Tag: daily mail fail

Paris Brown. A truly sad tale. Not her twitter ‘rants’ but the Daily Mail’s disgusting attacks.

Published by neilmonnery on April 10, 2013

Paris Brown is a 17 year-old girl. She’s no angel but name me a 17 year-old girl (or boy) who is. She had written some tweets in her time that possibly looking back on she regrets. However I wonder how I’d have been at that age with the ability to leave my thoughts on a website for everyone to easily see. Luckily in a way Twitter, Facebook and social media didn’t really take off until I was well into my 20s and I was old enough (and wise enough) to always think twice before posting anything. I think to myself ‘what would I think if my Mum read this?’ and if I feel as though she’d be disappointed in me then I know it isn’t something I should be writing about publicly. Same goes for this blog.

So this girl wrote something about hash brownies. Big whoop. She says it was a line from Scooby Doo which is actually rather plausible as we all know Shaggy was a stoner. However even if it wasn’t who really gives a rat’s? She wrote about coming home from a party alone and not having anyone to sleep with/shag. Big whoop. A significant number of young people are very sexually active. This wouldn’t mean she wasn’t equipped to do the job she was hired for just because she wishes she had gotten lucky one night. Do the Daily Mail really think their readership believe young people shouldn’t be out enjoying themselves sexually? What horse expletive.

She tweeted about getting drunk. Wow! Stop the freakin’ Presses folks. Young person likes getting ratted and on occasion when they get drunk acts like a twat. Big fucking whoop. Not all young people are as dull and boring as me. I didn’t drink until I was 18 and haven’t drunk since I was 26. In my whole life I can only recall being drunk on three occasions. I am not the norm. However I certainly don’t think a young person drinking is exactly a big issue when it comes to whether she is a good person to do the job for which she was hired. In fact I think the fact she is just like a regular teenager means she is far more of an ideal candidate for this role than I would have been at the same age because she deals with a lot of the issues that I would have had no idea about. Therefore being into alcohol is certainly (in my eyes) an advantage in this instance and most certainly not a negative in any way shape or form.

Now we move on to the tweets she probably regrets. Saying she was glad someone got ‘thumped’ for giving someone else a black eye. However who amongst us having deep down smiled wen someone got their comeuppance? Yeah I thought so. Calling homosexuals fags is probably her worst ‘crime’ but calling immigrants ‘illegals’ and travellers ‘pikeys’ may not be right but it isn’t unusual for young people to talk like that. Do the Daily Mail want to name and shame every young person who uses that language on twitter or does the fact she was appointed into a relatively unknown role give them good cause to tear her down?

The biggest issue for me was the fact the job was set up in the first place. Not really the job per se but the salary and the title. It opened up this poor girl to a political environment and media scrutiny which she didn’t need nor warrant. How about calling it a ‘Youth Liaison Officer’ or something of that ilk? I would bet a fair few quid that if she was appointed as that then this fuss wouldn’t have happened. This should have been some PR and was actually not a terrible idea. Have someone the Police & Crime Commissioner can liaise with about issues facing young people. The youth of today (and my youth, and your youth and everybody’s youth) always complain that the police don’t understand them or listen to them so this should have been a good idea.

Instead the fact she was called the Youth PCC and they made it so public opened up this 17 year-old to unjust and unfair criticism. The Daily Mail should be ashamed of its behaviour but we all know that they won’t be. They essentially hounded a girl from her job (before she’d even taken it up) because they decided she wasn’t the right person based solely on her tweets. They didn’t interview the young lady. They didn’t get to know her and see what she could bring to the position. They just saw one part of her and decided that was enough. Depressingly that sums up the media – and certainly sums up the Daily Mail.

I sure hope she bounces back from this and it will just be a footnote in her life/career. Her tweets were not unlike many others and just because she had a low paying job that was partly funded by the tax payer shouldn’t give the Daily Mail the right to tear her apart. If it does then there are a lot of council workers and civil servants across the country who should be closing down their twitter accounts or making sure they know who can read them and the same goes for Facebook. A role at the tax payers expense does not equate to the right to just crush someone for acting just like anyone else her age.

