Follow by Email

Friday, 30 April 2010


i'm getting sick of the promise of 'change'.
Obama went on about change, has he changed the world? No. It's rubbish, and it's pissing me off. It's not change we need, it's jobs. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. That's all it's about

Thursday, 29 April 2010

tonight's debate

Cameron: change, change, change (empty words)
Clegg: the old parties, change, political point-scoring (empty words)
Brown: he won't answer the question (policy/"substance")

personally, i did actually think Gordy did well. he was obviously nervous, especially at first but fair play. it shows he's human as anyone would be shitting themselves given yesterday.
i'm biased, i think Labour have the arguements i most agree with. I've seen the Chancellor's debates and 2 leaders debates.
the thing is, i'm not like most people. i look most at policies while others don't. it does annoy me, but there you go. people are different.
i think Labour has got the best answers going forward. yes, they have been in power for 13 years and haven't made everything perfect, but they've made this country more the way i would like it to be and i think they should be entrusted to take us forwards

Rating agencies: Who made them so powerful?‏

"Perhaps I am being over-squeamish, but it doesn't feel democratic or sustainable that the fiscal fate of nations and currency zones - and indeed the perceived strength of the financial system - rests on the analytical verdict of three private-sector research firms, the financial record of which has in recent years not been unblemished. "

Indeed. I'm not convinced by the need for greater competition. It may well be the best answer, and maybe the Bank of England, European Central Bank etc. may need to take over this role. The conflict of interest is staggering, and their awful record with regards to the recent financial crisis means they did their jobs far worse than national governments, yet the governments pick up the bill while S&P etc. carry on stuffing themselves with the good shit. It's an excellent example of where the power really lies in the world because there's not a damn thing most people can do about it, but we are the ones who pay. And who will take them on? no-one I fear

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

news with tits out

Quote of the day

Old faultlines persist among parties on how to help poor through tax changes

Taking this as read should be one hell of a boost to Labour. On the richest and poorest their 'attack lines' are proven true. Their main worry could be the middle classes, but is anyone REALLY going to vote for a Lib Dem government? Hopefully not.
Overall, it almost reads like Labour propaganda, which should be great for Labour. The trouble is that weighty policy things like this may matter less than who's wife wears what and stupid things like that.
I just hope the public are smarter than the media give them credit for. Breath not held

Gordy and mrs Duffy

Fuck it, go on my son.
Give em hell

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

county cricket

What a brilliant piece.
I'm inclined to agree.
I personally think that counties should be allowed 2 or 3 non-English players then left to themselves. i don't like the age restrictions etc., they should just play what they believe to be their strongest teams in order to keep the standard as high as possible

Friday, 23 April 2010


Julian Cook, professor of football at Reading University, said: "I'm not sure how this affects the title run-in but what we can say is that from now on when people think of Man United and a quivering, purple arsehole, it won't necessarily be Sir Alex Ferguson."


Anti-Glazer protest targets firms in Old Trafford's corporate seats

I think it's really sad to see supporters and owners at odds with each other like this. The owners should run the club with the support and consent of the fans, but it's the opposite.

David Bond's Blog: The true extent of Pompey horror show‏

The real nasty side of Portsmouth's debt is that
"local businesses and services who make up the list of trade creditors owed a total of £5m.

These are football's real losers. Companies and individuals who now face being paid only 23p in the pound of what they are owed because footballers and football creditors get paid in full first from the proceeds of any sale of the club.

They include:

The St John's Ambulance (for match day medical services) - £2,701
King Edward VI School (for training ground hire) - £41,714
Landscape Printing Systems (for printing equipment) - £949.33
Portsmouth City Council (taxes) - £28,690"

Disgraceful how those who most need the money are denied it so that super-rich football clubs and organisations get to jump the queue.

South Park creators warned over Muhammad depiction‏

They must show it, no censor, no ban. Free speech is at stake, and I don't think anyone has summed up the arguments about it as well as Stone and Parker

"The Tory press have turned on Clegg because Rupert Murdoch will feel out of the loop if the Liberal Democrats end up having the balance of power, he says."

Sounds about right

James Murdoch and Rebekah Wade crash Independent's office

I really hope all this smearing helps the Lib Dems's position and weakens the Tories. That would be nice. I hope people can see through these for what they are: an attempt by the right-wing press to get their man into a position of power so that they can dictate the agenda.

