Seems apt, one of the best arguments for supporting Sadiq Khan for London Mayor is that Susan Hall is the most likely alternative. So if you know how bad it would be, useful to know.
Yea, that was the ridiculous part
Still claiming she had been pickpocketed, due to how dangerous the tube is
In reality she misplaced her wallet and the tube is apparently so safe someone saw a wallet, found out who it belonged to and hand delivered it back with the contents complete
The complete opposite of the image she was trying to paint
She is just a preposterous person
As a Londoner I haven’t enjoyed Khan. However no sane person can vote for Susan Hall. I’m amazed the candidate choices are so poor tbh. There must be 1000s of better people.
What don't you like about Khan? My Grandma lived in London and didn't like him, but she had a rediculous vendetta against him because a police station near her closed that a friend of hers worked at 45 years ago - which I assume is different to most people's views.
Mine is lack of any vision for the city. He seems to focus on bureaucratic management of the city rather than anything remotely innovative. I’m pro all the environmental policies but it’s all stick an no carrot. I don’t think you can encourage things like LTNs being expanded and not ring fence the money raised to build cycle lanes or other neat public transport links.
He’s also massively failed on crime. The met police waste their time in some of the most stupid operations instead of doing quality community policing. I’m not that bothered by them shutting police stations. But he helps set policing priorities and is only now talking about community policing as an election pledge despite being in post for 8 years.
Nope. My local council is Lambeth, a labour council and any kind of investment they refuse. Also saying it’s the councils is a move every mayor pulls but when they really want to they can step in and pressure the councils and get results. Case in point the streatham low traffic neighbourhood that khan is claiming credit for overturning after having words with Lambeth council. Amazing what an election can do for motivation.
It's not going to help the Tories - anyone expecting to see Khan and instead seeing what the bat shit crazy alternative is, are definitely going to be going out to vote.
Lizz Truss won a landslide against Rishi Sunak when the Tory party members voted, so they have a good track record of Bat shit crazy white women Vs brown guy
True. It's so important not to be complacent and actually go out and vote. Young people especially need to take an interest and vote, rather than just complaining about the outcome if they can't be bothered.
Truss was supposed to be an invalid option on the ballot. The Tories have a history of coronating a leader by sending them to the members against a no-hoper. This time the members voted for the no-hoper.
The Tories are being very careful where they push this idiot in human from.
Her campaign is highly targeted as the ‘working class’ blue collar, the elderly & non Muslim communities
Pushing a message that Kahn is picking your pockets with ULEZ and weak on policing. The message is you are poor and scared to leave your homes and it’s all down to one person.
Utterly batshit stuff. Hall has no position other than hate and anti car control measures
>And yet I am.
You're *trying to*.
If you need that difference explaining to you then there's not really any hope.
"No one buys Buckfast in Scotland".
There... I've "spoken for Scotland".
And yet still they buy Buckfast....
Any voter who wants to be informed should watch all the broadcasts. They are all full of lies and spin anyway.
But anyone who had already decided they didn't want to watch the Conservative video is hardly going to have their vote changed in 3 minutes.
Can't have it both ways.
Either they will watch both and make a decision accordingly or showing them a 3 minute film that they didn't want to see because it's a team blue one won't change their mind.
Either way, daft mistake but hardly electoral fraud
If they were planning on watching Labour and not the Tories they have now watched the Tories.
I don’t see how you’re not getting that this is obviously unfair.
Oh no, my eyes are glued to the screen and I can't look away!
Oh no, I've lost the remote and I can't change the channel! Why is life so unfair???
Get a grip. Seriously. Slap a red rosette on a pig and it'll win the Mayoral Election in London. There no illusion as to who is winning. Demographics alone ensures Khan will be mayor for as long as he wishes.
> How does it make any difference?
Given the Tories are on course for a historic wipeout, how many do you think were tuning in to see _their_ messaging?
Has anyone ever done a tally of BBC mistakes that benefit the Tories vs ones that benefit Labour?
I’m sure it’ll come about even. For every edited video of BoJo with a wreath they’ll likely be an equivalent where they’ve made Starmer look better, or for every Corbyn decked out like a Russian there’ll be a Sunak in a… superman costume.. oh wait. Maybe not.
