Anyone listening to the Jeremy Vine Show yesterday would have got the treat of alleged comedian Johnny Marbles stopping by to talk about his charity swim down the Thames.
No, wait - it was a real comedian what did that. Meanwhile, Johnny is known for one thing: assaulting an elderly man, but apparently that's all you need in Beebland to justify being treated like Tom Cruise opening a new movie.
No, my mistake again - Tom might have to face the odd critical comment, instead of yukking it up with the presenter about how he nailed an old guy. On the plus side, we've surely killed any suggestion that it's the Right which encourages extremism?
Actually - and typical for the BBC - even without the bias the interview failed as journalism. Far from being spontaneous, Thugboy admitted unprompted that he had been stalking Murdoch beforehand, but Vine completely missed it.
Then again, the whole 'educate and inform' thing was conspicuous by its absence. Instead, we had Thugboy's unchallenged ranting about how the Murdochs 'lied' - but without ever explaining what they were lying about or why we should believe him.
Instead of asking his guest to justify his slanders, Vine concentrated on the important stuff: feeding his new pal sob sister lines about how Mrs Murdoch attacked him, and how hard his jailing was on his son, and did he think he was oversentanced?
Surprisingly enough, he did. Plus Jeremy helpfully pointed out that someone who did the same to Fiona Bruce only got a fixed penalty. Yes, indeed: our nuanced friends at the BBC are now claiming to be baffled why assaulting a witness giving evidence to Parliament is treated more harshly than the same offence in the High Street.
Needless to say, no one was there to point out that here was an individual who carried out a violent assault in a self-confessed attempt to 'humiliate' his victim and demonstrate contempt for Parliament, and our State broadcaster was doing all but driving the getaway car.
More to the point, the BBC spent the recent riots on Defcon One Vigilante Alert. Now we have a supposed anarchist who claims the right to assault anyone who, in his opinion, is obviously guilty, even if they've never been charged with a crime and the BBC treats him like an honoured guest. Hello?
Let's check the scorecard here:
Shopkeepers defending their businesses against arsonist and looters: vigilantes.
Leftist thugs attacking people they despise, but who haven't been convicted of anything: Tom Cruise.
BBC moral authority: screwed.
No, wait - it was a real comedian what did that. Meanwhile, Johnny is known for one thing: assaulting an elderly man, but apparently that's all you need in Beebland to justify being treated like Tom Cruise opening a new movie.
No, my mistake again - Tom might have to face the odd critical comment, instead of yukking it up with the presenter about how he nailed an old guy. On the plus side, we've surely killed any suggestion that it's the Right which encourages extremism?
Actually - and typical for the BBC - even without the bias the interview failed as journalism. Far from being spontaneous, Thugboy admitted unprompted that he had been stalking Murdoch beforehand, but Vine completely missed it.
Then again, the whole 'educate and inform' thing was conspicuous by its absence. Instead, we had Thugboy's unchallenged ranting about how the Murdochs 'lied' - but without ever explaining what they were lying about or why we should believe him.
Instead of asking his guest to justify his slanders, Vine concentrated on the important stuff: feeding his new pal sob sister lines about how Mrs Murdoch attacked him, and how hard his jailing was on his son, and did he think he was oversentanced?
Surprisingly enough, he did. Plus Jeremy helpfully pointed out that someone who did the same to Fiona Bruce only got a fixed penalty. Yes, indeed: our nuanced friends at the BBC are now claiming to be baffled why assaulting a witness giving evidence to Parliament is treated more harshly than the same offence in the High Street.
Needless to say, no one was there to point out that here was an individual who carried out a violent assault in a self-confessed attempt to 'humiliate' his victim and demonstrate contempt for Parliament, and our State broadcaster was doing all but driving the getaway car.
More to the point, the BBC spent the recent riots on Defcon One Vigilante Alert. Now we have a supposed anarchist who claims the right to assault anyone who, in his opinion, is obviously guilty, even if they've never been charged with a crime and the BBC treats him like an honoured guest. Hello?
Let's check the scorecard here:
Shopkeepers defending their businesses against arsonist and looters: vigilantes.
Leftist thugs attacking people they despise, but who haven't been convicted of anything: Tom Cruise.
BBC moral authority: screwed.
3 comments:
"....but apparently that's all you need in Beebland to justify being treated like Tom Cruise opening a new movie. "
I heard the trail for it:
'Today on Jeremy Vine, we ask comedian Johnny Marbles if he regrets what he did...'
And nearly crashed the car screaming 'OF COURSE HE DOESN'T! IT GOT HIM ON THE BLOODY RADIO, YOU CRETIN!'....
I'm so glad I decided not to listen.
Shopkeepers defending their businesses against arsonists and looters: vigilantes.
A bit of nuance needed here...
White shopkeepers defending their businesses against arsonists and looters: vigilantes (racist too).
Non-white shopkeepers defending their businesses against arsonists and looters: stout defenders of the community who we should all applaud and indeed invite more of to live here.
Good career move Marbles. Your thuggery sets the bar for other hopeless lefties* to get some free publicity.
*Note I didn't say 'lefty comedians' as there are none. the likes of the ridiculous Brigstocke and Hardy can only say 'Bush' to get a cheap snigger from the carefully selected audience. Marbles may not have funnies but he's on course for his own show on BBC 97 or whatever.
Post a Comment