"Why has a media organisation whose owner has a vested interest in the outcome of the result and whose newspapers present a slant biased in favour of the Conservative party, been allowed to broadcast tonight's debate exclusively? If this goes Pete Tong and Tory Boy is soft-soaped, it will destroy any credibility that Sky News have ever had."
Largely true, though the last bit is only to hope for

Nick Clegg will survive Fleet Street broadside

"Earlier this week the former Sun editor, David Yelland, described the extent to which the Murdoch papers and others are deeply invested in a Cameron victory and are trembling at the prospect of a political force in Britain that they don't control. Some may have thought that a conspiracy theory too far - until they saw today's clutch of front pages."

Oh I hope against hope the Tory press end up falling flat on their arses

Thursday, 22 April 2010


really enjoyed it actually, thought it was good.
i thought it was odd Cameron claiming immigration had never been an issue at a past election, you sure mate?

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

UK airports permitted to reopen‏

But shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said Labour's "misjudgement and mismanagement" had "badly let down" the travelling public and urged the Prime Minister to immediately announce a full inquiry into the "fiasco".

She added: "Six days into the crisis, we're suddenly told that there are actually levels of ash which are compatible with safe flying. The question angry passengers and airlines are already asking is why the government hadn't worked this out before the crisis occurred."

Ahh, it's such an easy life in opposition. Just stand there are criticise anyone for anything. I think it's right that the government erred on the side of caution, better that than being too careless and people loosing their lives. And to start making party politics out of it is pathetic. I really hope that the Tories petty squabbling backfires on them in the election, but I'm not holding my breath on it.

Tuesday, 20 April 2010

Liberal Democrats: Are they nothing to do with 'old' politics? | Politics |‏

It's a sad indictment that people fall for that bollocks. The Lib Dems are as much part of the picture as the other two, and all this 'change' bollocks is so empty it hurts

Sunday, 18 April 2010

Let girls wear Primark's padded bikinis | Laurie Penny | Comment is free |‏

I started the article with a wee drop of wariness. But it turns out to be spot on in my opinion.
I don't like the moralising at all, but the wider issue is that of sexuality - both male and female.
The treatment of women with regards to their sexuality is terrible, as moralisers like the daily mail are the first to gossip about the way a woman looks - too fat, too thin, too tired, too this that and the other. The sexualisation of women starts young and is not caused by padded bras. I heard them referred to yesterday as the "paedophile pound" which is stupid. Are these 'offending' clothes produced for paedophiles or young girls who are surrounded by pictures of what beauty is or should be?
Men get it too, but girls get it worse. And from both sides. Women tend to gossip with real spite about women far more than men do about them in my opinion and experience.
Beauty and looks are so commercialised from such a young age that it's the pressure these people, girls in this case, to look a certain way that bring these clothes about.
Many feminists, too many in my view, see sex as the exploitation of women and therefore something to be shunned. I know, see and read many feminists talking up sex as a problem, but I disagree. The point is not that sex is evil, I'm rather partial to it myself. But rather, it's how people deal with it. How happy they are in their own skins and how much courage and mental strength they have. That's the decisive factor.

"Padded bras for preteens are not the problem. The problem is a culture of prosthetic, commodified female sexual performance, a culture which morally posturing politicians appear to deem perfectly acceptable as long as it is not 'premature'. By assuming that sexuality can only ever be imposed upon girl children, campaigns to 'let girls be girls' ignore the fact that late capitalism refuses to let women be women - at any age"

Election 2010: The Conservatives have a vision of 'big society'. But who has got time for DIY government? | Politics | The Guardian‏

I can't help that think this is Tory buck passing. Cutting back services, as seems inevitable, can then be blamed on the local people. poor quality services are someone else's fault, and the poor are poor because they deserve to be, while the rich are better than us.
It will take a lot of convincing to disavow me of that.
Tories slash and burn and leave people to their own means

bBC News - Keane 'horrified' by Tories' use of hit single‏

Two songs with change in the title, pathetic.
David Cameron would 'like' Keane wouldn't he? Grow some bollocks lad. We can't have a prime minister who listens to fucking keane, we'll be a laughing stock