I hope you enjoyed this blog post. Please leave any comments or contact me directly via the E-Mail Me link on the Right Hand Nav. You can stay in touch with the blog following me on Twitter or by liking the blog on Facebook. Please share this content via the Social Media links below if you think anyone else would enjoy reading.

Vile product of being a Moustache wearer…

Published by neilmonnery on April 3, 2013

…well it has about as much to do with the story as Mick Philpott being a benefit cheat and on welfare.

The Daily Mail went to town on Philpott today – and justifyingly (apparently that isn’t a word but I think I’ll stick with it) so. However did they concentrate on the fact he masterminded the deaths of six of his own flesh and blood whilst trying to fit someone else up for the crime? No. Did they go after his past and the fact he had been found guilty and served time for attempted murder in his past? No they did not. Then was the story that he wanted all the rest of the money leftover from a fund for the funerals to be given to him in the form of Argos vouchers the A1 lead? No. The fact that he was on welfare was the lead story.

What horse expletive.

The fact he was on welfare was a footnote to the story. This story was about a man who was genuinely vile. There are plenty of murderers about, there are plenty of rapists, there are even plenty of pedophiles but a man to hatch a plot to burn down a house, knowing fully six of his own offspring were inside in the attempts to a) frame his mistress who had left him, b) become a hero (after having rescued them) and c) get a bigger house off the state is starting to outstrip those previous sets of people in terms of being on a different level altogether.

The wife and friend who both went along with and didn’t actively put a halt to his plan aren’t exactly a long way behind him. However the primary motivation seemingly had nothing to do with being on welfare. Yes the prosecution did allege that getting a bigger home was part of his thought process but it certainly was not the primary motivation. This was all about cold blooded revenge in an attempt to get back at a person who dared stand up to him and leave him. Using his own offspring as nothing more than pawns in a scheme so devious that if it was in a film you’d struggle to believe a character could be so cruel.

Still that didn’t stop the Daily Mail from using this tragedy as a pawn itself – in its long standing attack on the benefits system and benefit culture itself. Look there are benefit cheats out there in this country. That is a fact. However the number of benefit cheats pales into insignificance compared to those who use the system correctly and help ensure some level of life for those who need it most. I don’t see the Daily Mail leading on marriage cheats every time a juicy story comes up (actually they probably do) but it hasn’t quite whipped up the storm that benefit cheats do.

If companies paid the correct tax and didn’t use fancy legal loopholes then the money recouped from that would make people laugh at the money illegitimately claimed under the benefits system. We’d say things like, ‘we really cared about that?’ but of course corporation tax and variants there of do not hit home as strongly with middle England compared to people diddling the benefits system. The Daily Mail is talking to a certain section of society – and it isn’t the type of person who likes to be challenge their minds on a subject. They want to be told who they are outraged at and why. Not given the full story.

Philpott, his wife and Mosely will spend either the rest of their lives – or at the very least the majority of it behind bars for what they have done. They are clearly dangerous people and society needs to be protected from them. They are the story and not the Daily Mail but when the newspaper uses such a case as just a lowly pawn to further its own editorial bias then you really do have to despair at them nearly as much.

Mick Philpott is not a product of the welfare system. He is just a vile man. If he was a product of the welfare system then everyone in the welfare system would be like him and I’m pretty darn confident that isn’t the case…

Another bash of the Daily Mail. This time they talk about ‘flashy foreigners’ and ‘vulgarity’

Published by neilmonnery on July 3, 2012

Ah the Daily Mail. Source for some of my most sarcastic blogs. It is time for you to once more inspire my fingers to tip-tap on to my keyboard and write about how amazingly hilarious you are. Today though it is about a travel piece. The piece entitled My night in Hotel Vulgari: Daily Mail travel editor Mark Palmer gives his verdict on Britain’s most expensive hotel Bulgari caught my eye because of the introduction under the piece…

Benvenuti to the brand new Bulgari Hotel in London’s Knightsbridge, the most expensive place to stay in Britain – where the cheapest room comes in at around £850. The fact that the Bulgari is practically full every night (including the £14,400 penthouse suite) tells you everything you need to know about those pockets of modern Britain that have been turned into temples of vulgarity, attended by flashy foreigners who pay no taxes here but inflate the price of everything for the rest of us.

