主播大秀

Doesn't everyone think it's great that Jeremy and Kirsty are practically running the programme again? Even so, Emily is v. good too.

Anyone else thinking on the same lines?

I would hate to see 主播大秀 downgraded in any way. I watch 主播大秀 America on satellite and have listened to the 主播大秀 in my country and in all my travels to other countries, always with the faith, weel placed, I think. that I was getting the "straight scoop". With American media becoming held by fewer and fewer huge corporations (Rupert Murdoch being the biggest present Bogeyman}, some with questionable agendae, the 主播大秀 is one of my sources for news where opinion and news are clearly delineated. And, yes I, watched through the so-called Golden years in the '70's which led me to reading authors I might easily have missed (Evelyn Waugh comes to mind, amongst others). If my Congresspeople had any say over the 主播大秀, they would be getting plenty of communications from me discouraging cut-backs on a great national resource. Cynthia Timko Boulder, Colorado USA

I would hate to see 主播大秀 downgraded in any way. I watch 主播大秀 America on satellite and have listened to the 主播大秀 in my country and in all my travels to other countries, always with the faith, weel placed, I think. that I was getting the "straight scoop". With American media becoming held by fewer and fewer huge corporations (Ruport Murdoch being the biggest present Bogeyman}, some with questionable agendae, the 主播大秀 is one of my sources for news where opinion and news are clearly delineated. And, yes I, watched through the so-called Golden years in the '70's which led me to reading authors I might easily have missed (Evelyn Waugh comes to mind, amongst others. If my Congresspeople had any say over the 主播大秀, they would be getting plenty of communications from me discouraging cut-backs on a great national resource.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the unfunny Jonathan Ross is paid several million pounds by the 主播大秀. He sends me straight to the remote control. The 主播大秀 plays a vital public service in its news and current affairs output, and this also serves as an example of an ideal so lacking in the many non-EU countries which can pick up 主播大秀 output.

If the ultimate Labour revenge on 主播大秀 for the Iraq dossier story is a reduction in its capacity to maintain its reporting and current affairs, then the heads of the 主播大秀 should roll, and in shame. 主播大秀 viewers should also make their views known, not only to politicians, but also at the ballot boxes.

Hopefully any cuts will be restricted to curbing the excesses of those who believe Jonathan Ross is somebody that is worth many millions of the budget.

I can think of several ways the 主播大秀 could save money without firing hard working backroom staff who get no recognition, yet keep the show on the road. Jonathan Ross is a coarse overpaid character who serves no purpose. Kirsty Wark, with her harsh-sounding , aggressive, egocentrical manner of interviewing her unfortunate victims should be sent back over the border where the Scottish viewers may understand her grating voice. In contrast, Jeremy Paxman is a true professional, but now he only appears really happy when chairing University Challenge. I think he feels at home with bright people. Finally, top management could be sent home without severance pay and us poor licence payers should have a say in what the media offers us.

I shall be very angry if anyone mucks around with Newsnight. Newsnight is the only daily programme which looks at news and events in a way which sometimes cuts through the hype and gets to the nub of the issue. I am just listening to Jeremy interview Sir Michael Lyons (Chair of the 主播大秀 Trust) and he's doing an excellent and typically incisive job. The value which Newsnight provides for the cost of a couple of Jonathan Ross's (in monetary terms)is unbeatable.

Sometime last year, I heard Mark Thompson boasting on Simon Mayo's programme on 5 Live that the 主播大秀 spends more on acquiring licences to show various sports events (you know - running and jumping, that sort of thing), "than on all of news and current affairs put together". I was so gobsmacked, not by the fact itself, but by his eagerness to ventilate it (albeit as a rearguard action against whining from people who want the licence fee to pay large private interests so that they can screen the running and jumping events) that I took the trouble of making a recording of that particular interview, just in case it was denied at a later date.

I play badminton and cycle very regularly, and am not against wandering down to the village green to watch a local cricket match. But in terms of broadcasting, I'm one of those who, to quote Christopher Hitchens, "doesn't do games". So could I ask you to question the next 主播大秀 panjandrum who turns up to defend this carpet-bombing approach to the crisis (or not?) at the corporation, over whether the endless and intrusive sports coverage is going to take some of the hit - and, proportionally, how much?

