Saturday, 21 November 2009

Breathe. Please.

What gives rise to the conviction some people harbour that they can predict the future? In the case of Biased BBC's resident soothsayer Cassandra King, oxygen starvation might play a part. Doctors are concerned that she can go whole minutes without breathing as she pounds out her bile heartfelt concerns.

Take this complaint about a BBC report on a new documentary, Videocracy, which criticises Italy's dearly beloved Silvio Berlusconi:

The BBC forgets to mention that Gandini is a hard left socialist, funny that they forget to mention that the attack/smear film could simply be a vehicle to smear a political enemy UNLESS of course the BBC knew full that the film was a smear attack because the BBC have been engaged in a long term concerted smear campaign since the Italian elections that elected Berlesconi, you will remember how broken hearted the BBC were when the socialists were destroyed at the polls, you will recall how the BBC launched the most partisan coverage helping the socialists as much as possible.

That's 101 words without a pause; enough - according to OBME's crack team of breathing-related science-type experts - to induce a critical low-oxygen state sufficient to cause intense hallucinations.

Could also explain why she failed to notice the BBC reporter pointing out that the film was a personal view, far from neutral and that its critics had complained that it lacked rigour.

But probably not.


  1. Sue is "en fuego" to today. A whole post about how a biased C4 documentary (on what else? Israel) is actually THE BBC'S FAULT!

  2. I noticed that Dave - it's almost beyond parody. I've enjoyed the hysteria about this Hadley climate change leak thing that is not related to the BBC in any way - not that that's gonna stop them.

  3. And this comment;

    "Enzo, albeeba would secretly love another holocaust"

    Stomach churning.

  4. you would think that a comment like that would attract criticsm on bbbc, but then again, look at his bedfellows..........

  5. re: Dave

    I said exactly the same thing in the first comment - strangely enough my point was not met with any opposition