General Election Possibilities

oh hope, a cruel mistress indeed.
what if Labour's vote holds up, the pressure on the Tories sticks and the Lib Dems revival continues. Polling day comes, and with the pressure on Cameron, the Lib Dems overtake the Tories as the second party in a hung parliament. oh if only

Saturday, 17 April 2010

Doctor Who actor Matt Smith barred from children's campaign by BBC

The new Doctor Who actor Matt Smith has been barred from fronting a campaign to show gifted children that it's "cool to be clever" because of the BBC's strict impartiality rules.

shame. it would be very good to have a campaign like that, and Matt Smith could be a very good symbol for it. But there you go, i won't condemn the BBC, like most would.

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Vanessa Perroncel phone-tapping allegations

So it seems we need not worry as much about state surveillance as the media doing it on their behalf.
Plus the conflicts of interest is worrying. The whole story is pretty scary.

Saturday, 10 April 2010

who to vote for?

Who should you vote for? UK General Election quiz

Liberal Democrat54
UK Independence-40

You expected: LAB

Your recommendation: Labour

Click here for more details about these results

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Chris Grayling comments lose Conservatives gay support

The most surprising thing being that the support only fell by 5%.
I think it's disgraceful what Grayling came out (haha) with and his mindless attempt to both stick by what he said and go against it is typical of a Tory party not sure whether to stick or twist as they try to slime their way into office

Call for 'fuller' debate on Digital Economy Bill‏

I'm personally against this. I disagree with the whole premise, to say nothing of the Big Brother-esk powers contained within it.
I buy lots of music. Often times, I'll download something to see if I like it, then I'll buy it if I do. I'll also go see the band live, from which they make far more money. The only people really loosing out from the downloading business are the record companies, not the bands. Small bands gain potential exposure beyond their wildest dreams, while larger bands will not be impoverished by any supposed loss of income. This is all about the rich and powerful trying to protect their wealth and power.
At the end of the day some people are out to get whatever they can for free, but you can't legislate for this. Some people will download music for free rather than paying for it but you can't legislate for it.
The whole bill is an exercise in power by those afraid to loose their huge salaries and perks.

A key comparison is how bands react - most small bands are grateful for the exposure. It's only the larger ones who complain. At a recent Blaze Bayley gig he was talking about this and how people should buy the CD rather than download it. I downloaded it because I couldn't get it in time for the gig. I bought it too - and I'm glad coz not only are lyrics in there and artwork but a wonderful essay on each song and stuff about the album and all that. well worth it.
But I have the income to buy stuff now, which is dependent on my having a job which is what makes the KEY difference

The limits of liberation

An excellent article, and one I thoroughly agree with.
If a woman chooses to do a job, she should be free to do it. As pointed out here: sex slavery - the problem is the slavery, not the sex.
All too many feminists are becoming anti-sex conservatives too keen on imposing their values on other people. they have decided they don't like the sex industry therefore it is inherently wrong. They often cobble together something about it being exploitative and be done with it. Well, I disagree.
Jennifer Abel, I salute you

Tories could win the vote, but lose election

It shows we need a new voting system, I favour Gordy's list preference.
It's not fair to those who vote if the country votes for a Tory government only to get another Labour one. It would be outright stupidity to vote Tory, especially with Ozzy in charge of the economy, but people have that right and should not be denied it by odd and out-dated mathematics

From the economy to education, Labour is squeezing Tory lead | Politics | The Guardian‏

Sadly, politics is more often decided on the leader's personality than on policy

BBC Sport - Cricket - Danish Kaneria to miss opening games of Essex season‏

Damn, there goes half our wickets this season

George Osborne: Tories can cut deficit without increasing VAT - Telegraph‏

It took some fair digging, but I finally found Ozzy making an arse out of his figures. By praising Labour's handling of the economy when he meant to condemn it, he should have opened himself up to some scrutiny. Luckily for him, Gordy's called the election so his mind-bending mathematics hasn't seen too much light.
That bloke is a real liability and should be reason enough for anyone to vote Labour in the election, though there are plenty more reasons.

