programs, along with those of the independent companies, rot the brains of the electorate. To be forced to pay for this rubbish, and therefore to contribute to such rubbish as East Enders, Mr Blobby and dozens of house renovation, antiques, lifestyle, doctors and nurses and cops and robbers shows is to be forced to fund to the method by which the government renders the population susceptible to spin and downright lies from politicians. Has anyone seen the new government adverts asking people to speak to their children so they can grow up to communicate properly? Why should we pay for these adverts when the BBC has recently started 2 dedicated childrens channel, which can only help produce a new generation of gormless couch potatoes?

Have to agree that the idea that the BBC leans to labor because Alistair scares it is plain nonsense - infact I'd describe it as classic New Labor spin. In effect what Stephen is saying is that, were it not for Campbell, the BBC would be impartial i.e. that Paxo and Wark are natural independents and that we should interpret them as such - which is nonsense - they're extreme centrist pinkos who should be listeend to as such.

I would have never known that Stephen Pollard was a Labour voter.

He sounds extremely Tory on many an occasion! Dont you think?

I share the general opinion of BBC bias, not just over New Labour, but also concerning their pro-EU promotion, but I think that the idea that some sort of conspiracy controls the BBC is misguided. I think what's really going on here is classic organizational behaviour. Another poster already mentioned the BBC doing its recruiting through the Guardian, but we should also remember that all organizations develop concensus views, often without recognizing that they are. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation will have noticed that a common view emerges about the worth of competing products, and more than one corporation has destroyed itself by developing a "chinese wall" behind which employees comfortably assume the superiority of their own products, while suppressing dissent from internal critics.

The value of free-market competition is that in the end it weeds out companies that have developed such a strong concensus that they have become unable to criticise themselves and make progress. When your customers buy competing products and your revenue falls the message is unavoidable.

But what can save an organization which has a guaranteed income based, not on numbers of viewers, but numbers of TV sets? Every single person in the country could turn off the BBC, yet salaries would still be paid and biassed programs produced. The license fee issue is not really a political one; it's a basic issue of organizational feedback. The BBC is like the NHS and the school system. It won't change because it has no financial imperative to do so.

Look here, you private sector b**stards, you can flog off the BBC in its entirety, but could you please leave a small Nissen hut in Shepherds Bush so that the Reduced British Broadcasting Corporation can carry on with Radio 4. The budget can be kept low by not doing any programmes between 6am and 9am.

Bob Doney: It's a deal - provided you extend that time out period to 6am to 6am, Monday to Monday, with exceptions for when Melvyn Bragg and his adenoids would normally be on air. Junk the rest.

Lee: Plucking one week out of the air is no guide to viewing habits, which change very slowly. Back in 1957, one BBC channel got only 20% of viewing against one ITV channel. Now it gets a quarter of viewing against 200 or 300 and has never polled stronger relative to ITV.

Although the BBC, like all terrestrial broadcasters, has lost some audience share to satellite channels, it is more competitive relative to its main rivals (ITV, C4 and Five) than ever before. Moreover the chief driver of non-terrestrial expansion in the past year has not been BSkyB's dishes or US-owned cable but Freeview: a platform part-owned by the BBC and majoring on free BBC channels such as CBeebies and BBC3, which are conducted on Reithean lines.

For 15 years Rupert Murdoch has been shooting a line about how the great unwashed prefer his crap to the tasty, balanced, varied diet they get from the BBC. Now Sky One and Sky Sports are on the ropes, with nothing to boast about except soccer and The Simpsons, the same old stuff they were peddling at the launch in 1989. Sky is far less innovative than the terrestrials; essentially it is a parasite.

I doubt that nearly as many people throughout the world have heard of CNN as know the BBC. Besides, CNN only does rolling news, and as I keep reiterating, hard news is among the least important strands of television, though to suck up to self-obsessed politicians the BBC has to pretend otherwise.

Nick Timms: I have no confidence whatever in the ability of most people to choose what is the best for themselves unguided by experts. People do *not* know what they want; they like having their minds made up for them, just as in a restaurant they put themselves in the chef's hands and choose from a limited menu knowing that the ingredients will be thoughtfully chosen and skilfully prepared. Of course, there are bound to be disappointments and off-nights, but why throw the distinct possibility of excellence away for a mess of Murdoch junk food, served with transparent contempt and priced at £25-40 a month?