The words that got me were, ‘attended by flashy foreigners who pay no taxes here but inflate the price of everything for the rest of us.’ Ah yes those bloody foreigners. Always coming over here and spending their money in our vulgar hotels and not paying tax here. Well they do pay tax – VAT on everything they buy and think of all the people their vulgar money is used on employing people who do pay tax and how dare they come to the UK at all. Bloody foreigners. If we had complete closed borders then we could live in a blissful world where no-one is spending vulgar money.

The last country to close their borders and look totally inwardly was China I do believe and look what happened there. By ignoring the outside world they went from the most advanced civilization on the planet to being 100s of years behind. Yeah that didn’t exactly work out well did it? However I’m no history buff so I won’t go on about that – or the premise that all foreigners are evil – because that is so dumb its funny. The Daily Mail don’t like foreigners ok we get that. So lets look at the piece as a whole.

It reads basically as about 1,500 words which only says, ‘I am not jealous that I’m not as rich as those people. They are all foreigners and look like they hate life.’ That is basically it. He didn’t go into the review with an open mind. His narrative had already been written, which is pretty shoddy journalism in the extreme. He made a big stink about how much it cost but he knew how much it cost and heck he was on expenses anyway so that was a lot of horse expletive.

He ends though with this gem:

‘The manager hopes my wife and I will return soon. For our part, however, we hope the Bulgari packs up and takes most of its customers with it.‘

They hope the hotel packs up and people lose jobs. He doesn’t care about British people. He would clearly prefer more people on the dole than being employed by a foreign company. It is that kind of stupid messed-up thinking that is making people think we’d be better off out of the EU…

Reasons why the people who comment on the Daily Mail website articles are morons #298

Published by neilmonnery on May 14, 2012

Yesterday we saw the Williams Formula One team return to the top step of the podium for the first time in nearly a decade. It was a joyous moment but around an hour and 15 minutes later fire engulfed the Williams Pit Garage. Happily no-one has died although several people are in hospital. It was a ferocious fire and if you haven’t seen it then here is a video of the incident from Sky Sports (well until the F1 management get the video taken off of YouTube anyway):

So anyway this morning I was googling for more news on this and I read all the reports in the national papers and decided to read the worst rated comments in the Daily Mail and boy they are pretty bad…

Oh, come on, DM! People are NOT taken to hospital “for smoke inhalation”. It’s not a form of therapy that most doctors would prescribe… – I think we can safely say moron to that can’t we?

Gee, I wonder why that happened? Europeans are always so quick to carry themselves as so much more sophisticated than the rest of world, when really they are just more passive/aggressive. In other words, arson. – Yeah it was arson. That is the most obvious explanation… – Moron.

Wonder if the winning car got damaged in the fire? Won’t be able to see any possibly illegal modifications now! – Yeah Williams would risk countless lives just to protect an illegal car. Moron. Oh and the fact the winning car was in Perc Ferme so wasn’t in the garage but why let facts get in the way of an ill-informed comment? (A Daily Mail special there)

Glad no-one was seriously hurt but was probably the most exciting moment in what must be the most turgidly boring sport on earth ! – A fire that caused millions of pounds of damage and endangered many lives exciting? I think that is worth a moron slur.

And they say F1 has become boring …LOL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! – Do you think this guy got his OL’s mixed up a la the Prime Minister? Even if not he’s a big moron.