'George Osborne's tax cut is a gimmick and a sad joke' -‏

I have to say I was surprised to find Danny Blanchflower writing in the mirror.
I was also pretty surprised to see him write :'George Osborne's tax cut is a gimmick and a sad joke' - By David Blanchflower".
Can't say I disagree

Saturday, 3 April 2010

NHS Drug Budget: 21 Jun 2006: Written answers and statements (‏

My personal view is that the NHS budget for drugs should be cut. The amount we spend on drugs in this country is unsustainable and in times of trouble like this it should be looked at and not protected

BBC - Nick Robinson's New slog: A political three-card trick‏

Very interesting. Sounds like a trick indeed. One that the Tories have been trying to pull for years, and probably something every opposition does.
Talk of 'efficiency savings' is largely waft, and Ozzy's turn around is quite remarkable. Last week he denounced the savings as fiction, this week he's based his budget on them. That's one hell of a difference in a week.
And the reason is that the words are very politically alluring to voters. Want the services you get now but with tax cuts too? Vote for us and we'll give you the same service as lower cost.
If only it was as easy as all that.
Sure, there are areas where less money could be spend with negligible damage to services, but these are largely fantasies drawn up by politicians around elections to fund their impossible promises.
I preferred his narrative from the last conference: 'it's all shit and we're all fucked' is a lot more honest

Alistair Darling turns hard man but Vince Cable gets all the laughs | Larry Elliott | Comment is free | The Guardian‏

"Osborne went for the populist approach. Voters knew from their own experience that the "sooner you deal with a debt problem, the better", the shadow chancellor said. "We need to cut wasteful government spending instead of increasing national insurance taxes on hardworking people," he added. That may go down well on the doorsteps in the coming weeks, but it is economic nonsense. If the government cuts spending when households are tightening their belts, it simply leads to lower demand and a longer, deeper recession, as Darling, in one of his better interventions, pointed out."

"If the government cuts spending when households are tightening their belts, it simply leads to lower demand and a longer, deeper recession, as Darling, in one of his better interventions, pointed out.""
Exactly. It's so important and we can't get away from that

George Osborne defends tax gamble as prospective chancellors clash live | Politics | The Guardian‏

"The IFS said: "By cutting spending next year and delivering the tax cut a year later, the Conservative proposal would take additional spending power out of the economy for a year at a time when the recovery is likely to be at its most fragile.""
And again. And Ozzy was going on about how great the IFS was yesterday. bed made, lie (in both senses) in it

BBC - Blether with Brian: Hanging out‏

The problem with a hung parliament being that these small parties get vastly disproportionate power and influence. Look at the power the right-wing nutters get in Israel for example. And they're so mental they make the mainstream look normal

"So how to turn that round? By positing a hung parliament - and suggesting that a bloc of SNP and Plaid MPs would be able, in such circumstances, to extract substantial concessions for Scotland and Wales."

Business leaders back Conservative national insurance pledge | Business |‏

Very interesting:
" Its noticeable that these business leaders did not particularly object to the NI rise when it was first proposed by Labour. Only now when the Tories cynically promise to give the money back to business do they come out in support - so anyone can see that its pure self interest behind this endorsement of Osbourne's policy.

To me this smacks of political tactic by the Conservatives rather than a well considered economic policy. It runs counter to everything they have been saying over the last year about cutting the deficit hard.

As for funding the tax cut by efficiency savings - this is a joke. Savings are "estimated' and aspirational so what happens if in practice the money cant be found? The deficit will grow, risking market panic etc.

I run a business so the NI tax increase will hit me as an employer directly, but at least Labour are being honest about where the pain has to come. The Tories meanwhile are indulging in a fantasy-economics.

It may be a useful tactic to wrong-foot their political opponents in the short term, but I don't see this as a viable or responsible policy for getting the public finances back on track.

Quick reminder: All of the above are legally required to ensure that their shareholders can leach the highest return out of their passive and fleeting ownerships."

