sanmiguel

six hours time difference as it's in south africa, so if they stay true to form and play matches at 5pm and 8pm local time that'll be 11pm and an annoying 2am out here.

Arent i right in thinking there are usually 3 games per day in the group stages, think it will be timed to suit European tv audiences who fund the tournament, so them times are about right plus one earlier game.

Its better having games at night then first thing in the morning like when Japan had the world cup that really did suck waking at 6-7 am to watch a game.

Dont FIFA make sure its free for all to view ie not on any kind of pay channel.

Dont know if they sell them in Thailand but the 5 blade gillette fusion razors are the bees knees, they are more expensive then the mach 3's but last 3 times longer.

http://www.gillettefusion.com/

Hate to admit it but I watch Bloomberg and Al Jahzeera these days.. Better reporting, less bias and most important.

I used to think Al Jazeera was ok, but they constantly criticise the west most notably America and never not once would criticise any Arab or Middle Eastern country or barbaric Muslim practice, at a guess and i dont mean this as an insult but your views are probably left of centre hence why you see it as impartial, as theyre representing your views.

You are aware that many journalists who helped set up this station are ex BBC workers, the BBC is institutionally left wing of that there is no doubt.

Sorry for the long post, but this is an adaptation from a book, written by Robin Aitken, a man who worked at the BBC for 25 years, on programmes like the Today, a worthy read if youve a spare 10 minutes.

We all know the cliched critique of the BBC: a nest of Lefties promoting a progressive agenda and political correctness.

Depressingly, that cliche is uncomfortably close to the truth: the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate.

In the past 30 years, 'Auntie' has transformed from the staid upholder of the status quo to a champion of progressive causes.

In the process, the ideal at the heart of the corporation - that it should be fair-minded and non-partisan - has all but disappeared.

I suppose none of this should have surprised me. I got a job with BBC Radio Brighton

in 1978 after working in newspapers. I was delighted; I believed I was joining the world's finest broadcasting organisation with a global reputation for integrity.

But by the time I was appointed BBC Scotland's business and economics correspondent in 1981, I had doubts. The BBC in Scotland was deeply antagonistic towards the Conservative Government; our narrative was one of devastating industrial decline and Government heartlessness.

I had endless arguments with colleagues.

On one occasion, a producer got so cross with me for defending Mrs Thatcher that we came close to blows. His view, shared by many colleagues, was that her Government's actions were indefensible.

But surely if BBC impartiality meant anything, we would have balanced our story by emphasising the growing banking, oil and electronics industries.

Instead, we constantly lamented the closure of shipyards and fretted about the ailing Ravenscraig steelworks.

By the time I moved to London to work on the Money Programme in 1989, Thatcherite economics could no longer be dismissed: they worked.

The Left's bitterness towards Thatcher, however, was undiminished.

The real Britain was recovering, but inside the Money Programme offices it was a gloomy economic winter where every privatisation was doomed and government spending was ruthlessly cut to satisfy wicked monetarists.

Our scripts were as opinionated as any commentary in The Guardian. I argued the case for Thatcherism but was massively outgunned.

I was viewed, I think, as a deluded oddity - more to be pitied than taken too seriously. My face didn't fit and I moved to Breakfast News.

The General Election of 1992 put things into sharp focus. The BBC had privately rejoiced at the downfall of Thatcher in 1990 and there was widespread expectation of a Labour victory.

But that optimism was misplaced. Neil Kinnock failed to convince the voters.

On Election night, the atmosphere in the newsroom was one of palpable deflation. A young female producer was in tears.

John Major had little opportunity to enjoy his success; within months, Sterling was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism and his Government never recovered.

The BBC mounted a barrage of negative coverage on everything from the NHS to sleaze.

That was coupled with a devotion to the European ideal. I remember arguing with a senior editor about the Maastricht Treaty and saying it was an issue of democracy, not economics. He told me I was mad.

As the 1997 Election approached, the Government was constantly on the defensive and the BBC was often happy to do Labour's Opposition work for it.

Fortunately, I didn't always have to concentrate on domestic politics and did stints in Washington and Russia.