Shorts and tee shirts is not the best PPE to tackle a fire. I thought these people had to wear protective fire suits. Why weren’t they? Looked like chaos. – Toughest one to call a moron yet but she just gets into the club. Of course shorts and t-shirts are not the best way to tackle a fire but what do you expect them to do? Go and get changed and then come back later when the fire has taken hold of the whole paddock? If you had a fire in your living room would you attack it with whatever you were wearing or would you go and get changed and come back later when you were fully prepared? These guys are trained and they used their training to get the fire out as quickly as possible. They did a tremendous job. As for wearing fireproof overalls – they do in the race but the race had long since finished but something just sparked up. Fire officers don’t wear fireproof overalls at home in case a fire randomly starts up…

I think Williams were lucky twice today – They won the race fair and square so why were they lucky there? They were lucky no-one was more seriously injured though so I grant you that however still a moron.

the most exciting thing that has happened in F1 for years .. the race was as usual like watching paint drying .. I still watch it hoping for something to happen but didn’t expect them to set fire to the pits! glad no one was seriously hurt – So this guy thinks F1 is boring and yet still watched the race as he felt confident enough to proclaim the race was like watching paint drying. If he doesn’t like it he isn’t forced to watch. This is why he’s a moron as he’s unable to command a remote control.

Now Williams will be disqualified for unsafe practices and ,surprise, surprise…ALONSO / FERARRI WIN. – Seriously? Moron.

So there we have it. A collection of thoughts from Daily Mail readers about a horrific accident that only resulted in a few relatively minor casualties when it could very easily have been many times worse.

The Daily Mail says the Lib Dems are writing the budget. They seem upset. Good times.

Published by neilmonnery on February 13, 2012

‘No reprieve for the middle classes in ‘Lib Dem Budget’ after Osborne refuses to change plan to cut child benefit payments’ booms out the Daily Mail this morning. That has certainly given me reason to be optimistic for the week ahead. Delving further into the story the Lib Dems are seemingly mounting a charge against the upper middle classes to fund tax breaks for the less well off. So robbing from the rich to give to the poor. The party are like modern day Robin Hood’s. This hasn’t gone down well with the people who have commented on the article but more of that later.

The Lib Dems want to slash tax relief on pensions on those earning a six figure salary or more from 40p to 20p in the pound. This was apparently raise £3.7bn for the treasury. Sounds like a good idea to me. Count me in. They also want new green taxes that will increase the rate that we’ll see everyone taken out of Income Tax until they have earned over £10k in a financial year. This seems good. Also the plans on striping child benefit payments for those who are earning in the 40p tax bracket. Not nice but not a disaster either. Also seems that there will be no movement on marriage tax allowance which has been one of David Cameron’s big things. Seems like the Lib Dems aren’t budging on that one.

So basically according to the report which I shall link to here the Lib Dems are punching above their weight and moving the coalition away from Tory heartland to a more liberal outlook. Are the party after two years of finding their feet and finding their voice starting to find their power and have learned how to wield it?

It certainly seems that way. If this report is accurate then it will be a good budget for those who need it most. Whilst it might not exactly be robbing the rich to give to the poor it will be the better off helping out the poor and isn’t that what Mr Harry Potter Daniel Radcliffe bleated about last week when he disaffected from the Lib Dems? He just showed that things in politics take time and you can’t change everything overnight – certainly not when you are a minority party in a coalition.

Lets see what the Daily Mail readers think. These are real comments from real readers and at the time of posting are the most green arrowed.

Cameron you make us sick you hammer us for being married and yet you preach about the family and couples staying married, what incentive do you give? Well we remain married, struggling and sick of the society you seem fit to create and mismanage. You need to get out along with all the other people that do not belong and drain this country of it’s life. You are giving this country away.

You’ve now lost my vote and I suspect, many more. UKIP next for me.

We cannot go on like this Dave

I always thought the Tories were for family values, well if you take things away from a married family what is the point in joining together?

Could someone please remind me. WHO is the Prime minister of this god forsaken country??????????????

The end is nigh, both of marriage and the family. Society is falling apart and the PR stuntman and his idiot Chancellor are too dim to realise.

Another broken promise from the liar Cameron. All his broken promises will be remembered at the next election. He must hold the record for the largest number of broken promises, second must be Nick Clegg. Add the two together and go have the biggest pair of promises breakers in history.