To sum up David Cameron's latest big idea: BS, NBG | Politics | The Guardian‏

A very enjoyable read. So Cameron's new idea is Bull Shit, No Bloody Good. Sums it up well

Brian Cox is the pop star turned pin-up professor whose series on the solar system has sent his career into orbit | Mail Online‏

I first came across Prof Cox on a Sunday night before Match Of The Day 2 and found it very interesting (mmm, science). And the odd thing was that I couldn't get out of my head that bloke presenting it was a good looking chap, even though he's not very good looking (shows what I know). So I have to say I think he's ace, lots of lovely science. And a tasty presenter apparently. And I agree

Gordon Brown, tough guy: a winning strategy? | Julie Bindel, Julian Glover and Lance Price | Comment is free |‏

Hahaha, idiots

step outsude posy boy

ahhaha. brilliant

BBC - Peston's Picks: Newtonian law of power's pull on business‏


Friday, 2 April 2010

Wayne Rooney's injury would trouble England more than Manchester United | Kevin McCarra | Sport | The Guardian‏

While I am a huge fan of Jermaine Defoe, I like the idea of Gerrard and Lampard playing in a midfield 5 with Barry sitting deep, Lennon or Walcott wide right and Joe Cole / James Milner on the left cutting in. it would be lovely to have a proper left winger out there, but if Heskey plays alone up front it would allow the wingers, especially the left winger, to be an inside forward who could provide a goal threat. I think the movement and class of that 5 would give any team problems, and using Heskey as the pivot /focal point/ battering ram would allow Lampard and Gerrard to attack and be goal threats while Barry sits deep.

Matt Slater: Arsenal's suitors start saving for summer sales‏

Matt Slater does some excellent work, he really does.
I would hate to see something similar to Man U where the owners are so much at odds with the fans. Arsenal have the only properly sustainable business model among the Big Clubs in England and it would be a crying shame if that was thrown out the window

Rob Steen: Why county cricket could benefit from a conference system | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine |‏

A very interesting topic. Now, I for one love following Essex in all formats. My best discovery of last summer was ball-by-ball coverage of Essex on radio and I loved it, listening to every moment I could. I remember some cracking matches and excellent results.
However, I feel that the amount of cricket played means the standard is lower than it could be. I would like to see three conferences of 6 with each team playing twice, one 2020 competition and one 40 or 50 overs, maybe on the same format.
These matches should be played in blocks and the 2020 should have clear run, so no internationals at the time meaning the top players play in it and people can watch it - on TV and off.
I would like to keep the high number of First Class matches as I personally don't care for limited overs rubbish, but I'm in a vast minority. As such, raising the standard is important and less games, but more important ones, would be a good way to go I think. Ideally the conferences should be geographical, but Essex would never play Yorkshire, while Lancashire couldn't get rid of them. So I like the rotation idea on that.
One thing to consider with the volume is fast bowlers - hardly surprising that medium pacers dominate when proper fast bowlers are ground into the dirt.
I think that should do it

An interesting comment from the comment box, rarely happens:

1000 characters is simply not enough to raise all of the many complex issues involved, so I'll just throw this into the mix. Three divisions, five high-intensity matches in a block early season, the reverse fixtures in a block towards the end, with room in the middle for money-making one-day/T20 competitions. Scheduled opposite to Test matches, allowing people to watch both. Weekend cricket for heaven's sake! One-up/ one down, possibly involving a play-off. A regularised transfer system to allow the best players to compete in the top division, the third division a less pressurised environment suitable for blooding youth. ECB grants more tightly focussed on developing future England players. Two overseas players per team, with strong grant-related incentives to exclude Kolpaks. This set-up would give us a top division much closer to Test match standard, which in this multichannel age may well have a TV market. Traditional County support is an asset, not a weakness, so let's use it.

BBC - David Bond's Blog: Ofcom and sport‏

"here's Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, the competition with arguably the most to lose from the Ofcom ruling.

"Quite simply we are extremely vexed by the whole proposition. We think its outrageous that there should be an intervention at all... it's a market that doesn't need fixing.""

By which he means it's a monopoly he's doing very well out of thank you very much

Ofcom v Sky‏

"The media watchdog has today ruled that Sky has to sell its sports channels to rivals at prices that are between 10.5% and 23% below the existing wholesale prices "

Good. It would be nice to have some football available to those of us not in love with Sky.

"It will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the regulator has been out to get it in a way that is an unfair punishment of the risks it has been taking for 20 years in making substantial investments in sports and movie rights."
That would be because Sky has a huge monopoly that it is fair eager to protect

Priority Boarding for Public Services‏

A disgusting idea that, I can only hope, will never see the light of day

the reason we have a welfare state is because of the terrible suffering we had when there was no such thing. we must never forget those days and the reason we have what we do

Ofcom v Sky: The epic business battle of 2010‏

Just so we all know how it works:
"here are three facts - and you can decide whether they are related or not.