But in 1998 I finally decided to voice my concerns. I was in my 40s, experienced and confident enough to say what I believed.

Also, I had the perfect place to do it. My colleagues had elected me to the BBC Forum, designed to improve communication between management and staff.

At one meeting, director-general John Birt seemed nonplussed when I raised the issue of Left-wing bias.

He asked Jenny Abramsky, a senior news executive, to answer. Her reply was short and dismissive; my fears, she said, were unfounded. I was wrong to raise them.

In 1999 the news was dominated by Nato's war against Serbia. The BBC was supportive, in contrast to its sceptical attitude to the Falklands and the first Gulf wars.

Why the difference? At the time Tony Blair enjoyed uncritical support within the BBC, as did President Bill Clinton.

At a Forum meeting in December 2000, I suggested to Greg Dyke, the new director-general, that there should be an internal inquiry into bias.

Dyke, a Labour Party donor and member along with BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, mumbled a muddled reply. As he left the meeting, I overheard him demand angrily of his PA: "Who was that f****r?"

At the end of the meeting a reporter from the BBC staff magazine Ariel asked for more details but warned me that "controversial" topics were often spiked.

Sure enough, not a word appeared.

I feared I was becoming one of those obsessives -familiar to all journalists - who write long, fastidiously researched but quite mad letters in green ink.

But I felt my worries needed to be addressed - even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

In 2001 I was hired by Rod Liddle, then editor of Radio 4's Today, to report on politics and economics. With an audience of six million, the programme is arguably the most influential in Britain.

But I soon began noticing bias in the subjects chosen, the people interviewed and the tone of voice.

I wrote to Phil Harding, the BBC's director of editorial policy, using the Macpherson Inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence as an analogy.

If the Metropolitan Police was "institutionally racist", I wrote, the BBC was "institutionally Leftist".

He was reluctant to engage and eventually told me he could devote no more time to my views, while Mark Damazer, deputy head of news, accused me of feeling frustrated about my career progress and attacked me for impugning the integrity of my colleagues.

Both allegations were false; I enjoyed my career and never doubted the integrity of my colleagues - they truly believed they were acting impartially, they just didn't recognise their bias.

'Neutral' for BBC journalists is left of centre for everyone else; everything is seen through the distorting prism of the progressive agenda.

As one senior news presenter told me: "Anybody who attacks the Labour Government is always coming from the Left, and the Tories are written off as insane or - if there's the slightest chance of them getting anywhere - evil."

But Damazer wasn't interested in my views.

As I was so "disaffected", he suggested I consider leaving the BBC.

The situation was becoming Kafkaesque. I was trying to get the BBC to be true to its obligations and being treated like a mad dissident. Privately, though, many colleagues agreed I had a point.

As Christmas 2002 approached I decided there was one, final avenue left open to me: the BBC governors. However, I hesitated.

I was, after all, an ordinary employee and, frankly, I was nervous of repercussions: I could be risking my career.

Nonetheless, I voiced my concerns.

Alongside specific interviews and programmes I thought demonstrated bias, I recounted the story of Steve Richards and John Kampfner, BBC current affairs presenters who both subsequently became political editor of the New Statesman.

About two months later I received a response.

After discussing my letter with Dyke and Richard Sambrook, then director of news, they concluded I "did not provide conclusive evidence of systematic bias".

I was disappointed. It wasn't just the slightly patronising tone of the reply, but the way my concerns were dismissed on the say-so of a senior BBC executive.

What would the BBC have said if the Metropolitan Police, faced with accusations of racism, had held a brief internal inquiry that concluded that there was no problem?

Bias not only stifles public debate; it is destructive for the corporation, too. Adherence to a left-of-centre agenda brought the BBC to its biggest crisis in decades and one I witnessed at close quarters on Today.

Within the BBC, opinion ran strongly against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Most staff felt war was unjustified; feelings intensified by their contempt for President George Bush.

On Today we occasionally allowed the case for war to be made, but the prevailing tone was doom-laden. Arguing for a better balance was a thankless task: at one meeting I said our coverage was too anti-war; the editor's response was brusque.