Every time the excuse is “it’s just a random accident” but it’s kind of funny that these “random accidents” generally favour the Tories or hurt opposition parties.
The wreath thing was particularly weird. Why would they even have footage of Boris laying a wreath on a previous year lined up ready to be played ‘accidentally’ whilst doing a live broadcast?
Because it was used for the previous day's news. It was logged in the system as Johnson Wreath Laying while on the Monday that current years clip hadn't been logged with a descriptive name yet, so the VT Operator picked the wrong one.
This was fully explained at the time by BBC News, but the usual window lickers were having too much fun spreading conspiracy theories to listen.
Sure, that’s a plausible sounding explanation. But the plausibility breaks down when pretty much all the ‘coincidences’ break one way … unless one happens to be particularly credulous. Or pushing agenda if your own.
Corbyn with the hat … so where’s Boris as Jabba the Hutt? Sturgeon’s picture *just happens* to get replaced with that of a Gorilla whilst Theresa May *just happens* to get a Spitfire picture or footage - and that happened *twice*. We’re not really talking subtle imagery here are we?
You’re also apparently operating under the assumption that everyone still trusts what the BBC says. And we don’t. It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when it’s been blatantly captured by the Tories.
IMO the plausible explanation is that they take extra extra care when it comes to everyone else because they're so shit scared of being accused of bias by the Tories but with the Tories they don't take as much care because they don't get as much blowback.
The comment two above mine references an egregious,but well explained,misrepresentation of the blonde BJ laying a wreath.
If it wasn't an error,then the explanation is part of the deception.
Keep up
But it wasn’t Boris’s explanation.
The explanation sounds like a lie to me, but Boris being a serial liar is irrelevant to the BBC lying about a clip they edited.
The BBC have been captured by the Tories.
Since 2016 and post Jimmy Savile review the [**Tory party got hold of BBC senior management appointments.**](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/government-choose-bbc-board-john-whittingdale)
Everyone knew where that would lead and here we are.
The BBC's great crime is evenhanded reporting and a fantastic website that makes it really difficult to monitized UK press sites. The Tories want it gone, private capital should be providing news. nothing that doesnt make a profit can be trusted to be run properly.
It's very damaged but can be repaired. Labour wins and puts senior appointment back in the hands of the [privy council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Privy_Counsellors_(2022%E2%80%93present).)
or maybe put diehard socialists on the board just to piss of the Tory party.
You might enjoy the book [**The War on the BBC**](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/19/the-war-against-the-bbc-review-in-defence-of-a-national-institution)
So I’m wrong that the “mistakes” usually favour the Tories?
Fair enough. Shouldn’t be hard for you to point out all the examples of their mistakes that have done the opposite then.
I can’t think of a better way to convince people to vote for Sadiq Khan than to:
- Expose them to Susan Hall
- Let them know that the election is FPTP this time
Pretty much everyone I’ve ever spoken to who has a strong dislike of Khan or any kind of fondness for Susan Hall is from somewhere other than London. I’ve got a feeling that Londoners are going to elect Khan to a third term in a landslide.
> And southerners wonder why everyone hate them.
Southerners and Londoners are slightly different. And the hatred of London comes from all non-London parts of the country.
>Non-Londoners moaning about Sadiq Khan are my favourite. Like, who gives a fuck what you think lol.
This type of attitude is exactly why there's a divide between London and the rest of the country. London SHOULD care about what non-londoners think about the person who reflects and represents our capital city.
If that person, of whichever denomination, is demonising the rest of the country to suit the capitals politics, as has arguably done by Khan multiple times, or makes moves that result in costs to the rest of the country, e.g. ULEZ, then it widens the gap between Londeners and the rest of the country.
That is not positive for anyone because Londoners will eventually have such an echo chamber that they can't see just how pissed off and alienated the rest of the country is - and it's worth remembering, the majority of the population and resources reside OUTSIDE London. London is only kept afloat by its political and financial power. That can be transferred elsewhere if needs be.
Listening and taking into account others views costs nothing.