As a Conservative voter of many years standing, never have I felt so betrayed and ashamed by a Conservative Government that has abandoned all the principles it purported to have before the election. Cameron seems happy to use the LibDems as a ‘shield’ to hide behind whenever he reneges on his promises, blaming them rather than himself – a convenient tactic for a coward. Osbourne showed early promise but has now decided that his position within the Government is more important to him than his principles. My own sitting Conservative MP has shown a (now too common) trait within the Tory party of backtracking on statements or principles that they proudly spoke of BEFORE the election. Never has there been such a blatant case of the tail wagging the dog; in this case, we have a Shih Tzu puppy wagging away like mad, whilst what I believed was a Bulldog just whimpers on the floor. Pathetic.

Seems like Middle England aren’t a fan of helping out those well off when it might affect them. No surprise there really. I just wish and hope that the electorate can see that at a national level the Lib Dems are actually not just propping up a Tory government but actually making a difference. If they do then the death of the party might well have been exaggerated.

The Daily Mail and Stephen Lawrence. Why the newspaper still gets it so horribly wrong.

Published by neilmonnery on January 4, 2012

I have been on a bit of a bandwagon recently over what the role of the media is not only in this country but around the world. Is the media there to drive the news agenda or is it there to report the news? I know my thoughts but I am a lone voice in the wilderness with the wind howling back into my face so my voice is only heard by me.

So yesterday two men were convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. They will be sentenced shortly and will be sentenced as juveniles as they were 16 and 17 when they carried out the murder. These men had escaped justice for the best part of 19 years. In 1997 the Daily Mail had a front page calling five suspects murderers and challenging them to sue them. We all have seen the front page but it is all over the Daily Mail website today. I still find this deplorable as I believe it is the job of the courts and members of a jury to decide who is guilty of what crime and not an editorial staff at a newspaper but that might be a bit old fashioned of me.

So we get to today. The Daily Mail are lauding the fact that two of the people they accused have been found guilty. Guilt was deemed through forensic evidence only which always make me a touch uneasy but guilt has been passed and that is that. My biggest issue is with the fact that the three other men they accused are being chased by the newspaper as they look to take down the other three men they accused for the killing in 1997. Hang on a minute surely that isn’t the job of the newspaper, that is the job of the police and CPS?

As it stands these three men have been found not guilty in a court of law of these crimes. Charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence so what do the Daily Mail have on these suspects that they have decided not to pass on to the police? Surely they have some hard evidence to accuse these people of such a crime or is it maybe the fact that the people of this country want justice and sometimes justice is best served through the media than in the courts?

This is just something I cannot stomach. The people behind the Daily Mail do not know these men committed said crime. They took a calculated risk that would boost their circulation and make them sound tough on a notorious crime. The five men were always unlikely to sue the newspaper despite the fact they would win because of the public perception against them for doing so. Two of these men have now 15 years later been found guilty in a Court of Law but all five were perceived guilty in the Court of Public Opinion thanks in no small part to the Daily Mail.

Should they herald this as a triumph? They got two of out five seemingly right. All five had faced these charges before but when the Double Jeopardy law was repealed then it opened up the possibility of another trial. The police have found enough forensic evidence to take down two but the odds of finding any against the other three or more at this point seems like an awful long shot. No witnesses at the time could identify any of the suspects. There was no CCTV of the incident so we are left with the scenario where there will be no primary evidence available at any potential trial of the three other men.

So why does the Daily Mail (and the BBC News last night) try to continue to harass these men who have faced these charges only to be found not guilty due to insufficient evidence in an attempt to goad them into a retaliation? They do it because they have decided that is what mob justice wants and if they can’t get justice in the courts then they will be the ones to hand out the justice. That isn’t right folks and we all know it.

Still that how it goes these days. A media outlet can drive a story and if it bays to the will of the mob then they will be able to get away with it. People want justice and these days many don’t see the Court of Law as the best place for justice to be dished out. This worries me deeply.