Jon Livesey: Every single programme the BBC broadcasts is measured both for appreciation and size of audience by a carefully stratified panel of viewers, representing the demography of the nation. This continuous assessment is supplemented by endless general surveys, focus groups and a mountain of correspondence and feedback. Broadcasting is the most thoroughly market-researched product in history. Programme-makers have a far sharper idea of consumer reactions than manufacturers of baked beans or soap powder. If the consensus were that the BBC had failed in its duty to the nation as adumbrated in its charter, MPs and their constituents would be clamouring for it to be broken up and sold off. Instead, the BBC is going from strength to strength, and the issue is hardly alive outside the grumblings of dogmatic "free" marketeers on the sidelines.

It is the fast-shrinking ITV and the impoverished, American-besotted Sky which are leaching viewers. The debate in Whitehall broadcasting-policy circles now is how to subsidise public service provision on C4 and ITV, not how to sabotage one of the things the world most admires us for.

Effra, people are not forced to pay to keep one restaurant going before they are allowed to sample the delights of others. As for people not knowing what is best for them, I suppose that explains Mr Blobby and other BBC offerings. They are good for us, but we're too stupid to realise. Well most of us are, not enlightened creatures like you though.

By the way, I used to pay Murdoch £38 per month for his sports channels. I stopped a few months ago and he still hasn't threatened to fine me or send me to jail.

Hello Effra

I did not think you would be able to provide any facts to support your views.

The survey I linked to on CNN provides hard figures, wereas all you ever offer is your subjective opinion.

E.g. "I doubt that nearly as many people throughout the world have heard of CNN as know the BBC. "

Indeed you do not seem to have a good grasp on any figures. The 24% audience figure for the BBC was not for 'one week' as you suggest it was for the whole of 2004. Moreover the BBC1s share has fallen pretty consistently from 39% in 1981.

Now, I'm no genius, since I come from the 'lower orders', but that looks like a decline to me.

If you are an elitist, I cannot understand what you think you are elitist in? Perhaps fanticist would be a better word?

PS: The number of subscribers to Sky grew again last month.

One point, since it's something I have personal experience of (so I declare an interest): recruiting through the Guardian's media pages doesn't mean everyone who joins the BBC will be leftwing.

Every journalistic organisation I've ever come across (including, natch, the Daily Mail) has consisted of hacks using the Guardian's media section to find jobs. The problem is that nobody else provides the opportunity (save the Independent, who recently launched their own media section) so the Graun becomes the de facto home.

If the Times or the Telegraph happened to run the strongest media supplement, then they would get the ads. Instead they see fit to dispense with their experts like Ray Snoddy to cut costs.

I'm not entirely sure Pollard's views are genuine (is he *really* worried that they're too pro-Labour, or does he just need another argument for the abolition of the BBC?), but I do agree - there's a lot of improvement needed, though we may differ on the how-to.

Lee/Effra:

I don't want to get into arguments over figures, you can jibe each other all you like, but here are just a couple of points to set the facts straight:

The overall decline in audience figures is about several things, including multimedia and multichannel television, not just a measure of quality output.

BBC1 is currently the most popular channel in the UK, it has rallied and is now stronger than ITV1.

Freeview (which has the BBC's digital channels at the core of its product) is growing faster than Sky, and is likely to overtake it soon.

At least if you're going to have an argument, get the information right in the first place.

Effra's bit about Sky Sports showing the ' same old stuff they were peddling at the launch in 1989' is not quite true. The football, which is all I watched, kept changing. The matches were always live or recent recordings. My local butchers shop is still selling the same old stuff it was selling in1989. Nobody minds. It's a butchers shop. Sky Sports still shows sport. Nobody minds. It's a sports channel. The clue is in the name. Meanwhile, since 1989, the BBC has lost lots of sport and now shows international bowls and badminton instead of live football and test cricket. So they give us less, but has the price gone down? No, in real terms it has gone up. In the real world, if your product gets worse, you get less customers, less pay, and possibly no pay at all if the company goes bust. BBC staff simply decree that their product is excellent, and take the pay rise they therefore deserve. Lucky them.

pedro: Glad you stopped wasting money on Murdochvision. Nobody is preventing other "restaurants" from competing with the BBC-- there are now 200 or more. Yet the public obstinately refuses to behave the way capitalistic economists thought they would. We like our nationalised industry's menu, just as we'd rather have a big NHS, supplemented by private hospitals if one chooses to pay extra, instead of totally privatising health care. Common sense, empiricism, trust in what works-- the British way.