James Murdoch, the chairman of BSkyB and the presumed heir to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation throne, has argued with some passion that Ofcom intervenes excessively in the media market and could do with neutering.

David Cameron, the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and a nose ahead in the race to be Britain's next prime minister, has announced an intention to scale back Ofcom and take it out of what he described as "making policy".

This is what Mr Cameron said last July: "with a Conservative Government, Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist. Its remit will be restricted to its narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy."

Also, News Corporation's most-widely-read newspaper, the Sun ("wot won it"), has switched allegiance from Labour to the Tories - and is currently heaping opprobrium on the government in its pages with what reads like undisguised relish.

All of which lends more than just a frisson - perhaps a better metaphor would be "earthquake" - to an investigation by Ofcom that represents the first attempt by any British regulator to argue that BSkyB as currently constituted has excessive market power and needs a bit of reining-back."

I'm remarkably surprised and impressed by the comments:
* 1. At 12:06pm on 26 Mar 2010, copperDolomite wrote:
Banking, groceries and pay TV: do they cover the main ingredients for a thriving economy and the good society?

Well, if by good, you mean a society of over-fed, pigged-out, unhealthy, couch-potato, over-spenders who fail to think for themselves, what else is there?

Wouldn't have any of Murdoch's muck in my house, not even in the loo! And as for supermarkets they're only any good for frozen peas or soap powder
Complain about this comment
* 2. At 12:09pm on 26 Mar 2010, copperDolomite wrote:
David Cameron, the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, and a nose ahead in the race to be Britain's next prime minister, has announced an intention to scale back Ofcom and take it out of what he described as "making policy".

Oh no - we're getting the vitriolic Fox then! Please, no, no, no, no.... He'll deregulate and we'll never have Attenborough. Right, the telly will have to go if he gets in and dares let Murdoch have any more of this country!
Complain about this comment
* 3. At 12:21pm on 26 Mar 2010, Horned_Devil wrote:
As an (ex) employee of a business that used to operate on the Sky platform I understand how Sky's monopoly position is abused (in a slightly different area to the one mentioned above) and stifled innovation around the interactive TV market (which the UK was the world leader). I have no problems with them being run as a business but at certain times there needs to be a some control over Sky as a platform and Sky as a broadcaster
Complain about this comment
* 4. At 12:36pm on 26 Mar 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
Those with controlling market share use political influence to restrict is what captialism has always been. The development of media applications to computers and cell phones is simply a response for those wishing to get into markets that have become restricted by regulation and governmental patronage. Like the fossil fuel industry, alternatives will be developed because they have been shut out of any real resources for development and political interference. The big corporations and their taxes bind them to governments like a calf to a mother cow.
Complain about this comment
* 5. At 12:42pm on 26 Mar 2010, desabled wrote:
IOam a sky subcriber and have every sympathy with points raised by Ofcom
one is left wonering whether nullifyingOfcom in traditional tory abdication of responsibility through deregulation will be added to conservatives splitting up the bbc in a the quid pro quoexisting between the Murdochs and David Cameron as a reward for tory bias in it's tv and printed media,lately they seemed to have suceeded inplacing at least a couple of moles in the beeb too!
Murdoch is disliked nearly as much i australia ,among ordinary folk as he is here his unbridled power is developing intomedia world domination which is why he hates the bbc, so much quality never was his strong suit
Complain about this comment
* 6. At 1:09pm on 26 Mar 2010, lacplesis37 wrote:
Are you saying that Cameron is actually in Murdoch's pocket? Or will it just feel like that? Are you implying that the Tories decision to scale back Ofcom is in some way linked to Murdoch's subsequent decision to support the Conservatives? If so, perhaps - given all the stuff thrown at Blair about his Ecclestone connection - perhaps this should be consideered by the BBC as a more important newsworthy issue? For myself, I'd like to see much tougher rules on media ownership which prevents foreign owners (& non-residents) not just involving themselves in UK politics, but covering such a significant share of the market. Though I may not agree with the BBC, at least I know you are trying to be balanced & unbiassed - but the Murdoch media have no such inhibitions & let us say "mislead" their viewers/readers without scruple.