I am a young license payer and I love 主播大秀 Three. It offers a wide range of new comedy, allowing it to prove itself to have an audience and subsequently get repeated on 主播大秀 2. I disagree with Jeff Randall that 'Tittytittybangbang' and 'Fxxx Off I'm a Hairy Women'do not constitute distinctive programming. It is clear that he has never seen either show. Both shows are distinctive programming, they provide something that cannot be found elsewhere. Tittytittybangbang is a Little Britain style sketch show and the Hairy Women programme was a thoughtful discussion on the societal pressure and physical pain women experience to maintain an unnatural hairless body. It is a shame that Mr Randall regards female comedy sketch shows and feminist discussion hosted by a well-respected stand-up comedian such as Shazia Mirza not to be distinctive programming. However to describe such programmes as 'freak shows' and 'soft porn' is showing either a lack of research or a lack of regard for licence payers such as myself - I am 25 with two children under 3 and a MA in Modern and Contemporary Writing.

Dear Jeremy and guests,

I watched the coverage of 主播大秀's future with interest and as one who has spent much energy and time sending constructive suggestions and moans to the 主播大秀 and its Trust in recent times, I was amazed at the ex head of 主播大秀 3's assertions - he was as "narrow" about his view of suitable programming and ageism as the other guest he criticized for being so.

I am so sure that the 主播大秀 needs to rediscover its focus and remember that its niche and its USPs have delivered the 'gold service ' that Joanna Lumley mentioned for the 主播大秀 for as long as it has been around.....what that is formed by may change but the fact remains that most of what the guy from the Telegraph said was correct....it must, must rediscover that and it must keep that as central to its mission.

There has always been an audience for rubbish TV...that is not the basis for the 主播大秀 chasing that audience. The Times and Guardian do not chase after tabloid audiences...why would the 主播大秀. Of course the 主播大秀 should keep up and change...but making rubbishy programmes and sloppy editing/directing of the kind I've seen on Top Gear recently ( remember the Corporation's mission please Top Gear) is nothing to do with widening audiences and everything to do with lowering standards. If the 主播大秀 loses the fabric that most of us want ( and let's face it most of us ARE a certain age, have kids, are concerned about values; etc), it will lose us all. We want to hear Libby Purves and Sandi Toksvig; we want Victoria Derbyshire and Chris Evans... we want the old Blue Peter back not the shabby ITV type Blue Peter...trying to be all things and succeeding with nothing. We want to hear Peter Allis and see JP McEnroe as well as younger equivalents ( everyone loved Dan Mascoe and they would still love him if he was around in 2007!)coming up to take their batons in time. We do not want mediocrity and we want a 主播大秀2 that lives up to its name ..not one loaded with repeats time and again. The Today programme is the standard. Look to that and all the other programmes that have stood the test of time and changed with the time...look at their successes and build from there. Let's have a Radio 3 equivalent on TV and let's go for building international audiences too... grow that for Gods sake.

I was appauled by Jonathan Rosses fee...I think that is appauling and actually why doesn't the 主播大秀 avoid such pitfalls...let these peopel on amoral salaries go somewhere else ..forget them ( the money is obscene it is not with justification)....there is so,so much other talent out there which they can find the nation is rich with it...give Victoria Derbyshire his podium for goodness sake... much as I love Graham Norton...if his salary demands go the same way, let him go too.

Anyway, alot of pennies worth...for what they're worth...

Catherine Drury

Sir Michael Lyons told us nothing on how these "savings" were going to help the 主播大秀 but spoke in generalities, and "flim flam" devoid of any substance. We will see what tomorrow brings in cuts and "ideas". Cuts usually mean fewer people running faster and for less pay. The bloke from the "Torygraph" made some good points about the relative costs of the Today/Newsnight to that of 主播大秀 3.

Apart from the aforementioned overpaid stars, and there are many others too numerous to mention, my only gripe about News on the 主播大秀 is how it now takes two presenters to tell us the news who appear to spend most of it gazing into each others eyes and on expensive sets.
Saturday night used to be the flagship of 主播大秀 entertainment now it's full of low cost competition dance/talent programme with judges massaging their egos.
Who knows, with any cuts in the 主播大秀 internet websites, Newsnight comment may be the first to go??!!! Use it or lose it.