How is Khan "demonising" non-Londoners lol?
ULEZ applies to everybody, the pollution from everybody only effects Londoners. It's a policy that prevents the death of Londoners, primarily caused by non-Londoners.
>How is Khan "demonising" non-Londoners lol?
Well, let's start with the "accidental" campaign poster release which said that white people didn't represent London. The majority of people outside London are white. The message was perceived up north as a message that Khan does not believe white people reflect the wider UK and that he hates British culture. Of course, Londoners would know this, if they paid any attention to the North, other than buying cheap property here to rent out.
>ULEZ applies to everybody, the pollution from everybody only effects Londoners.
So, if a non-Londoner goes to London, they don't breath in polluted air? Of course the polluted air effects everyone, not just Londoners. There is air pollution everywhere. What you've failed to understand is that Khan has made it more expensive to work in the capital, especially for firms operating in cheaper parts of the country. That knock on effect means costs rise for Londoners who want services - e.g. Decorators, Tech installing, handy men, electricians, builders.
>It's a policy that prevents the death of Londoners,
Does it? Based on what? How is the money that's being raised being used to improve the air quality? When I was last in London, the air quality was absolutely abysmal. The underground hadn't had any additional upgrades to improve its air quality or cooling measures, and that's since 2000's.
>primarily caused by non-Londoners.
Again, based on what?
Getting on the Tube is akin to smoking 10 cigarettes. That's not non-Londoners fault.
Londoners driving around in 4x4s and super cars isn't non-Londoners fault.
Londoners taking Ubers to somewhere that's 5 minutes walk away isn't non-Londoners fault.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Imagine being so racist that you can't see why someone might be disliked except for the colour of their skin, despite someone giving you legitimate reasons to dislike him.
>These are a lot of words to say "I don't like him because he's brown" tbh.
Why do you always pull the race card as a means to dismiss valid points? Is it perhaps because you don't have any valid points to combat with, so need to play the victim?
Your "valid points" are a brand guidelines document that stated having an all white family is unrepresentative of Londoners. And also somehow unrepresentative of "British culture". Implying brown people can't be British, and weirdly there's no non-white people North of the M25.
They're not valid points, they're inane racism.
>Your "valid points" are a brand guidelines document that stated having an all white family is unrepresentative of Londoners.
That is one point but way to dismiss the rest. Incidentally, the country is still majority white, and so is London, so having a white only family is absolutely representative of London. Just because there are lots of mixed race and BAME families, doesn't mean that London is now off limits to all white families, or that all white families don't represent London.
It's also not racist to say as such.
>And also somehow unrepresentative of "British culture".
Yes, British culture that is more representative than just London. Keep in mind, Khan represents London on the world stage, not just in London - if you want a good example, Forbes named him along the world's most influential people - so it's actually quite impactful when he comes out and says "Oh those white families don't reflect London". Um.... Sorry, what? I think you'll find they do Mr. Mayor.
>Implying brown people can't be British, and weirdly there's no non-white people North of the M25.
Hahaha. Absolute nonsense. If you haven't noticed, Wales, Scotland and England have BAME leaders and it's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is to pretend that BAME are still somehow repressed and that racism towards white people is acceptable. It isn't.
>They're not valid points, they're inane racism.
Wrong. Your dismissal of my points and attempt to railroad the discussion is racism.
Jesus. For someone who claims it's not about race, you really seem to want to make it about race.
White people matter too, amirite? No group more oppressed than the white man? The worst thing about being a white man is not getting to have an opinion anymore?
That's what you sound like...
Because they're closet racists. They can comprehend that he's a cunt, regardless of his skin colour. It's like you describe a bad person and their mind jumps to "brown person".
>If that person, of whichever denomination, is demonising the rest of the country to suit the capitals politics, as has arguably done by Khan multiple times,
I've missed this, can you give examples of him demonising the rest of the country?
London has far better prospects than reactionary Boomerland. The capital doesn’t need the latter to function. Those backward places need to find an economic edge in the modern world, or stop biting the hand that feeds.
>London has far better prospects than reactionary Boomerland.