"That's a very dangerous view," Kevin Marsh, who took over as Today's editor in 2002, told me. Dangerous to whom? I wondered.

On 25 May 2003, four days before Andrew Gilligan's infamous report, Today presenter John Humphrys wrote about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the reasons for invading Iraq in a Sunday newspaper.

He said: "You need a very good reason to kill people. Which is why so many were opposed to the war in Iraq in the first place. But eventually most were persuaded, even some MPs who had expressed profound misgivings. The question many of them are asking now is whether they were misled."

Four days later Gilligan conveniently provided the answer on the air, in his report about claims that Iraq could launch WMDs within 45 minutes.

"Actually," he told Humphrys, "the Government probably knew that that 45-minute figure was wrong."

The crucial point about the Gilligan saga is that the BBC got into a mess because it wanted to believe the story.

Today and the corporation would have quickly disowned Gilligan's story had it not so perfectly fitted their chosen narrative.

In late 2003 the Today programme became obsessed with the 'human rights' of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

At a planning meeting I argued that 'human rights' are contingent and that fanatical Islamists cannot expect to be treated as innocent victims. Afterwards, a BBC trainee confided that she often found herself thinking along similar lines but felt unable to speak up.

It is worth bearing in mind what happens if someone at the BBC breaks ranks.

In 2004, TV presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk wrote about the Arab people and asked: "What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in their hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?"

Kilroy-Silk's TV career ended the next week.

In a statement, the BBC's director of television, Jana Bennett, said: "Presenters of this type of programme have a responsibility to uphold the BBC's impartiality.

"This does not mean that people who express highly controversial views are not welcome on the BBC, but they cannot be presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme."

But how consistently is the Gospel according to Bennett adhered to? Are sanctions equally applied to all presenters who express "controversial views"?

Consider this passage: "The Pope's approach to AIDS has been outrageous. He has called for a ban on the use of condoms in fighting the disease in Africa...The orders from Rome are verging on the wicked."

A controversial view? Certainly among Britain's four million Catholics. An impartial view? Certainly not. And the writer? John Humphrys in a newspaper column in October 2003.

Another example, from a writer seeking "rational debate" on gay sex without a condom: "The first guy I ever f***** without a condom gave me HIV.' Since I've been HIV-positive, I've had 'unsafe sex' more times than I can remember, often with men whose names I could not tell you now."

Controversial? Yes. Impartial? Hardly. So who is writing here? Nigel Wrench, one of the presenters of Radio 4's PM programme, in The Pink Paper in 2000.

So how was the Jana Bennett test applied in these two instances? It wasn't.

The point is that whether a statement is "controversial" or not depends on your starting point.

What Kilroy-Silk said was controversial, presumably, among Britain's Muslim minority but, decisively, it was controversial within the BBC.

What John Humphrys wrote was not. Nigel Wrench is still one of the senior reporters, and sometime presenter, on PM; his views were, presumably, also judged not to be controversial.

After the Hutton Inquiry in 2004 I decided to take voluntary redundancy from the BBC. It was an amicable parting but I felt I could take my complaints about bias no further. The money I got enabled me to write the book which I hope will start a proper debate about the BBC's impartiality.

In 2007, there is a solid consensus within the BBC on most issues of private morality and, in many cases, public policy.

One presenter described the sense of superiority that working at the BBC confers on its staff.

"It's the whole thing that 'we know best' and it's our responsibility to educate the poor unfortunates beneath us in how things should be."

The way the BBC is run is about to change, with the governors replaced by a BBC Trust. But this is unlikely to deal with bias.

The Government will make appointments to the Trust - it will undoubtedly hire 'reliable' people whose political views mirror its own.

The erstwhile young rebels who changed the BBC in the Sixties and Seventies are now the Establishment, and their views, once so radical, have become an ossified consensus - just like the ones they replaced.

However, there is a big difference: the old Establishment was undermined by media scrutiny; the new Establishment is the media. Who can debunk it?

One answer comes from America, where the Right long complained about liberal bias in the main networks. The Americans, true to form, turned to the free market; Rupert Murdoch's Fox News provides a calculated alternative with a brash, patriotic, unashamedly populist tone.