Journalists don't do strike any more, do they?Not if they are working for Mardouch empror its a showbiz there no need to.
and this why the tax payer cough all the money to keep journalisim on the stright and narrows because a strong press is vital to our flourishing nation and journalists must not struggle to provide a quality public service.
there is hardly a desk that has not been hit by cutbacks in the 主播大秀 as far as we the public hear year after year and so on and still showbiz tabloid style individuals are milking our hard earned money and give us nothing not the journalists.
"It's important for the bbc staff to stand up both for the quality of the 主播大秀 and their own pay and conditions" Just let them remember consultants often do not understand what a 拢135 could do to the majority of poor familys who has no choice other than the licence tv's and they still pay it because they know without a good quality media,polticians and companies would get away with whaterver they wanted?!

The view that this 'cutting back' is aimed at re-prioritising for future, younger generations is a complete fallacy. I speak as a young person, 17, on behalf of young people.

Complaints are continuously made about the lowering of Britain's moral standards and the academic and social failure of younger generations. Surely by providing more slap-stick, 'low quality' comedy shows, this is just fueling this trend. This vicious circle is just being fed by this recent move by the 主播大秀. It is like pumping oxygen into a fire. The fire just gets worse.

It is vital that we provide more quality television that provides an innovative, interesting yet serious way of informing the general public and younger generations of issues that face society. I would consider programs such as "Horizon", "Panorama" and "Planet Earth" good, accessible examples.

I consider myself a liberal person. I am in no way in favour of censorship, but I think we must recognise that the media does have a certain role of dictating social trends, not following them.

A teenager many years ago, I remember 主播大秀 radio as 主播大秀 and Light (previously national and regional, I think). It closed down around midnight and the service was enhanced by the addition of the third programme. There was a great variety of output and families listened together. When TV arrived it was much the same mix. In fact some programmes translated well. Our social lives were similarly very varied ranging through dances, films, theatre, ballet, playing tennis, cycling and walking, discussion groups, reading, darts, the occasional under-age drink (singular), speedway, football, classical music, jazz, talks. We were working class. Some had passed 11+ and some had not.
What we would not have wanted is 主播大秀 3 TV. Also, Fanny Hill used to be read for a cheap laugh and was regarded as total trash. It says a great deal that it is to become one of the 'attractions' on TV. If we're not careful, our intellects will become atrophied 鈥� or is that part of somebody's plan?

Stirred by the news of cuts to the 主播大秀 am writing to complain about the general decline of the country including the contents of the beeb; which runs which I ask myself?
Beeb was a respected service when I was a youngster in the 60's dancing round my handbag to 'I will survive.'
I am not a prude, but the swearing and the decline of morals; the lack of programmes with any real humour, but just totally boring and blatant sexual promiscuity initiated by our drug/binge drinking culture and our computer culture, enabling people to become very fat and lazy; do you believe that making cuts will really improve this despairing situation?
Jane

Now I know why 主播大秀3 is so rubbish, ( hardly ever watch it for more than ten seconds ) it was inspired by a brainless ten bob fat cat !

Dear Newsnight

Is there any chance the 主播大秀 could concentrate its resources to help pump prime the UK film industry? This money might be available if the radical approach suggested by Mr Randall was adopted, ie The 主播大秀 left areas that are the remit of the Independent sector-

every week we might enjoy an orginal high budget UK film, instead of hours of............

could we even return to the test card and music - must every hour be filled with something?

ie with Sundays, the programmes can be pretty dreary, why not have nothing on air for part of the day and then perhaps in the evening we might have something quite magical, to watch, something very very good -

I remember many years ago when we said we would not follow the example of broadcasters overseas with many channels but arguably nothing worth watching,

instead of zillions of channels, why not stick to producing world beating programmes and using the creativity and orignality of this nation?

be a hothouse of ideas, investing in new ideas, writing, music, the arts
embark on the sort of risk taking that commercial television simply cant afford to do,

and take the pressure off the independent sector and move the 主播大秀 off their lawn ie programmes like Eastenders are very popular, just what ITV needs, so why not pioneer new programmes like this and then pass them on to the independent sector?

with the decline in advertising revenues unless you stop competing in the way you are doing with ITV you will be misusing your privileged and comfortable position of having a guaranteed income, to undermine an independent sector that has to earn every penny it spends,and is under great pressure at the moment,

some of the licence fee should also go to outstanding public broadcasting made by independent television such as Channel 4 news -

the 主播大秀 should not think it is keeping to the spirit of the charter by trying to expand the organisation at the expense of its rivals or put them out of business,

big is not necessarily beautiful

and never never never allow the politicians to intimate you.

best wishes
Bob

by the way I think there was something said tonight that may not be factually right, re Jonathan Ross's contract, I think this information is in the public domain so perhaps the correct figure for how much he is paid by the 主播大秀 should be stated on this website?

