It's an honour to report another ground-breaking exposé from Biased BBC. This time B-BBC has stripped away the hollow pretence behind the NSPCC... bravely revealing that the child protection charity doesn't, um, actually care about kids.
Mind you, the NSPCC was just begging for trouble: It went and published a survey which suggests that a third of teenage girls experience sexual abuse from boyfriends. One in six girls said they'd been pressured into intercourse. David Vance knows better...
I see that the feminazis are out for male blood today...
Nazi vampires! Feminist ones, too. The horror.
...and the BBC are keen to give them a platform.
They'll be handing the vampires the keys to the Blood Bank next.
As always, the NSPCC exists to promote itself.
Perhaps they could take a few lessons in modest public service from your good self?
This characterisation of 90% of girls aged 13-17 is rubbish.
Almost certainly. My own research proves that 100% of teen girls can't get enough of Biased BBC and want only to help warn the world of the gay Taliban tyranny to come.
This character assassination of young teenage boys as violent sexual predators is also ludicrous.
All they really care about is becoming first fife in the Orange Lodge band.
Still, it gives the NSPCC something to do.
NSPCNazis. Boy do we hate them...
Oh to be a pretend charity.
Or a pretend bias monitor.
Now, we could use something a bit more upbeat. Why... here's happyuk07. Cheerful name, cheerful guy.
I must say I am very skeptical about these so-called findings.
I think we all are.
Anyone would think that the female species is a completely pure one that never goes to the toilet, never says anything wrong or does anything wrong.
Well that's obvious bollocks. Woman next to me just used the bog.
The reality is girls/women make far better troublemakers than men: bitching, gossiping, nagging, provoking husbands, blackballing, creating atmospheres, you name it.
Why, thank you very much. I name it The Vance Syndrome.
Posts
For the sake of my sanity I obviously can't actually visit the BBBC website, but I did wonder whether there was rejoicing and back-slapping at the MacTaggart lecture given by rising young prick - sorry - media mogul James Murdoch.
ReplyDeleteEdward: Wise move. I have special training and always wear biohazard-proof clothing.
ReplyDeleteVance's take on Murdoch Jr: The sooner we have a Fox News here the better - fair and balanced would be a nice change.. But kudos to his colleague Natalie Solent. She pointed out that News International is in no position to criticise...
I just laughed a piece of popcorn down my nose at, "so-called findings". I must admit I am also so-called skeptical (sic) at those so-called-so-called "findings".
ReplyDeleteThis page exposing the NSPCC might interest you ...
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/nkjs4d
.
Best
Oh they loved it, Edward - it got two whole posts
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Anonymous. I often like to take my opinions from a right-wing mysoginist with a complete disregard for facts who complains about research by using the term "it is probably wholly invalid and specious." Probably? So what he means is, "I don't understand or agree with what your research so it MUST be wrong." Angry 'Arris more like.
ReplyDeleteNatalie Solent appears to be the sanest of the contributors there!
ReplyDelete"Fox News"
ReplyDelete"fair and balanced"
I can't believe those two things were used in the same sentence.