Fuel duty rises: budget small print

[Sydwal]

Back to fuel duty on cars.

I endorse this message.

 

[barryd]

Or maybe not. I don't like bullies - every forum has them - you asked me to cite some examples, so here goes.

Here's a few that stand out - most of which the BBC either acknowledge or have faced censure:

• Edited Donald Trump Speech - Just a few weeks ago, deliberately editing a speech to give a wrong and inaccurate impression. TWICE.
• Referring to Farage as 'having a relationship with Adolf Hitler' on the Today program just 2 days ago.
• Misquoting a BMA Chair: In December 2025, the BBC apologised for misquoting the British Medical Association chair, Tom Dolphin, re Doctors' strikes.
• Historical Inaccuracy: In May 2025, a correspondent incorrectly claimed Germany used gas chambers during the Herero and Namaqua genocide in early 20th-century Namibia. The BBC apologised for the error, clarifying concentration camps were used, but not gas chambers.
• Highlighting Reform Officials losing the whip at a rate 5 times higher than for other parties, despite that happening six times as much in those parties.
• Israel-Gaza Coverage: The BBC has faced intense criticism over its coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. An internal memo and external reports alleged a "systemic bias" in BBC Arabic's coverage, including the use of contributors with alleged antisemitic views and a tendency to minimize Israeli suffering.
• Jeremy Bowen & The 'Flattened Gaza Hospital': The veteran BBC journalist reported: "The explosion destroyed Al-Ahli Hospital. It was already damaged from a smaller attack at the weekend. The building was flattened.” In fact the car park was destroyed and the missile was fired by Hamas - another omission. He later admitted his coverage of the bombing of a Gaza hospital was inaccurate but said that he "doesn't regret one thing" about his reporting. Astonishing.
• Transgender Issues: Has repeatedly publicised the 'plight' of trans teenagers after the use of puberty blockers was banned.
• Br3xit - Remainer guests on QT and other shows far outnumbered Brexiteers. This is a proven fact.
• Jan 6th Congressional Hearings: When the hearing was ongoing the BBC repeatedly pointed out that the panel that heavily criticised Trump had Republican members. Not once did they mention that Adam Kinsinger and Liz Chaney were avowed opponents of him and always had been, nor the fact that perceived Trump friendly Republicans were deliberately not allowed on said committee.

What was that about meeting one's match again?

NOW PLEASE - CAN WE TALK ABOUT VANLIFE?

You clearly have met your match when you have to resort to asking ChatGPT for your responses!

You clearly have missed the point again.

You’ve just thrown out a list of unrelated incidents. Some genuine journalistic errors, some misrepresentations of what actually happened, and some pure opinion pieces. None of them demonstrate what you originally claimed, that the BBC is an unreliable news source.

Every major news organisation on earth has made mistakes including the ones you trust. What matters is whether they correct errors publicly (they do), apply editorial standards consistently (they do), produce verifiable factual reporting rather than partisan biased commentary which is what you would prefer to replace the BBC. GB News being a prime example.

The BBC issues corrections and clarifications precisely because it is held to higher standards and is regulated by Ofcom. When Sky, ITV, GB News or US networks screw up, they simply move on.

If the BBC were truly unreliable, you’d be able to show what I asked for which is a specific news report that was factually false, was proven as such and most importantly which the BBC refused to correct.

So far you’ve shown nothing like that just a mixture of mistakes (which they corrected), interpretation disagreements, and political opinions you happen to dislike.

Also, firing off a dozen bullet points doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just makes it unfocused. Pick one example you think actually demonstrates unreliability, and let’s look at that properly.

 

[Sydwal]

You clearly have met your match when you have to resort to asking ChatGPT for your responses!

You clearly have missed the point again.

You’ve just thrown out a list of unrelated incidents. Some genuine journalistic errors, some misrepresentations of what actually happened, and some pure opinion pieces. None of them demonstrate what you originally claimed, that the BBC is an unreliable news source.

Every major news organisation on earth has made mistakes including the ones you trust. What matters is whether they correct errors publicly (they do), apply editorial standards consistently (they do), produce verifiable factual reporting rather than partisan biased commentary which is what you would prefer to replace the BBC. GB News being a prime example.

The BBC issues corrections and clarifications precisely because it is held to higher standards and is regulated by Ofcom. When Sky, ITV, GB News or US networks screw up, they simply move on.

If the BBC were truly unreliable, you’d be able to show what I asked for which is a specific news report that was factually false, was proven as such and most importantly which the BBC refused to correct.

So far you’ve shown nothing like that just a mixture of mistakes (which they corrected), interpretation disagreements, and political opinions you happen to dislike.

Also, firing off a dozen bullet points doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just makes it unfocused. Pick one example you think actually demonstrates unreliability, and let’s look at that properly.

Nooooooo!

 

[barryd]

Nooooooo!

PMSL!

Thats actually pretty funny.