Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?


I think Sky News is wonderful.

In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into
a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes
throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you
see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers.

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?


I think Sky News is wonderful.

In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into
a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes
throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you
see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers.

;-)

You've broken the code!

Adam Funk wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

Andrew Yarnwood wrote:

Can you be sure it was the police?


Given that the BBC says it was, probably not, no.

The BBC is of course not perfect.

But would you prefer to get so-called "news" and "information" from
Rupert Murdoch and his minions?


I think Sky News is wonderful.

In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into
a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes
throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you
see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers.

;-)

You've broken the code!


No, I've been indoctrinated. When I'm at home, I leave Sky News on
all day, interrupting it only to watch Neighbours.

Why can't Neighbours be rescheduled to end before 2:00 pm?

The 2:05 finish means I miss the Sky News Headlines at 2:00, and I
can't remember what the headlines were at 1:30, so I have to wait
until 2:15. Lovely Sky. Naughty BBC.

I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting
Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News.

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting
Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News.

;-)

You might like some of this.
http://www.breakfastfakes.co.uk/

Ed (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
:

Tony Polson wrote:

I will never forgive the BBC for poaching the gorgeous, pouting
Natasha Kaplinsky (for it is she) from Sky News.

But they let Kate Sanderson go
--
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:36:55 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

In this huge and complex world, Sky manages to condense the news into
a very small number of very simple stories, repeated every 15 minutes
throughout the day with very few of those irritating changes that you
see on other news channels, and which would only confuse the viewers.

The trouble with Sky News is that it is Murdoch press, which tends to
report his opinions and not always the facts. It is also too
sensationalist and flashy.

I by far prefer BBC News 24.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

(Neil Williams) wrote:

The trouble with Sky News is that it is Murdoch press, which tends to
report his opinions and not always the facts. It is also too
sensationalist and flashy.

I by far prefer BBC News 24.


So do I. I was joking, Neil!

;-)