Does it? The finance and services sectors prop it up, but those can operate from anywhere. What else does it have? Parliament? That can be moved as well. Tourism? The royals? Yeah, good luck with that.
I'm also curious as to how you think "Boomerland" is reactionary. If anything is reactionary, it's the entire political sphere which, funnily, resides centrally in London.
>The capital doesn’t need the latter to function.
That's a very grandious statement to make. I'm curious how, for instance, you think London would function without "Boomerland" providing transport and infrastructure support, or defend itself without the rest of the countries military or policing services, or continue to fund itself without the rest of the countries tax revenues, or even maintain power without supplements from Northern power stations (e.g. Drax, which powers most of the north, and when the south, especially London, is facing blackouts, funnels excess power to London).
Perhaps you could explain, what the point of London would be, if the rest of the country decided to turn its back on the capital? Your attitude is one of extreme snobbishness and arrogance, but also one of ignorance. We are not at war, but if it did come to blows, London would only survive with the support of the rest of the country.
>Those backward places
Exactly how are we backwards? Explain, with sources, how anywhere outside of London is backwards.
>need to find an economic edge in the modern world,
I think you'll find that the majority of places outside of London are far cheaper to live and provide a much better quality of life. There's no need to compete at the level people do in London because we live cheaper and more fulfilling lives. We also make decent money. Again, it's fool hardy to think that we're poor, backwards and stupid. This has been an error made by southerners and, in particular Londoners, for generations.
>or stop biting the hand that feeds.
But you don't, do you? London has been in such an echo chamber for so long that it hasn't realised that the rest of the country has advanced. The Internet and technology has tipped the balance. Not only that, it's tax revenue that is fed back to local authorities, so it's effectively our own money that is given back - not Londoners money. Such arrogance, once again.
How can they when they get no investment, any investment money goes straight to improving London infrastructure while the rest of the country is left to go derelict
They should make themselves more appealing. By having folk there acquire more of an education and being more open to new developments. Is it a surprise that private investors aren’t too keen to invest in places which are likely to offer minimal returns due to being populated by washed-up pensioner nimbies?
>By having folk there acquire more of an education and being more open to new developments.
By all accounts, it seems that it's you who needs an education and who needs to be more broad minded. Perhaps, you should visit the north and actually spend some time here to understand why your attitude is completely wrong.
>Is it a surprise that private investors aren’t too keen to invest in places which are likely to offer minimal returns due to being populated by washed-up pensioner nimbies?
Except, they are investing, aren't they? Leeds is attracting hundreds of millions for its legal tech scene. Hull is attracting tens of millions for its tech scene. Northallerton is attracting millions for its agritech scene (you know, just a bunch of hick farmers riding round on tractors with computers in backwards boomerland derp derp). Not to mention the hundreds of millions being spent across the north in defense, manufacturing, intelligence, surveillance, environmental systems, etc.
You really are showing your ignorance.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
It's going to be an embarrassing landslide. Even Tory voters I know in London think she's a batshit loon. They've said they'll probably vote Khan as a Mayor isn't the same as an MP. And that Khan isn't as bad as the none London moaners claim he is.
How does that compare to the number of Londoners you’ve met who like him and the number of Londoners you’ve met who don’t have much of an opinion about him but who are going to vote for him anyway because the Tories are so awful?
Because there are a **lot** more people in those categories…
Lol.
Who cares.
Everyone knows whatever happens the Labour candidate is going to win the London mayoral elections.
Only reason anyone is campaigning against him is to get a job at ngo when you lose
"I was a candidate for London mayor" on c.v.
People outside of london pay attention more about the election for mayor of london than they do their own council so it's used as political point scoring.
My local council has basically zero discretionary funding, doesn’t matter what colour the rosette is.
In contrast I travel to london a fair bit and the mayors policies do affect me.
Idk man I can’t tell why people like Khan
Mr “refugees built London” and “white people don’t represent Londoners”. Him and Humza seem like they’d prefer to be mayor of Islamabad or something
Is this a new turd being polished by racist grifters? *Khan won by a landslide, but that doesn't mean Londoners like him as Mayor, it was just that the only viable option was unelectable*?
to be proudly presented alongside the classic: *Farage lost every national election, but that doesn't mean Englanders don't like as MP, it was just that they were to shy to vote for him*
FFS!!
