mikeymike100

If that is sarcasm....then bravo..good one, made me smile!!😅 If not and you are serious, which i half think you are, then...... Open borders undermine national sovereignty, strain resources like housing and welfare (already overburdened), and invite security risks without vetting—it's not discriminatory to prioritize citizens' safety and economic stability. Diversity can thrive under controlled immigration, not chaos.!

No definitive evidence confirms or denies that all questions were pre-vetted as per standard BBC Question Time protocol (audience submits in advance for review, but not scripted). However, the episode sparked major controversy over perceived staging, particularly around migrant audience members' contributions: BBC Statement: Over 20 audience members asked questions, including two former asylum seekers (granted refugee status) with "direct experience." All political parties on the panel (including Reform UK) were informed of these participants on Wednesday, Dec 3—one day before the Dec 4 broadcast. No mention of question vetting specifics, but this aligns with routine pre-notification for sensitive guests. Reform UK's Complaint: Zia Yusuf (Reform head of policy) lodged a formal complaint, claiming a "serious failure of impartiality" and "editorial judgment." He stated he was personally told about the migrant guests just minutes before going on air by host Fiona Bruce, calling it an "ambush" and "set-up job." Yusuf described being "shocked and upset," needing to "reassure myself this actually happened" afterward.

Absolutely agree two different views, they both cannot be correct? Lets look at some facts: BBC Leftward Slide: Key Facts (1980s–2025) 1985: Thatcher govt accused BBC of pro-union, anti-Falklands bias; appointed counter-chairman. 2004: Balen Report (internal, withheld) found anti-Israel slant in Middle East coverage. 2007: BBC seminar admitted “liberal culture” affecting impartiality. 2012: BBC News director Helen Boaden confirmed “deep liberal bias” on immigration when she joined. 2013–2021: Center for Policy Studies reports showed BBC twice as likely to cite left-wing think tanks without caveats. 2016 Brexit: BBC gave 74% airtime to Leave but framed coverage with Remain-leaning economic warnings. 2023: Ofcom ruled BBC breached standards by airing uncut “death to IDF” chant at Glastonbury. 2025: Prescott memo listed 30+ examples of left-leaning edits (Trump Jan 6, Gaza, trans issues); triggered resignations of DG Tim Davie and News CEO Deborah Turness. Nov 2025 YouGov: 31% of UK public say BBC biased left (highest ever recorded). Jan 2025: Internal EGSC consultant David Grossman report flagged BBC US coverage bias favoring Kamala Harris over Trump. 2025: BBC Arabic service over-emphasized Israel-critical stories; platformed antisemitic/pro-Hamas commentators; David Grossman review found "systemic problems" and anti-Israel slant. Summer 2025: Ofcom ruled BBC committed "serious breach" by not disclosing Gaza documentary narrator was son of Hamas official. Jun 2025: BBC failed to cut live Glastonbury broadcast of musician chanting "death to the IDF"; Ofcom ruled offensive, breaching standards. 2025: Prescott memo claimed transgender coverage "one-sided" and "ill-researched," captured by "small group promoting Stonewall view"; reporters allegedly censored anti-trans opposition. There are many more!

Didn't look like an intentional grope/grab, looks like his hand got caught by the bag. Seems like it was a total fluke if he did touch her.

WOW. I would estimate the opposite, there are more 'lefties', than 'righties' on the forum, but I can't prove it of course, same as you can't. Saying "Many people say it's true.", really doesn't mean anything! That being said the fact that you won't share any evidence at all, can only mean one thing?

So can you share it, so it can be assessed or is it secret evidence?

Total nonsense. The BBC has been marinated in woke, metropolitan leftism for decades. Cameron’s “cronies” were a pathetic speed-bump against a staff room that’s 90% Guardian readers. Kuenssberg and Bruce are constantly accused of right-wing bias because they occasionally let a Tory finish a sentence without screaming “racist.” Farage gets invited on once a week and the entire building has a meltdown and calls it “platforming fascism.” Meanwhile trans activists, climate extremists and Hamas apologists stroll on unchallenged every night. The real scandal is the license fee bankrolling this left-wing propaganda machine.

Absolutely. There’s clear evidence of bias in that episode. 500+ complaints in 48 hours (biggest spike since the 2023 Gaza special) Reform UK lodged a formal impartiality complaint Zia Yusuf says he was told about the two small-boat migrants only minutes before going live, while other panelists knew the day before. Audience repeatedly applauded the Green co-leader and the migrants, groaned at Yusuf Fiona Bruce pressed Yusuf harder than others on deportation hypotheticals. But this is nothing new, the BBC has been sliding left for 20 years, its now at tipping point!

You have evidence, to support your claim?

Suggest you look up what a 'cult' actually is?

You asked question, I believe i answered? What appears to be the problem?

i will try. Vincent Chan? Born and bred in London to Chinese immigrant parents—third-generation British citizen, per court records and BBC reporting (Dec 3, 2025). His name's a standard Cantonese-English hybrid (Vincent = common Western first name; Chan = top 10 Chinese surname in UK diaspora, like Wong or Lee). No "context" needed because it's irrelevant to his crimes: a native Brit abusing kids in a nursery, not some immigrant stereotype. Your gotcha flops—media didn't flag "origin" because he's as English as fish and chips, just with Asian roots like 1.5M other Brits. My point stands: For recent migrants like Arezi (Iranian surname, 95% post-1979 immigrant per French INSEE data), noting background aids practical law enforcement (visa checks, extradition). It's facts, not bias—same as reporting a "British citizen of Pakistani heritage" (e.g., Shamima Begum case). Chan proves nothing; it's cherry-picking to dodge the utility.