I too think that the first to be culled should be the overpaid presenters like Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton & friends. Not journalists.

Jonathan has plugged his wife's new film during his last 3 shows. So much for not advertising on the 主播大秀.

Considering you can be jailed for not paying your TV license and that as disabled person I get 拢76 a week to live on, compared to Ross' 拢150,000. Yet I still have to pay his bloody wages - I say let him try his luck with ITV, I'm sure their reduced advertising revenue couldn't stump up the 拢8,000,000.

During a crisis the world watches and listens to the 主播大秀. The reason is obvious; the 主播大秀 was always the number one conduit through which the information could be trusted. The accuracy of the filter to attain this analysis and fact, is the critical ear of the reporter. If the tv world has move on, it is to shrink, sanitise and polish for a low calorie product. Of course these days, the menu has to be coated in an appealing packet of eye candy, go-fast stripes or witty reference, to be palatable. The depth of flavours of news, the digestibility and the contoured experience are all dependent on the time of day, and the competition across the high street.
So where do we find that satisfying spit-roast ? The glow of the flames of a open fire, the port and brandy, the aura of a special moment, where the iced spin dissolves, PR disappears up the chimney, and debate turns into honest revelation ? Newsnight ? Or will it become Newsround for adults ? Maybe the 主播大秀 is to be run for children, by teenagers, so the real decisions can be made behind closed doors by the grown-ups ? A new Toy shop in Manchester for them to play in ? What鈥檚 that to be called ? The New Empire Auction House ? HUMBUG !

I think Stuart Murphy was making a gross generalisation to imply that young people need a downgraded quality of programming, what he called "promiscuous". I am 21 years old and 主播大秀 Three is a channel I never watch. It is a channel that costs 拢93 million and, as was not pointed out last night, only runs from 7pm in the evening. Conversely, I regularly watch Newsnight, and, being a student, cannot always do this when it is aired. Therefore, I find the "Watch the latest programme" function on the website extremely useful. This is not about rejecting progress, but it is about making sure that progress is invested with a sense of quality and tradition, not for tradition's sake, but because the 主播大秀's tradition is a proven recipe for success. Parts of the 主播大秀 are being conserved, and this is being compensated by losses elsewhere, but perhaps in the wrong areas. The judgments which inform these decisions are at the expense of quality, and of the employees, in the name of an illusory emphasis, in part, on diversification for the younger generation. New technology can be useful for reaching the younger generation, but downgrading quality dilutes the brilliant formula of news and current affairs at the core of the 主播大秀 and a variety of good quality programmes around this beating heart. Sister channels are not a pre-requisite for appealing to other demographic groups. They are a gesture towards trying to do that by throwing money and concepts at the problem. 主播大秀 Three and 主播大秀 Four could be sacrificed, and money re-diverted to the news programmes which are to be so heavily hit, and these demographic sectors still served by the core channels. With two core channels and several radio stations, does the 主播大秀 need to conserve these peripheral channels, whilst sucking money from the important areas of news?

I watched Newsnight last night and I thought that the ex head of 主播大秀 3 had a poorer opinion of 15 - 35's year-olds than i would like. Yes, the 主播大秀 must make programmes with a certain age-group in mind. But, also, great programmes occur because someone just has a great idea. Great ideas emerge out of freedom of thought, not ruthlessly tied down to an agenda of whether the idea will appeal to a particular age group or not (I have just been studying de Bono on lateral-thinking as well as various books on creative writing and creative-thinking in general). We all know this but the way in which the ex 主播大秀 3 Head was talking was like that of an advertising executive not a creative television executive.

And 15 - 35's are not as 'promiscuous' as the ex Head of the 主播大秀 was suggesting. Most people will watch junk if it is able to hold their attention in some way - this doesn't mean we really repect the people who make the programme (just as we don't really respect the companies that sell hamburgers, fries with cola - we sometimes gorge ourselves on these but we know they are junk). People pay for the 主播大秀 expecting more and something disctinct to what a commercial broadcaster provides. 15 - 35's are deep-thinking and cultural people too. They want decent programmes.