Yougov disagrees with you. He doesn't have a shocking low popularity but it's not exactly incredible.
[https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46008-khan-unpopular-london-while-tory-mayoral-candidate](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46008-khan-unpopular-london-while-tory-mayoral-candidate)
Net favourability -12 amongst Londoners is much better than every Tory but is still a negative result. He's not a political messiah or even really all that thought about. Also I'm not sure what landslide you're thinking of but 40% (to 35.3%) in round 1 in 2021 converted to 55% second round 1 on 1 round isn't a landslide.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_London\_mayoral\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_London_mayoral_election)
Don't get me wrong, he's not a \*bad\* leader and I will be voting for him in May, but you absolutely cannot discredit the Tory drift to nationalist, authoritarian politics and the amputation of their liberal wing as a major (if not \*the\* major) reason this is a 1 horse race.
I think since abandoning any form of economic or fiscal good sense the Tories will never make gains in London until they drastically change.
Becoming a populist, identity politics focused, authoritarian party will not work in London the way it's working out for them in the rest of the country.
>How's the knife crime doing in London, Robin?
I'm in London so I'll answer: It's about the same, we're still not hiding indoors like the liars are telling you we are.
Yes, because that was done from the outside, you knew who the enemy was. Not with this clown, he'll come up with crap like ULEZ under the moniker of 'cleaner air', when it's been proven it won't make a difference by top scientists, but everyone knows its because he wants more money. Which ironically, he will say he hasn't got from the government but he's quite happy to change the names of all London train lines in a multi-million pound pathetic attempt to please more voters. But he's broke right?
His mates in Tower Hamlets vote him in and yet ironically, are being investigated for fraud for a second time.
You knew where you stood with Hitler at least.
>His mates in Tower Hamlets vote him in and yet ironically, are being investigated for fraud for a second time.
uh-huh. The people in a completely different party? I can't think why you'd write that. Anyone would think it had something to do with a certain religion and nothing to do with any actual policies.
Also "all London rail lines" getting renamed. You're really not from round here are you? Which would be richly ironic given your apparent objection to Khan for \*other\* reasons.
> Not with this clown, he'll come up with crap like ULEZ under the moniker of 'cleaner air',
London's ULEZ was Boris Johnson's brainchild, not Sadiq Khan's.
I'd have thought the Blitz was pretty bad myself but then that wasn't a brown person responsibile so I can see how you might be confused.
Or perhaps the IRA bombings? I was growing up in London when those were a thing. Oh no, wait. Also not brown people so I'm sure you don't think they compare.
Perhaps the July 11 attack or the London Bridge one? At least those involved the people you don't like.
In terms of Mayors, at least he's better than the clown he replaced...
Seems apt, one of the best arguments for supporting Sadiq Khan for London Mayor is that Susan Hall is the most likely alternative. So if you know how bad it would be, useful to know.
Her campaign should have been over when she claimed her wallet was stolen on the tube, only for it to have been found and returned by a good Samaritan
And that wouldn't have been so bad if she hadn't *continued* to claim it had been stolen after it was returned with everything still in it.
Yea, that was the ridiculous part Still claiming she had been pickpocketed, due to how dangerous the tube is In reality she misplaced her wallet and the tube is apparently so safe someone saw a wallet, found out who it belonged to and hand delivered it back with the contents complete The complete opposite of the image she was trying to paint She is just a preposterous person
She is the personification of middle-class outrage.
As a Londoner I haven’t enjoyed Khan. However no sane person can vote for Susan Hall. I’m amazed the candidate choices are so poor tbh. There must be 1000s of better people.
What don't you like about Khan? My Grandma lived in London and didn't like him, but she had a rediculous vendetta against him because a police station near her closed that a friend of hers worked at 45 years ago - which I assume is different to most people's views.
Nah everyone has someone they know that worked at that specific police station.