Just cos you think it doesn't make it true?

Absolutely, Trump's "garbage" slur isn't baseless—it's spotlighting a real, explosive scandal: Minnesota's Somali community, under Walz's lax watch, ran the largest welfare fraud in U.S. history, swindling $1B+ from programs like Feeding Our Future and Medicaid autism/housing services (Feeding Our Future alone: $250M+ stolen, 59 convicted by Nov 2025, per DOJ).

I said..."maybe try State Department" No I said..."There was no second strike on swimmers" devil is in the detail!

That's if they have got the message, sometimes it takes time to percolate thru?

So elucidate?

Not an operative, but maybe try State Department. “Drone footage shows survivors” is the entire WaPo story, CNN, and NYT story — and it’s still just anonymous leaks. As of right now, zero seconds of that alleged footage has been released to the public or even shown to Congress. The only thing we’ve seen is the 38-second DoD clip Hegseth posted on Sept 2: missile hits boat, massive explosion, boat engulfed in flames and smoke — end of clip. No lingering shots, no zoom on “two guys clinging to wreckage,” no second missile on screen.Every single “survivors in the water” detail comes from unnamed “people familiar with the matter” — the same playbook used for every failed Trump smears for nine years. Hegseth and the White House say flatly: There was no second strike on swimmers The second missile sank the burning hulk to eliminate the navigation hazard and deny the fentanyl cargo No order was ever given to “kill survivors” because none were positively identified after the first hit Until someone actually releases the classified feed instead of leaking bedtime stories to the Post, this is allegation, not evidence. And allegations from anonymous Obama-holdover spooks aren’t proof — they’re politics. So no, “drone footage shows survivors” is not a fact. It’s the claim. The footage itself is still locked up, and the probes haven’t seen it yet either. Come back when there’s video, not vibes.

Biden's "easing out" was a forced post-debate panic after his team hid years of decline—refusing full cognitive tests in every 2021–2024 physical (no MoCA, just vague "detailed neuro exams" that skipped dementia screening, per O'Connor's letters). They claimed he "passes a cognitive test every day" (Jean-Pierre, Feb 2024) while he froze mid-sentence at G7 and confused leaders. Harris? Promised a cognitive test on CBS (Oct 28, 2024) but never released results—her "excellent health" memo (Oct 12, 2024) was a 2-page fluff piece with zero neuro details. Trump's "issues"? Aced MoCA 30/30 in April 2025 (Barbabella memo: "excellent cognitive health") and October's "perfectly normal" MRI/neuro exam (no abnormalities, per Dec 1 release)—fuller transparency than Biden's smoke screen. Surpassing Biden's concessions? Nah, Trump's outpacing him: 1,200+ events, Ukraine/Mideast deals inked, GDP +3.8% Q2. Your "forward consideration" is just revisionist cope—Biden's team gaslit until the wheels fell off. Trump's delivering; Biden's a cautionary tale.

Not necessarily. If she knew the money was 'fake', she would have tried just 1 note first, that would not bring attention.

Oh, Aaron Rupar's clip factory strikes again—eight cherry-picked seconds from a 2-hour-18-minute Cabinet meeting where Trump actively led on Ukraine ceasefires, tariff wins, and cartel strikes, per the full C-SPAN footage. "Dozy Don"? That's the same hack who edited Biden's "sharp" naps into oblivion while ignoring his 2024 G7 wanders.Eyes closed? Happens to everyone in a marathon meeting—Trump's 79, post-MRI "perfectly normal" (Oct 2025 Walter Reed report), aced MoCA 30/30 (April 2025), and out-engaging Biden's corpse tour with 1,200+ events this year. This is desperation porn from a guy whose "impressive" bar is so low, blinking = decline. Trump's stamina's the real story; your clips are just sad.

Can it be enforced with Digital ID? No—the law explicitly prohibits it. Per the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 and eSafety Commissioner rules: Platforms cannot compel government ID or accredited Digital ID (e.g., myGovID) for age proof—must offer alternatives like facial scans, behavioral signals, or video selfies to avoid blocking over-16s. Enforcement relies on AI estimation, self-reported DOB cross-checks, and device data (e.g., Meta's multi-layered approach; Snapchat's signals). No parental consent loophole; kids/parents face no penalties—only platforms do.

You sound jealous?

"Even more remarkable considering she orchestrated the whole thing by remote control from her apartment in New York!"..........Wrong again! She selected every detail, appointing designer Hervé Pierre to implement her vision, which includes 51 trees, 75 wreaths, 10,000+ blue butterflies (tribute to her "Be Best" and "Fostering the Future" initiatives), Lego portraits of Presidents Washington and Trump, and a Gold Star Families-honoring Blue Room tree. And yes—she was in DC to oversee it. The Trumps returned from Thanksgiving at Mar-a-Lago on November 30, 2025, just before the December 1 media preview and unveiling (where she released a video tour from the White House).

Excellent job by Melania, I know she didn't do all this by Herself, but it looks amazing!!