Lee: Freeview subscriber numbers are rising much faster than BSkyB's.

The audience shares for calendar 2004 (2003 in brackets) were:

BBC1 24.7% (25.6%)
BBC2 10.0% (11.1%)
ITV1 22.8% (23.7%)
C4 9.7% (9.4%)
Five 6.6% (6.4%)
Others (including BBC satellite) 26.3% (23.6%)

Thus the two BBC terrestrial networks took 34.7% of viewing. For the second year running (as Bobbie says) BBC1 was the nation's favourite channel-- ans this for only the second time since the first full year of competition in 1956.

After nearly 20 years of satellite, cable and digiboxes, almost three-quarters of viewing is to the five closely regulated public service broadcasting channels. BBC1, with its wider variety of programming, is drawing away from ITV1. Alternatives to mainstream TV have not developed nearly as fast as their promoters hoped. (Murdoch's chief entertainment channel, Sky One, is about to be overtaken by ITV2 and UKTV Gold, which consist largely of repeats of ITV1 and BBC1 programmes.)

It's "fantasist", BTW.

I didn't waste money on Sky. The sports channels are great. I gave up my job and decided to economise. I'd like to stop paying for the BBC too, but if I cancel my direct debit I can expect a big fine which would wipe out any savings made. I'd get along fine with ITV and all the free satellite channels. You see adverts don't bother me as I'm a big boy who knows they are just there to make me buy things I don't need. I don't need protecting from them as I suspect you do.

You viewing figures are irrelevant. Nobody should be forced to pay for a product they don't want, especially a product as trivial, superficial and non-essential as television programmes. And if the BBC is so good and popular, they should have no fear of charging only those people who use its services.

As for the evils of capitalism, Murdoch hasn't bullied me to keep paying for his services. He sends me polite letters to try and persuade me to sign up again at a introductory reduced rate. The wonderful BBC runs adverts telling people about fines for those who don't pay for it - not a very liberal approach, but then it is a giant world-wide corporation of the type usually disliked by liberal people.

Murdoch will get my cash again when I'm back in paid work. No point signing up at the moment as the Premier League is all sewn up.

pedro: Economists have concluded that only half the cost of advertising goods and services on commercial TV is recovered in extra sales. Why should I suffer this concealed tax, and the interruption of programmes by ads, without any ability to opt out? In fact devices for skipping over commercial breaks are already coming on to the market and worrying advertisers. It seems many people are as fed up with this impertinent and tedious hucksterism as I am.

Moreover, after the switchover to digital transmission at about the time the current charter period expires, it should be feasible and attractive to convert the BBC to a voluntary subscription service like Japan's NHK. Given the current strength of demand, it will probably be able to set tariffs which produce a somewhat higher net revenue stream than the licence fee furnishes after evasion and enforcement costs.

Most of those who bluster that they never watch the BBC and won't be coughing up will have their bluff called, and will avoid becoming objects of social derision by staying on board. Not having the BBC, like getting a Sky dish in 1990, will be the mark of the chav. Thereafter the public sector will cream the commercial broadcasters as never before. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Effra! "Economists have concluded that only half the cost of advertising goods and services on commercial TV is recovered in extra sales."

This looks like the old maxim, "We know only half of our advertising works - trouble is, we don't know which half." Anyway your statement can't possibly be true: everyone knows that economists never conclude anything. And I mean "everyone".

You say 'Why should I suffer this concealed tax, and the interruption of programmes by ads, without any ability to opt out?' You do have the ability to opt out. Watching TV is not compulsory. Watching TV with ads in is not compusory. Looking at the screen when the ads are on is not compulsory. Even owning a TV is not compulsory.

Why should I suffer the BBC poll tax without the ability to opt out of paying it? I don't want the BBC and I don't want to pay for it. It's as simple as that. The BBC is the only consumer product you have to pay for before you are allowed to buy another brand of the same product.

Effra, I am paying for some of you entertainment. You're paying for none of mine. Your viewing is subsidised by others. No wonder you're happy with the status quo. It is nice when people give you money instead of having to work for it.

pedro: "Watching TV is not compulsory. Watching TV with ads in is not compulsory. Looking at the screen when the ads are on is not compulsory. Even owning a TV is not compulsory."