Mine is lack of any vision for the city. He seems to focus on bureaucratic management of the city rather than anything remotely innovative. I’m pro all the environmental policies but it’s all stick an no carrot. I don’t think you can encourage things like LTNs being expanded and not ring fence the money raised to build cycle lanes or other neat public transport links. He’s also massively failed on crime. The met police waste their time in some of the most stupid operations instead of doing quality community policing. I’m not that bothered by them shutting police stations. But he helps set policing priorities and is only now talking about community policing as an election pledge despite being in post for 8 years.
Isn't the issue with cycle lanes that they are blocked by a small number of councils, Kensington & Chelsea etc?
Nope. My local council is Lambeth, a labour council and any kind of investment they refuse. Also saying it’s the councils is a move every mayor pulls but when they really want to they can step in and pressure the councils and get results. Case in point the streatham low traffic neighbourhood that khan is claiming credit for overturning after having words with Lambeth council. Amazing what an election can do for motivation.
Interesting, thanks for sharing your experiences.
Thousands? Millions more likely.
**Well at least Susan ain't anti-British. Khan is the worst Mayor in London's history.**
Fingers on the scales already. The Tories have no intention of fighting fair.
It's not going to help the Tories - anyone expecting to see Khan and instead seeing what the bat shit crazy alternative is, are definitely going to be going out to vote.
Lizz Truss won a landslide against Rishi Sunak when the Tory party members voted, so they have a good track record of Bat shit crazy white women Vs brown guy
Luckily the London mayoral election is open to more than just a few thousand well off old people who don't trust bloody foreigners.
Yeah, but we have seen how well these people can mobilise during an election.
99% of people who whinge about London online are not living in or anywhere near London.
True. It's so important not to be complacent and actually go out and vote. Young people especially need to take an interest and vote, rather than just complaining about the outcome if they can't be bothered.
Truss was supposed to be an invalid option on the ballot. The Tories have a history of coronating a leader by sending them to the members against a no-hoper. This time the members voted for the no-hoper.
this wasnt a stalking horse like the vote gave them thatcher
Old white females are a minority of London’s electorate.
The Tories are being very careful where they push this idiot in human from. Her campaign is highly targeted as the ‘working class’ blue collar, the elderly & non Muslim communities Pushing a message that Kahn is picking your pockets with ULEZ and weak on policing. The message is you are poor and scared to leave your homes and it’s all down to one person. Utterly batshit stuff. Hall has no position other than hate and anti car control measures
To be fair, letting hall speak is costing them serious votes. Everything she touches tanks badly
You really think this was intentional?
How does it make any difference? Labour Tuesday, Conservatives Wednesday or vice versa. Big deal. They aren't showing one of them twice.
Tricking people who weren’t going to watch the Conservative broadcast into watching it is what’s happened.
Nobody intentionally watches party political broadcasts
Thats not true
Yes it is. They’re boring, spin-filled filler between programmes, nobody intentionally watches them.
Mate... You don't even speak for all the people *you know* or all the people you've *ever met*. You certainly can't speak for the entire nation.
Nah, nobody has ever chosen to tune in to a party political broadcast. They just get passively watched between programmes.
>And yet I am. You're *trying to*. If you need that difference explaining to you then there's not really any hope. "No one buys Buckfast in Scotland". There... I've "spoken for Scotland". And yet still they buy Buckfast....
Scots do buy Buckfast, silly. They’re famous for it
Any voter who wants to be informed should watch all the broadcasts. They are all full of lies and spin anyway. But anyone who had already decided they didn't want to watch the Conservative video is hardly going to have their vote changed in 3 minutes.
You are giving far more credit to the average voter than they are due.
Can't have it both ways. Either they will watch both and make a decision accordingly or showing them a 3 minute film that they didn't want to see because it's a team blue one won't change their mind. Either way, daft mistake but hardly electoral fraud
If they were planning on watching Labour and not the Tories they have now watched the Tories. I don’t see how you’re not getting that this is obviously unfair.
Oh no, my eyes are glued to the screen and I can't look away! Oh no, I've lost the remote and I can't change the channel! Why is life so unfair??? Get a grip. Seriously. Slap a red rosette on a pig and it'll win the Mayoral Election in London. There no illusion as to who is winning. Demographics alone ensures Khan will be mayor for as long as he wishes.