I know that all five men that the newspaper accused seem like extremely unpleasant people. They may well be guilty of the crime that the Daily Mail says they are. They might very well be. However for me I shall leave it up to the courts and the 12 good men and women on a jury to decide who is guilty and of what crime and not the media. The media will never have all the evidence and will always have an ulterior motive. The courts and the jury won’t and that is why they are the right people to dish out justice and not the media.

The Daily Mail is bad but the people who comment on Daily Mail articles…

Published by neilmonnery on January 2, 2012

The people who read the Daily Mail are really quite awesome. You wonder if these people know anything about the world or whether their whole view of the world is formed thanks to what they read in said newspaper. I was pointed towards a piece entitled Is a super-volcano just 390 miles from London about to erupt? which is the ideal Daily Mail type story. The super-volcano bit interested me but the 390 miles from London bit seemed a bit desperate – but hey – you gotta do what you gotta do eh DM?

So anyway I read the piece which to be fair is pretty poorly researched. The evidence used is weak to the extreme and it is totally scaremongering. Usually I’d read and move on but a couple of comments caught me eye. Firstly this…

Yes seriously. The fact that there might be a super-volcano in Germany that is due to explode means that we need to pull out of the EU. If we pull out of the EU then any potential ash cloud will stop at our borders out of respect for our sovereignty. Being in the EU is endorsing our support of super-volcanoes. I despair I really do but the next one I despair for two reasons…

Firstly I despair that the commenter can’t spell the word ‘bankers’ which is quite a depressing scenario but I despair even more that 15 people (as of the time of taking the screenshot) gave it a thumbs up. Yes we should put the bankers in the super-volcano because they’ll save the day and stop the explosion and ash cloud reaching us and they’ll be heroes. Or is it just 15 people saying they want to kill bankers for no real reason?

The Daily Mail makes me sad but a significant percentage of those who comment make me weep for mankind.

Daily Mail leads with Amanda Knox is Guilty story – Photo

Published by neilmonnery on October 3, 2011

Daily Mail Amanda Knox Guilty — Daily Mail jumps the gun and prints that Amanda Knox is guilty

Getting the news fast is important, getting it first is great but getting it right is still the most important thing.

Daily Mail Fail.

‘Nick Clegg: the most dangerous politician in Britain’ – Nice to know we are pissing off the right-wing media.

Published by neilmonnery on September 13, 2011

Yes folks that is the title of James Slack’s latest piece in the Daily Mail. You can read it here if you so wish. It is a wonderful feeling when right wingers in the Daily Mail are getting so pissed off with the Lib Dems. Every week someone says how awful we are that we are busy protecting human rights or civil liberties or wielding too much power for having just 8.7% of MPs in Parliament despite having 23% of votes from the electorate.

So when you look at it closely it isn’t our fault that the percentage of votes and MPs isn’t proportionate. It is just an issue of our antiquated First Past The Post system that doesn’t fairly reflect the will of the nation but heck we tried to change that but the people decided that hated the Lib Dems so much that they would cut off their nose to spite their face (or the Lib Dems) and will be up in arms when they notice how disproportionate the results are next time around and they’ll call for fairer votes again. Oh people of Great Britain *sighs*

Anyway back to the case in point. Everyone in the media for over a year has been feeding the myth that the Lib Dems are the Tories lap doggs. The people of the country have turned on the party because of this. They see what the newspapers say and they think that Nick Clegg and his team soul their soul for a few ministerial cars and a sense of power. That they sold out and in doing so sold out their voters and in particular the students so far down the river that they can never return to embracing the party let alone voting for them.

However things are different now. Everyone is complaining that the Lib Dems are having too much of an influence (when I say ‘everyone’ what I really mean is ‘the media and Tory MPs’). The Lib Dems are in fact curbing the excesses of the Tories and watering down anything the blue half of the coalition are proposing.

