Well link it then.
The BBC, which is a public corporation, said it was,âThe worldâs most trusted international news broadcaster and reports on stories from around the world fairly, impartially and without fear or favourââŚ
That bit made me laugh!
What do you trust more?
Something you agree with or something thats genuinely more truthful than the BBC?
So, are you saying something is more truthful than the BBC?
Enlighten us where you get your truth from if itâs not the BBC.
Ta 
I get my news from all sorts but theyâre mainstream and verified.
The BBC is the best though, not infallible, ridiculously woke and liberal but its heart and intention are there, or there more than any else I can think.
I donât put my trust in any of them. I get my news from many sources, but when something doesnât smell right I dig around further. I was merely pointing out that for the BBC, certainly in News and Current Affairs, to claim they are fair, impartial and without fear or favour is laughable nonsense.
When theyâre caught out when a reporter is impartial or a news feed theyâre usually the ones who report it, fire fighting and damage limitation of course but they donât spin it.
But you hate anything âliberalâ with a passion Barry?
I realise that @Barry-Sanchez isnât here to respond to this, which is a shame nevertheless I want to pick him up on this bollocks.
Whatâs the link between Stone and Putin? The controversy was about Stoneâs supposed link to Trump and WikiLeaks not a link to Putin.
"âŚin not one of those articles â nor in more than a dozen articles about the Stone case that preceded it over the last few months â has the Guardian informed its readers what Stone was actually convicted of doing.
Stone was convicted of giving false testimony and misleading the FBI, because he claimed to be a conduit between Wikileaks and Trump when he was not. There was no conduit between Wikileaks and Trump."
So not only have you misunderstood the accusations against Roger Stone by linking Stone to Putin, you have misunderstood the actual judgement because by your own admission you only read â'verifiedâ main stream media sources. Those MSM sources have completely obfuscated the actual judgement because it doesnât fit the narrative they have been pushing.It is a case in point demonstrating why your approach of reading only âverifiedâ main stream media journalism is complete tripe.
The way Assange is being treated by the UK is truly disgusting. There should be absolute uproar about it and the people of this country should be ashamed.
The BBC is generally fine when it comes to fluff and some domestic policy topics, but anything to do with UK foreign policy is pure propaganda. The BBCâs foreign policy writing is far more fanciful than the domestic policy writing with some exceptions such as Corbyn. Once Corbyn was identified as a threat, the BBCâs true colours shone through for anyone to see.
3 Likes
I am almost certain that you are going to try to undermine Craig Murrayâs credibility in any eventual response to this using the same tired old bullshit. So letâs test what CM has said against an account from your beloved BBC which is apparently straight down the line and would never lie by omission or anything sordid like that.
This article was written more than 6 months after CM originally highlighted what Stone had actually been convicted of, namely, misleading the FBI, because he claimed to be a conduit between Wikileaks and Trump when he was not.
Nothing factual in that BBC article directly contradicts what Craig Murray has said, both Muellerâs statement and the BBC commentary have clearly been very carefully written so that they canât be accused of lying but in light of Craig Murrayâs clarification it is absolutely obvious that they are omitting the key fact of the judgement and by doing that, it is a blatant attempt to mislead uninformed readers such as @Barry-Sanchez. If that isnât the case and Craig Murray is lying why didnât they just outright state that Roger Stone was convicted because he was a conduit between WikiLeaks/putin and trump? The BBC and the rest of the âverifiedâ MSM are demonstrably untrustworthy.
This, I fear, is the end for Asda, buy it with debt, gradually sell bits of it off, how many jobs will be lost?
Another Debenhams
These deals HAVE to be made illegal.
2 Likes
4 Likes
That company is dead
The debt will ruin cash flow and kill investment
They are selling the distribution network and leasing it back - more cash out the business
The forecourt are going to the brothers other business choking off that revenue stream
Mind you, if Walmart sold it on then it was most likely doomed from the start.
1 Like
Wonât breed much consumer confidence either. Itâs a shame. It was a good business when Archie Norman ran it and knew its place in the market.
I donât think it does any more. The shops have been noticeably getting grottier. Its USP has become cheap automated fuel.
Not necessarily. Their whole business model involves driving everyone else out of business and becoming a virtual monopoly.
Too much competition in the UK.
That reminds me - when Asda first opened, one of the first things I remember was the demise of a wonderful little bakers down Water Lane; a young man that worked with me used to work there in his spare time to earn extra dosh.
Asda turned out cut price âfreshâ bread by the ton, and the baker closed fairly soon.
I would have continued to use the small baker, despite the queues that built up for their wonderful bread.
2 Likes
I wouldnât necessarily say they are out to drive everyone else out of business but yes they aim to dominate (take the US)
Certainly agree that UK competition is greater and probably not quite what they expected.
Heh.
I remember being sat in a TESCOs bog and seeing some graffiti on the wall.
Every little helps⌠destroy local busineses
1 Like