Legally you can already cripple your set to block BBC channels and not pay the licence fee. There are precedents, and if you want to look like a boneheaded doctrinaire fanatic, I suggest you call in a friendly electrician and alert the local detector van.

But whereas watching TV which includes ads is not compulsory, paying the hidden extra cost of them is. How do I opt out of the secret ITV/C4/Five tax on every supermarket bill? Ask for a discount at the checkout? Emigrate?

This kind of argument, over a paltry £120 a year, is the economic equivalent of mediaeval theologians pondering how many angels could dance on a pinhead. Face it, the BBC is here to stay, and it's probably going to loom larger in the broadcast landscape.

Us plebs who go to the local Tesco aren't paying a "secret tv tax" anyore than we pay a "secret magazine advertising tax". Some of the profits we generate go towards marketing; if commerical tv ceased to exist that budget would be spent on other methods.

Effra

Agreed with every word you say about the BBC.

The most concrete, coherent and persuasive arguments in defence of public sector broadcasting - and the BBC in particular - I've ever read.

The swivel-eyed BBC detractors are floundering.

Keep up the good work.

You say' Legally you can already cripple your set to block BBC channels and not pay the licence fee. There are precedents, and if you want to look like a boneheaded doctrinaire fanatic, I suggest you call in a friendly electrician and alert the local detector van.'

You cannot just 'cripple your set' in this way and avoid the licence fee. On this point you are just plain wrong. Nobody at all would be campaigning for the abolition of the BBC poll tax (licence fee) fee if this were the case - what would be the point? The market would also be providing 'ready crippled ' sets by now, with big adverts for them saying 'Avoid the licence fee - buy this set'.Tell me of the precedents you know about - thousands are eager to know of them.

To save £120 a year, I wouldn't mind appearing a boneheaded fanatic to people such as you. If only wanting to pay for the TV I want to watch is fanaticism, then I supose I am a fanatic. I'm fanatical in the same way about food, housing, books, cars, gas, elctricity and lots of other things. I pay for what I want, I don't pay for what I don't want. As someone who has lived exclusively on taxed income for 27 years, and with no benefit claims at all, I don't mind helping out people less fortunate than myself with the essentials of life such as housing, food and free prescriptions, but I draw the line a providing them with TV.

As I subsidise your entertainment, and you don't subsidise mine, maybe you should be grateful rather than scathing towards me. You don't want my opinions, but you do want my money. I don't want your money. Who is the capitalist, you or me?

Well said, Pedro. I don't even own a television and I am constantly harrased by the licensing people about it. They won't believe that I don't have a TV and say that I must allow them to search my house. I have written to say that under no circumstances will I allow them to search my house. If they think that I am disobeying the law then they can call the police. Otherwise, they should leave me alone. I still fear that one day they will turn up. Meanwhile the letters - smug and ungrammatical (reminiscent of the service they raise money for) - continue to arrive.

Even though it is possible to avoid paying the license fee (by not owning a television) it is not possible to avoid suppoting the BBC altogether. The Corporation and its associated Trusts and companies also receive funding from the government and grants and interest free loans from the European Commission. All of this is paid for by taxation. One way or another the urban clique that runs the BBC extracts money from us in order to impose their tired old leftist ideas on the rest of the world.

Come on Effra. Why should Denise and I pay just so you can watch Eastenders? And don't bother telling us who re-killed Dirty Den. That kind of stuff might be OK for people like you. Some of us don't rely on the BBC to tell us what to think or enjoy.

Hello Bobbie
No offence, but I cannot quite follow the logic of your post. In particular the suggestion:
“At least if you're going to have an argument, get the information right in the first place.”
I am not suggesting that you have got any facts wrong, but they do not seem to contradict anything that has gone before
For example:
“BBC1 is currently the most popular channel in the UK, it has rallied and is now stronger than ITV1.”
Yes- It was not said otherwise
Or
“Freeview (which has the BBC's digital channels at the core of its product) is growing faster than Sky, and is likely to overtake it soon.”
No comment was made on Freeview. But since you brought it up. Are you referring to Freeview viewing figures or subscribers? One of your own Guardian journalists (Owen Wilson) has queried the Freeview figures for subscribers, suggesting that it is 25% below thet claimed by the BBC and commenting:
"The BBC seems to be manipulating figures for its own interest."
Now I’m not one to accuse the BBC of sexing up a story, but it would not be the first time would it?
Freeview might overtake Sky, but I understand Sky are launching something similar. I think it is a little early to make such a calim, particularly as Sky is about to launch a similar package.