It is time to give people a choice in Britain.

Perhaps the BBC should divest itself of a small part of its £3 billion a year income for an alternative service. Two per cent of revenues would give a newcomer £60 million a year for a speech-based rival to Radio 4.

The centre-right in Britain needs to be clear-sighted about its situation.

The BBC is a profoundly influential opponent of nearly everything conservatives believe, with the Right forced to accede feebly to the Left-liberal consensus.

If the time comes when British conservatives feel like fighting back, broadcasting policy might not be a bad place to start.

Fine sentiments but you can bet your bottom dollar those guys aint paying tax under PAYE. They'll be operating under a limited company paying themselves a minimum wage plus dividends to themselves and WaGs, relatives etc etc plus claiming tax relief on "business" expenses.

I believe they cant do this for actual club earnings but probably for their sponsorship payments they do. Remember John Risse's payslip being shown in the paper last year he was most definitely getting stung by the taxman.

At Arsenal they once tried paying bonus's in gold or similar assets, to a company in Jersey set up for the players but again this was said to be illegal.

Presumably theyll be raising taxes in Spain (which is worse off then England), Germany and Italy to pay off their huge debts so i wouldnt have thought it'll make them less attractive to the top stars.

Im proud to say despite being from a family of people who used to blindly vote Labour as their father before him did and his father before him and so on and so forth, ...... that i have never voted for these crooks, commies and brainless fcukers.

Recommend reading Robert Prestons book "Who Runs Britain" regarding tax scams set up by Flash Gordon and NuLiebour, for their bankster and Private equity mates.

Anyone know if the Haye v Klitschko fight is on TV this weekend and what time.

Why are people trying to compare subsidised university education for natives in England/US/Aus or wherever to dual pricing at an amusement park.

University education isnt dual priced it is subsidised by the taxpayer there is a difference, it would be ludicrous for the British taxpayer to subsidise a foreigner to study in the UK only for them to leave after 3 years.

Please do like for like comparisons to enhance your argument otherwise its a load <deleted>.

You just need Americans to taste it and tell you if it is good or not.

Cheers we'll reciprocate this gesture by introducing these healthy things we like to call vegtables to your diet.

There wasnt really too much you could do apart from get a beating yourself, even if you were in great shape not many people can fight 2 men yet alone 3 men and still be standing at the end.

Maybe shout to get the attention of people passing by, be nice for them to get cut up by a gang of motor bike taxi drivers.

This place offers what can only be described as the worst hamburger in Pattaya it was truly disgusting and to make it worse you get 2 of the awful things in the bun, ive seen many people rave about this place but maybe their mothers cooking was crap if this is their idea of good tasting food.

The Spaghetti Bolognese i ate a few days prior was ok but nothing to boast about.

Dennis Wise the pensioner beating pr7cks signings of Xisco and Ignacio Gonzalez (yes i dont know who he is either) have to be the worst signings as theyve led to Keegan leaving and an absolute catastrophe of a season which will probably end up with them being relegated.

But also Ryan Taylor has to be the undoubted worst player in the Premier League so maybe he is the worst signing.

Faye crap,that just shows what crap managers you have had.Its all about getting the best out of players and fortunately our manager can,shame about your managers.

BYE BYE PREMIERSHIP

CARTOON ARMY

Youre the most predictable poster on Thaivisa.

Im all for banter, but cant you just for once try with your mind that as a child was seemingly damaged in the UK's capital of mental illness come up with something original, just for once .... please!

Anyway Faye wouldnt make it into anyones choice of players of the season lists nor would any Stoke City players, but Rory Delap would probably be the Premier Leagues greatest shotputter.

Abdoulye Faye has been a giant amongst smaller giants and i couldnt believe Newcastle sold him for peanuts.

I could, because he was crap.

Got to be Vidic or Ferdinand this year (sure a ManU fan will be able to say who has been better) if ManU do win the league itll be down to how well their defence was in that run of games where they didnt concede.

I watched the last 20 mins of extra time and thought it was a fcuken great game.