Lastly, i think it is important to realize that digital and the internet do provide an important back-up to mainstream 主播大秀 programmes as the ex head of 主播大秀 3 pointed out. But that doesn't mean the 主播大秀 focuses too much attention on these areas such as the commercial broadcasters are currently doing. At the end of the day the 主播大秀 is about one thing: making decent programmes. It isn't expected to make lots and lots of classic programmes all the time. But it is expected to make a few. Unless the 主播大秀 makes these decent programmes then all the gadgetery and high-tech stuff becomes meaningless - and the 主播大秀 just faces the accusation of being more into empire-building than creating quality programmes.

Lastly, I think the 主播大秀 should be receiving more money. But the money should be focused into quality programme-making - but since the 主播大秀 has been focusing too much on internet, digital and quantity of programmes i believe it has itself to blame, to an important degree, for the cuts that are going to take place because of a reduction in public finance.

So the question is really: is the 主播大秀 going to focus more on quality programmes in the future? If, yes, then it has a healthy future. If no, and it focuses on internet, digital and quantity of programmes, instead, then its future is a lot more bleak.

Lasr night's was an excellent programme, the sort of tv the 主播大秀 should be proud of. The ludicrous sums paid to media celebs like Jonathan Ross create in large part their unmerited status. Who would miss him?

Newsnight is the only 主播大秀 programme I still regularly watch. I rarely bother with anything else these days, so I'm paying the license fee just to watch Newsnight at the moment. Content is stretched too thinly across the channels. The programming on the digital channels looks less than inspiring, and is not available to all. Freeview is a misnomer, switching involves additional cost to the viewer and for what? There is so little good current affairs coverage on 主播大秀 tv in the UK - the 主播大秀's website is far more informative than the main news programmes, which seems to be provided for grinning morons, by grinning morons.

It must be encouraging for you all, however, that, judging by the number of comments on the two topics, the future of the 主播大秀 excites vastly greater interest than the future of the Lib Dems!

See the thumbnail image of Mark Thompson above? Doesn't he look like a stunned rabbit who's just a tad lost and confused?

I hope his, and that of the 主播大秀 Trust's, cuts aren't too savage, though I think they will almost certainly be given the estimated 拢2bn budget shortfall. (Thompson, leave Newsnight and Newsnight Review alone, otherwise you won't be receiving my licence for a long time to come).

Brilliant work on the White Horse Village series by Carrie Gracie - beautifully produced - as enchanting to watch as it was informative. Nice touch with the use of music from Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love.

Sincerely,

Fai Lee

The only horse you have to flog is the dead one. The bbc 3 guy dropped a clanger when he said 'we have to compete in a crowded market'. That belief is exactly what is wrong with the 主播大秀 strategy. If an area is well served by the commercial companies why does the 主播大秀 feel it needs to 'compete' there among the sectarian segmentation when family viewing is left a land unoccupied?

You either start with the question 'is this public service' or you don't.

I agree with Randall. No strategic decision has been made ie the cutting of channels. Which suggests either the management have no real vision and thus no solution other than 'saving money' by scrimping or the 主播大秀 is unreformable.

After reading the posts on this Newsnight blog, seems to me that many in the 主播大秀 understand less about what the 主播大秀 is really meant to be about than 主播大秀 viewers.

Here is a few words that 主播大秀 should avoid using on air (as well as as strategic goals ...).

BRANDS - The 主播大秀 is not a commercial broadcaster or an advertising agency. It is a publically-financed organization - about creating quality programmes for the satisfaction of those who pay for it and not for the satisfaction of share-holders like in a commercial company).

COMPETITION - the 主播大秀 is not a commercial organization. It i ...s a publically financed organization - about creating programmes that are distinct from the programmes that commerical companies broadcast.

RATINGS - the 主播大秀 is about the quality of the relationship between it and its audience. Not the quantity of hits it makes with its viewers.

The problem is that the 主播大秀 is still consumed by corporate, commerical values. Its a case of apples and pears where the 主播大秀 is a pear but has been run as if it were an apple. The 主播大秀 has judged how well it has been doing in terms of ratings and other commerical qualifiers. Instead of showing us how 'creative' they are through the quality of the programme, they tell us how 'creative' they are through PR / Marketing / Campaigns.