Hello Efra
I’m glad you are now at last, at least referring to some figures, rather than just ranting on. It seems we are both looking at the BARB figures (http://www.barb.co.uk/TVFACTS.cfm?fullstory=true&includepage=share&flag=tvfacts)
Indeed these figures do show that the BBC currently has the highest share of viewing of 34.7 in 2004. What I commented on was the decline in the BBC share (the figures clearly show that the share was 52 in 1981 . As you said in one of your earlier posts viewing habits change slowly over time…but I think there is a clear trend? According to the Times the latest viewing figures “are the lowest in the BBCs history”.
Year
BBC1 BBC2 Others
1981 39 12 -
1982 38 12 -
1983 37 11 -
1984 36 11 -
1985 36 11 -
1986 37 11 -
1987 38 12 -
1988 38 11 -
1989 39 11 -
1990 37 10 -
1991 34 10 4
1992 34 10 5
1993 33 10 6
1994 32 11 7
1995 32 11 9
1996 33.5 11.5 10.1
1997 30.8 11.6 11.8
1998 29.5 11.3 12.9
1999 28.4 10.8 14.0
2000 27.2 10.8 16.6
2001 26.9 11.1 19.6
2002 26.2 11.4 22.1
2003 25.6 11.0 23.6
2004 24.7 10 26.2
The reason I quoted these figures was because you claimed :
“The BBC is set fair to sail majestically on, growing ever bigger-- the most universally admired media brand in history”
and
“in view of it’s (the BBCs) rising share of listening and viewing at the expense of the commercial operators,
I may be a simple ‘lower order’ type, but I think you have just provided hard facts to disprove your earlier claims.
Anyhow, this means that from a virtual monopoly, the BBC has declined to 34 % of viewing. Which is why the government has decided to end the Royal Charter in 2012. The BBC also knows this and is gearing up for privatization by slashing the workforce and relocating much of its operations to sunny Manchester.

Also BBC World, which operates commercially, and is making a hash of it, is performing poorly and according to reports in the Financial press will be sold (to CNN) or closed down.

PS: if you need any advice on buying a flat up here let me know

Ben: Many thanks.

Jim: "Some of the profits we generate go towards marketing; if commerical tv ceased to exist that budget would be spent on other methods."

It wouldn't. The irrecoverable portion is that estimated by econometricians as non-substitutable in other media, or by below-the-line marketing. In fact the big secular rise in the percentage of British GDP taken by advertising since the mid-1950s is entirely due to the introduction of commercial TV.

Lee: "The market would also be providing 'ready crippled' sets by now, with big adverts for them saying 'Avoid the licence fee - buy this set'.Tell me of the precedents you know about - thousands are eager to know of them."

They are not. There is no demand for BBC-less sets. There is not even a cash-only, no-questioned-asked subterranean trade among proles in pubs, as there is for dodgy subscription-TV gear. Every attitude survey makes it clear that only the dimmest chavs and most tedious doctrinaires say they don't want to pay for the BBC, and their bluff has not been called yet. MPs hardly ever get complaints about the principle of the licence fee (as opposed to its level) and they know that messing with the favourite choice on Britain's favourite leisure activity would be political dynamite.

The only people who want to vandalise the BBC are a little band of axe-grinders. Even Murdoch doesn't want the BBC to be killed off altogether if it means that he has to make more minority programmes as a condition of being allowed to broadcast into Britain. It's a dead issue when the average household of 2.4 people is paying only fifty quid annually per capita (under £1 a week) for such a slew of good-quality TV and radio.

pedro: TV *is* an essential of life, and has been for two generations. It keeps the underclass quiet, and as a rich rentier I am happy to help share the modest expense of it. If the BBC did not provide a good version of prolefeed TV cheaply and efficently, with transparent charging, the "free market" would be serving up an inferior, unpatriotic version *more expensively*, and disguising the true cost through mark-ups in shops.

Why don't you grumblers concentrate on something which really is a scandalous waste of our money, such as the NHS or "defence procurement"? Because you've got no common sense, just an ill-digested mess of ideas from libertarianism-- the autism of politics.

Good night, ladies and gentlemen.