As for the pitch well Fergie isnt the first to critisise it, but with 750 million quid to spread out between the corrupt FA officials and Commie Kens group of thieves there was never going to be too much left over for a few packets of decent grass seed.

Hoping for an Everton win in the final.

silence also says a lot about people too me thinks...

Nothing wrong with silence.

Why pay when they get it for free off sassy gogo girl.

Thing is where is the money going to come from for any major investment, Thailands had more then its fair share of the property bonanza boom money (ie Europe and Americas future taxes) for the last 10 years and on the whole its been squandered.

This kind of easy money wont be available again for a long long time.

quote

When i used to go to football and Newcastle were totally sh7t with no prospect of ever getting better it seemed as if it was more for the laugh and the piss take and people widely accepted the sh7t, but as soon as they started getting good it was all taken too seriously and less people (not all) could accept a bit of piss take or losing for that matter without going over the top.

You have to be very old to remmber when newcastle were any good

We were good (too watch) with Keegan, Beardsley, Waddle and Gascoigne (Gazza after Keegan), not many people have had that quality in their team ..... and very good mid 90s up until about 2003 or whenever Senial Bobby was sacked.

So long as theyre very good v the yids tomorrow that'll do me, Viduka's been off the pies for a couple of days, Bartons out of rehab, Obafemi Martins is thinking of getting out of bed and Steven Taylors back with his do or get sent off tackles .... i was about to write that would give us a good chance but then thought better of it.

Spurs are fairly lightweight so long as we kick them off the park we should get a point.

Whenever have Newcastle been good lol

The last 10 minutes or so of our last game.

When i used to go to football and Newcastle were totally sh7t with no prospect of ever getting better it seemed as if it was more for the laugh and the piss take and people widely accepted the sh7t, but as soon as they started getting good it was all taken too seriously and less people (not all) could accept a bit of piss take or losing for that matter without going over the top.

Seems as if its been that way since the Premier League got going, as it is for all premier league franchise customers.

Anyway clubs are taking the p7ss out of fans and they dont seem to do much ....... i was quoted 68gbp to watch Newcastle v Chelsea 1 day after Shearer came back ..... i would have had a cheaper seat on match day for 30 quid which was my intention until they sold out, thats the only p7sstake i despise in football ... i'd sooner watch it on P2P or the radio then pay that.

So it seems we can all agree that Spurs and WestHam are crap and have been for ages bar a couple of top 5 places.

Anyway is Arry going to be taking it easy v Newcastle this weekend by playing some of the youngens now youve nothing to play for, we've a relatively decent away record v spurs in the last 10 years or so.

my local laundry is good, the only problem is they occasionally eat one of my socks. I give them pairs everytime, but get the odd single one back !!!

In England i buy 10 pairs of the exact same socks for 2gbp from Asda, then every 3 months or so replace them..... job sorted, usually have about 7 pair left at the end of each period.

IN response to my earlier thread i emailed Tony's gym and they have kindly replied saying the price that is advertised does include usage of the punchbags. And that the price for training is seperate.

Fairplay to them for replying.

Hi all,

I want to watch the Everton V Man Utd FA Cup semi on Sunday. Which Bangkok pub is best for a bit of blue support?

There is a Bangkok Everton Supporters Club, they were on the Blue Kipper site a short while ago. All young Thais which is nice to see (so they're not all shallow glory hunters who don't realise there is life outside the "big" 4), but they don't look like alehouse wallahs and don't say where they watch the blues.

Only Fans probably because Chang Sponsor them...

But if it educates them into not supporting either of the red sh7te clubs then its got to be a good thing.

I usually think Thais support whoever theyve bet on.

Top option for me, though i have to admit to stepping other peoples boundaries sometimes, i get close to the line sh7t off people and i give that to others and it doesnt bother me in the slightest, if anything it makes the forum more fun for me, like who would have thought some part-time customer at a BIG club in NE England would even bother arguing with fans of some hick club who dress like mackems in disguise.

At the end of the day its an internet forum, im sure not one person on here has any mallice in anything they write.

Besides my club takes the piss out of itself there is hardly a need for a helping hand.