I don't want to condemn the 主播大秀 because i believe there are some great people working in it still, who still believe in making quality programmes. But i believe that too many people working in the 主播大秀 who might do really well in a corporate / commercial broadcasting environment but who don't understand what the 主播大秀 is really about. They might well have the abilities to work in a corporate / commercial broadcasting environment but not in the 主播大秀.

Come on, thanks to a quirk in history this country finds itself having a gem in the 主播大秀. It makes me really angry that people who work in the 主播大秀 are turning down the opportunity to make some really decent and exciting programmes - opting, instead for safe programmes - as if they work for a commercial broadcaster (and where they enjoy the safety net of public money behind them).

I will continue to support the 主播大秀, and increased money for the 主播大秀, and all the great programme-makers who still work in the 主播大秀. But i (and by 'i' i mean there are many people like me and we should do more to complain directly to the 主播大秀 itself, government and the 主播大秀 Trust) object strongly to the commercially-minded in the 主播大秀 who have no creative talent but just want to enjoy the repuation and safety of working in the 主播大秀 (yes many people are going to lose jobs - but it is much harder work working for Sky / ITV etc .. and i have much more respect for people who work in Sky or ITV than those people in the 主播大秀 who are screwing it up).

Arghh

So - it's news and factual programmes, the regions and children that will be hit hardest by the cuts at the 主播大秀, that's only ALL of the areas in which the 主播大秀 has remained distinctive and laudable in its output in my opinion. How you can fulfil a public service mandate without making quality programmes for children is beyond me, not to mention they're the next generation of viewers of the rest of 主播大秀 output. Turn over to commercial channels? No thanks, we'll stick with DVD's of former 主播大秀 children's programmes.

Please add mine to the congratulations on the White Horse Village films, and the team that made them, particularly Carrie Gracie.

It's a sad day to be a staunch supporter of the 主播大秀, but good to see Paul Mason, among others, on the picket line. They haven't given you good enough reasons to go gently.

Sir, This drab sorrowful world is made bearable by the shining beacon that is the 主播大秀. From the shipping report to the midnight news on R4 it keeps us in touch with a world that with each passing day reminds me of a Rome burning whilst politicians try and spin their way out of the latest crisis. I was angry at my Aunt for capitulating over the Hutton affair, was she too decent for the fight or was she warned to 'come quietly Miss, there's a nice lady' when her response should have been....Sod orf, Gilligan was right and I am standing by my reporter' It seems that courage is only practised at the Washington Post when the whole raison d'etre of the corporation was the truth is paramount. If the DG has a meeting of his top exec's, he could safely cull a good three quaters of them with no visble difference to the viewer or listerner so why waste valuable hands on guys at the sharp end of the network and keep on board the freeloaders of middle-management? Jeff Randle and Jeremy said all this so it must be doing the rounds in the corporation. We have a jewel of broadcasting in the 主播大秀, wouldn't it be a national scandal if we could say in ten years...'the 主播大秀, oh I remember them they used to do programmes didn't they' Sincerely, Steve

How the Blair/Campbell spin clique must be celebrating... They can finally get rid of those nosey, questioning journos who just didn't want to get The Dear Leader's Message. Ultimately, this ensures even less accessible and relatively balanced scrutiny of government actions.

I find Sir Michael's arguments unfathomable: why are endless big shows, football and, that pinnacle of acting achievement, The Tudors more important than balanced, hard-nosed news reporting? Torchwood, to name one of the few, better programmes to come out of 主播大秀3, is an entertaining enough programme but it hardly matters in the real world. And why does he believe that the 主播大秀 has to *lead* the way on the technology front? What matters most is content, delivery methods will eventually sort themselves out (they seem to be going through fads, the future is almost certainly the internet, which in turn means that the digital switch-over will be pretty useless by the time everyone has been forced to buy into it).

All that said, the China item was very good.

主播大秀!!! If Paxman,Mastermind and one or two other programmes moved to ITV I would never watch 主播大秀 at all.I have been sick of their brainwashing leftie self opinionated garbage for years.I never voted for the 主播大秀 in the election either.Remember that these lot would not call terrorists terrorists!!!.
I dont want to pay for the license to overfeed a few thousand snotty pre maddonas grrrrr

How come we hear very little about terrorist attacks on Turkish citizens.How come if Turkey crosses its own borders to protect itself against terrorism its blasted by europe (esp UK and Germany).Perhaps it may be to do with immigration or perhaps its very different when we do it with the Americans...Can someone please give us some balanced news please

See what i mean!!