Hello Efra

"The market would also be providing 'ready crippled' sets by now,
with big adverts for them saying 'Avoid the licence fee - buy this set'.
Tell me of the precedents you know about - thousands are eager to know of them."

I cannot follow what you are saying. Is that a question for me or a quote for me to
read (since it is in quotation marks) ?

Anyhow if I were to interpret what I think you were trying to say (not an easy task),
I think you are saying that Freeview sets would be sold without BBC channels on them,
if people did not want the BBC? This would enable them to avoid paying the licence.

You are quite simply wrong (again). The licence is for the tv, so you would still have to pay
the tv licence even if your digibox could not receive the BBC

What did your post say about people who want the BBC to be privatised as having no
"no common sense, just an ill-digested mess of ideas from libertarianism--
the autism of politics."

Following your arguments I think you reconsider as to whether you do fit into that category, given the power of your logic.

You also say:

"Every attitude survey makes it clear that only the dimmest chavs ....
say they don't want to pay for the BBC"

Which survey is this? If it were true, then good, so privatise the bloody thing and put your theory to the test.

Plus is this not a contradiction with your assertion that it is the BBC that is
keeping the chavs in rapture?

Effra's defense of the BBC is pathetic. It only confirms my desire to see it crushed or put out to the market. It is nothing more than an assertion by Effra that superior, cultivated folk -- he presumably classes himself thus -- have a right to coerce people into paying for a broadcasting network because he thinks that is how things should be.

Well, earth to Effra -- this is, still, a free society and I have a higher opinion of my fellows than he obviously does, with his arrogant bs about "the lower orders"

The licence fee is also, for what it is worth, regressive. If it were great value, there would be no need to make it compulsory. The fee is intellectually indefensible.

Hello Efra

Hate to scrutinise your comments, but it is just to easy.

E.g:

"Every attitude survey makes it clear that only the dimmest chavs and most tedious doctrinaires say they
don't want to pay for the BBC, and their bluff has not been called yet."

This opinion survey was from YouGov:

"58 per cent of those surveyed now believe the current system is no longer justified in a multi-channel
world. The BBC's right to levy an annual tax of £112 on every television-owning household in the land
has been predicated on the almost unchallenged assumption that it is an essential British institution,
like the NHS, which everyone believes in."

you can check out this out at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/10/28/dl2802.xml

Happy reading.

I don't want to 'vandalise the BBC'. I just don't want to pay for it because I don't need it. I hope the difference between vandalising something and not paying for something isn't too subtle for you, Effra. Even a chav like me can understand it. I don't care how good or bad the BBC is, I don't care how much other people like it, I don't care whether it lives or dies. I don't care if others would gladly pay £300 a year for it. I just don't use its services and therefore don't see why I should give them any money.

Anyway Effra, where are these 'precedents' for electrician crippled sets that enable you to avoid the attentions of the BBC detector van terror squads? You've gone a bit quiet on that, haven't you?
I bet all those poor people who are fined and jailed for non-payment would have liked to have known of this simple ruse. It's your duty give them the facts.

Excellent - you may want to have a loook at this www.alastair-campbell.blogspot.com for even more reasons to dislike the guy

Just been trawling through your site on views on BBC bias. I think you'll find that it is so endemic at the BBC because when Blair became Labour Leader he set about putting the left-wing bias at the BBC into overdrive. This was obvious by the way the New Labour agenda and anti-Tory smear campaign dovetailed exactly with TODAY's 'order of the day' each morning. Quite simply, the TODAY programme and many other parts of the BBC became and remain an adjunct of New Labour to help get it elected and keep it in power. Obviously Comrades Humphreys and Naughtie have given their Government ("if we get elected") stick over Iraq, but only in the way left-wing Labour backbenchers have done.

Many speak about BBC bias as if it is unintentional or some sort of accident. It isn't. It goes like this: Bent left-wing journalists join the BBC for propaganda reasons and bent BBC management employ them for the same reasons. It is called subversion. The Hutton Report just meant that the BBC has damped down its poor simulation of treating Labour the same as the Tories.