For a year or more so many Labourites I know have been banging on about how the Lib Dems are finished and they are a mere footnote in history. The party wil disband and we can live in a two-party bliss where the reds and the blues can blame each other when they are in opposition but do very similar things when they are in government. When you consider the fact that Tony Blair and his team were more right-wing on civil liberties than any party I have ever seen shows that Labour and the Conservatives are pretty much interchangeable. It was Labour who started the privatisation of the NHS and left hospital trusts in serious financial jeopardy thanks to PFIs.

The only differences are that the Tories will be more aggressive in selling off national assets for short-term gain whereas Labour will say that everything should be nationally owned but when it comes down to it they’ll get the wheels in motion for selling everything off.

The Lib Dems are different. That is why I’m a member and why I believe in what they are trying to do. The Lib Dems have positions on issues and they in general don’t change whereas the Tories and Labour will change depending on the thoughts of the electorate at the time and whether they are in power or not. ‘The Lib Dems position on tuition fees changed’ I hear you cry. No they didn’t. The money wasn’t there to do what they wanted so they had to find the best solution. Yes they could have kicked up a fuss and stopped this tuition fees rise. That was doable but if they did then the likelihood of any progress on the deficit would be low and the likelihood of a second General Election would be high. A second GE would likely have brought home a Conservative outright win and tuition fees would be sky high anyway.

Overall the Lib Dems can have far more influence inside government than outside and in the grand scheme of things this was the right move. It pissed off the masses but heck now it’s pissing off the Tories and if we keep doing this for the next few years and standing up for what we believe in then we’ll be ok. The big difference now is a snap General Election if the Tories were that pissed off with us wouldn’t be guaranteed to bring home a Tory majority whereas it probably was in the autumn of 2010. That is a significant difference.

As long as David Cameron isn’t sure the electorate would give him a majority he’ll have to keep pandering to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats and that is where the party can flex their muscles. Nick Clegg played his hand poorly with the referendum on the voting system but he is starting to very much find his feet and so are his ministers and that is a very good thing indeed.

The Daily Mail just will not let the BBC win – more on F1 moving to Sky

Published by neilmonnery on July 30, 2011

The Daily Mail have a go at the BBC at every opportunity. Top Gar is a personal bug bear that they seem to have and any story that shows Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond, James May or anything associated with the show in a bad light is game on for a vitriolic piece. Another thing that have banged on about is the cost of Formula One and the fact it’s not a proper sport and the way they treated Jonathan Legard was a disgrace (yes I’m looking at you Charles Sale) but now that F1 is on it’s way to Sky with only a part-time home on the corporation what do they do…?

They get Murray Walker to write a big piece for them to say how sad it is that F1 is leaving for Sky. The mind boggles.

Unsurprisingly I agree with a lot of what Murray Walker had to say and one rather interesting tidbit was the news that he was approached by ITV the day after the announcement that the BBC had lost the gig. He knew that he was going across to the other channel and that leaves many questions to be answered about the current BBC on-air talent.

I think it is safe to say that the name that will be mentioned most is that of Martin Brundle – who has been the only constant on the UK coverage since 1997 (albeit he has missed a race or two here and there). Brundle is now lead commentator for the Beeb and is on a fair whack of money but is out of contract at the end of this year. It is highly doubtful that the BBC will pay him the money he wants to only do ten live races a year. Sky would pay him but would they want him as a lead commentator or do they have Ben Edwards lined up for that? If so would Brundle want to take a perceived step down in role?

All very possible. As for Jake Humphrey then expect him to stay with the BBC although him carrying on with F1 might be in a little bit of jeopardy. David Coulthard may well not be wanted by Sky and Eddie Jordan is very unlikely to be asked to make the move. Ted Kravitz as I said yesterday is surely the only other member of the BBC team that would interest Sky but it is very early days.

As for who’ll anchor the Sky coverage well I have no idea but Georgie Thompson fronted A1GP on the channel and will surely be in the mix.

Going back to the title though it does seem as though whatever the BBC does the Daily Mail will rip them for it. If we had the technology and the know-how to go into a parallel universe we could see every single situation played out by the Beeb and I’m sure the Daily Mail will lambast them every single time. Sometimes I must say the media bias really goes get on my tits.