In revolutions, the first thing revolutionaries do is sieze control of the means of communication. This the British Left has succeeded in doing without firing a shot. This is why the (no longer) Great British Public now has views on Iraq and Israel to the left of the Socialist Workers Party. BBC bias is as much a threat to democracy as Trade Union power was in the seventies. The Tory Party needs to deal with it the same way Maggie dealt with the Unions. Privatisation isn't the answer. Returning the BBC to the standards that we once took such tremendous pride in is. Do we anymore have the breeding in our country to produce the likes of Gordon McClough, Alexander Gordon and Robin Lustig, all recent and current icons of what the BBC should be about?

online casinos ranked http://www.go-play-casino.com/online-casinos-ranked/index.html play keno online http://www.go-play-casino.com/play-keno-online/index.html play craps online http://www.go-play-casino.com/ online poker rooms http://www.go-play-casino.com/ blackjack strategy tips http://www.go-play-casino.com/ play online casino bonus http://www.go-play-casino.com/play-online-casino-bonus/index.html how to play roulette http://www.go-play-casino.com/how-to-play-roulette/index.html online casino software http://www.go-play-casino.com/online-casino-software/index.html play slots online http://www.go-play-casino.com/play-slots-online/index.html free texas hold em http://www.go-play-casino.com/ play strip poker online http://www.go-play-casino.com/ texas hold em rules http://www.go-play-casino.com/texas-hold-em-rules/index.html play online casino bonus http://www.go-play-casino.com/ online casino poker http://www.go-play-casino.com/ free video poker game http://www.go-play-casino.com/ free casino games http://www.go-play-casino.com/free-casino-games/index.html online casino poker http://www.go-play-casino.com/online-casino-poker/index.html play craps free http://www.go-play-casino.com/play-craps-free/index.html free blackjack game http://www.go-play-casino.com/ online casino free money http://www.go-play-casino.com/online-casino-free-money/index.html baccarat casino online http://www.go-play-casino.com/ 247688

Thank you for your interest in jewelry. We are sorry to inform you that our website (jewelry) is temporarily unavailable. Looking for free 30 day trials of our products? Visit our jewelry center!. Lost your registration code? Need to download a purchased product again? Visit our http://ideal-cut-diamonds.jal9.com/jewelry.html center to have your information emailed to you! Tell us what you like about the jewelry events and what you think would make them even better. You are the key to making your jewelry experience at jewelry the best it can be. We want to hear from you. Looking for http://ideal-cut-diamonds.jal9.com/jewelry.html, check out our jewelry page as well as our jewelry category. first you have to establish that it's the javascript causing the jewelry problem...does the problem occur if you have javascript disabled?...if not then the next question is whether the problem is with javascript at your end or their jewelry. jewelry is an advanced Website http://ideal-cut-diamonds.jal9.com/jewelry.html service that ensures the reputation and uptime of your e-business. If you decide not to keep the jewelry service after the 30 day trial, it will be deactivated and deleted. No obligation, and with our thanks for trying it out. Visit jewelry now! The fact is, there is a single source of all your problems, jewelry unhappiness and self-doubt. It’s called http://ideal-cut-diamonds.jal9.com/jewelry.html - the hidden part of your mind that stores all painful experiences and then uses them against you. With over 20,000,000 copies in dozens of languages, jewelry has remained a bestseller for more than fifty years. If you decide not to keep the jewelry service after the 30 day trial, it will be deactivated and deleted. No obligation, and with our thanks for trying it out. Visit jewelry now!

Thank you for your interest in best poker. We would be very interested in hearing from you. You may contact us at best poker. Thank you for your interest in best poker We hope that you find the quality of our http://roulette.bac8.com/best-poker.html products and services will prompt you to favor us with your business in the future. Tell us what you like about the best poker events and what you think would make them even better. You are the key to making your best poker experience at best poker the best it can be. We want to hear from you. Our award-winning http://roulette.bac8.com/best-poker.html just got better with support for the Firefox browser! Thank you for your interest in best poker and how we may be able to help your company. A member of our staff will be in touch with you shortly. Play at best poker today. best poker, specializes in database software and http://roulette.bac8.com/best-poker.html applications. Try turning off javascript in IE and then go back to best poker and then on to your site. I had a similar problem with Opera in Linux. Opera would act flakey after a visit to some sites that use js, I had probelsm with best poker site. When you use us to write and send a press release for you about best poker, you are guaranteed that it will be published. Thanks for your interest in best poker. The Page You Just Searched For Does Not Exist! Thank You For Your Interest In best poker We Have Been Serving Quality best poker Since 1996.

Thank you for your interest in best poker. We would be very interested in hearing from you. You may contact us at best poker. Thank you for your interest in best poker We hope that you find the quality of our http://roulette.bac8.com/best-poker.html products and services will prompt you to favor us with your business in the future. Tell us what you like about the best poker events and what you think would make them even better. You are the key to making your best poker experience at best poker the best it can be. We want to hear from you. Our award-winning http://roulette.bac8.com/best-poker.html just got better with support for the Firefox browser! Thank you for your interest in best poker and how we may be able to help your company. A member of our staff will be in touch with you shortly. Play at best poker today. best poker, specializes in database software and http://roulette.bac8.com/best-poker.html applications. Try turning off javascript in IE and then go back to best poker and then on to your site. I had a similar problem with Opera in Linux. Opera would act flakey after a visit to some sites that use js, I had probelsm with best poker site. When you use us to write and send a press release for you about best poker, you are guaranteed that it will be published. Thanks for your interest in best poker. The Page You Just Searched For Does Not Exist! Thank You For Your Interest In best poker We Have Been Serving Quality best poker Since 1996.

We are the one-stop source for בלאק גק, We encourage you to celebrate the spirit of the holiday season, and enjoy the rich content throughout our website בלאק גק. בלאק גק is the leader and innovator in advanced Web Site http://cards.betting-poker.net/jack-black.html Services. Thank you for your interest in בלאק גק. Please submit the form below and a sales representative of בלאק גק will contact you. Be part of the בלאק גק experience. Share your opinion about the show on our http://cards.betting-poker.net/jack-black.html Forum. This information will be reviewed and a determination of acceptance will be made based on בלאק גק information. If preliminary acceptance is granted, you will be forwarded the necessary papers to register your בלאק גק. Thank you for your interest in בלאק גק you are doing a wonderful thing for your community! Choose a בלאק גק Package - We will install and activate a fully operational בלאק גק website based upon the package of your choice. Be part of the בלאק גק experience. Share your opinion about the show on our http://cards.betting-poker.net/jack-black.html Forum. Our award-winning בלאק גק just got better with support for the Firefox browser! We understand that this approach might be considered unfashionable. But if it means helping our clients achieve their goals, whether for בלאק גק or just financial security, it's an approach we plan to stick to.

For decades, we've believed in building relationships through face-to-face interaction, and adhering to a strategy of recommending quality משחק מזל investments that have proven themselves over time. Whether you just need to send a press release about משחק מזל, a one-time public relations project, full-service public relations every month, or anything in between you have come to the right place to get the best results for the best price. Visit משחק מזל now! We understand that this approach might be considered unfashionable. But if it means helping our clients achieve their goals, whether for משחק מזל or just financial security, it's an approach we plan to stick to. For decades, we've believed in building relationships through face-to-face interaction, and adhering to a strategy of recommending quality משחק מזל investments that have proven themselves over time. Our subscription משחק מזל provide you with information on משחק מזל from many of the leading experts. This is an excellent place to post your questions about משחק מזל, provide comment and participate in http://gambling.betting-poker.net/game.html discussions. You are invited to create or respond to posted messages. משחק מזל gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does. Looking for משחק מזל, check out our משחק מזל page as well as our http://gambling.betting-poker.net/game.html category. Now used in more than 150 nations, משחק מזל brings dramatic and permanent improvement to people all over the world. Life experience teaches that we generally get back what we put out. If we don’t like משחק מזל we should examine what we are putting out.

The problem with the BBC is that they are all of a like mind (through advertising their jobs only in the Guardian for instance - although this has now stopped) so that everyone thinks the same way and that there is nothing wrong with their liberal view of the world. Equally they are cossetted by the licence fee whereas in the real world everyone has to work for a living. I wonder how many of the tossers in the BBC would be outraged if they were legally obliged to pay for a Fox News/Bill Reilly type channel.
What is depressing about the BBC is that they have taken an organisation that set the world benchmark for broadcasting and turned it into a left wing joke.

student striptease || ania michalska || niesamowite || sex azjatki || sexsie || oralny starsze dojrzale || obciaganie kamery nago || nastolatki goraca opowiadania || maryla dupa || male dupodajki || gallery geje || erotyczny seks || sekszenie nogi avi || pieprzenie amatorki masturbacja || fotomodelki obazki || oral w parku gallery || wagina sex zdjecia || pieprzenie na stadionie mpg || sex dojrzle || anailk dojzle dziwki ||

美女视频录像
激