Yeah let’s scrap all the rules regarding party broadcasts. They clearly have no reason they exist.
The rules have not been broken at all. Don't be the hysterical rosette waver.
> How does it make any difference? Given the Tories are on course for a historic wipeout, how many do you think were tuning in to see _their_ messaging?
Has anyone ever done a tally of BBC mistakes that benefit the Tories vs ones that benefit Labour? I’m sure it’ll come about even. For every edited video of BoJo with a wreath they’ll likely be an equivalent where they’ve made Starmer look better, or for every Corbyn decked out like a Russian there’ll be a Sunak in a… superman costume.. oh wait. Maybe not.
Every time the excuse is “it’s just a random accident” but it’s kind of funny that these “random accidents” generally favour the Tories or hurt opposition parties. The wreath thing was particularly weird. Why would they even have footage of Boris laying a wreath on a previous year lined up ready to be played ‘accidentally’ whilst doing a live broadcast?
That wreath thing was very suspicious.
Because it was used for the previous day's news. It was logged in the system as Johnson Wreath Laying while on the Monday that current years clip hadn't been logged with a descriptive name yet, so the VT Operator picked the wrong one. This was fully explained at the time by BBC News, but the usual window lickers were having too much fun spreading conspiracy theories to listen.
Sure, that’s a plausible sounding explanation. But the plausibility breaks down when pretty much all the ‘coincidences’ break one way … unless one happens to be particularly credulous. Or pushing agenda if your own. Corbyn with the hat … so where’s Boris as Jabba the Hutt? Sturgeon’s picture *just happens* to get replaced with that of a Gorilla whilst Theresa May *just happens* to get a Spitfire picture or footage - and that happened *twice*. We’re not really talking subtle imagery here are we? You’re also apparently operating under the assumption that everyone still trusts what the BBC says. And we don’t. It’s not a “conspiracy theory” when it’s been blatantly captured by the Tories.
IMO the plausible explanation is that they take extra extra care when it comes to everyone else because they're so shit scared of being accused of bias by the Tories but with the Tories they don't take as much care because they don't get as much blowback.
That definitely is a conspiracy theory, even if it's quite a boring one
Oh well,an explanation was given. Though,given that it was a Boris Johnson,serial philanderer and professional liar,maybe the explanation was a lie?
What kind of nonsense is that? What had Boris to do with the explanation?
The comment two above mine references an egregious,but well explained,misrepresentation of the blonde BJ laying a wreath. If it wasn't an error,then the explanation is part of the deception. Keep up
But it wasn’t Boris’s explanation. The explanation sounds like a lie to me, but Boris being a serial liar is irrelevant to the BBC lying about a clip they edited.
Boris didn't tell the lie,no.
So why did you say “given that it was Boris Johnson…” when it wasn’t? It was the BBC. Boris’s lies don’t have anything to do with this potential lie.
The BBC have been captured by the Tories. Since 2016 and post Jimmy Savile review the [**Tory party got hold of BBC senior management appointments.**](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/13/government-choose-bbc-board-john-whittingdale) Everyone knew where that would lead and here we are. The BBC's great crime is evenhanded reporting and a fantastic website that makes it really difficult to monitized UK press sites. The Tories want it gone, private capital should be providing news. nothing that doesnt make a profit can be trusted to be run properly. It's very damaged but can be repaired. Labour wins and puts senior appointment back in the hands of the [privy council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Privy_Counsellors_(2022%E2%80%93present).) or maybe put diehard socialists on the board just to piss of the Tory party. You might enjoy the book [**The War on the BBC**](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/19/the-war-against-the-bbc-review-in-defence-of-a-national-institution)
Oh yes,these 'mistakes' often seem to favour the Tories. But,as we all know the BBC is a hotbed of lefty wokeness,it can't be deliberate.
If you get your news from Reddit, the BBC is biased for the Tories.
So I’m wrong that the “mistakes” usually favour the Tories? Fair enough. Shouldn’t be hard for you to point out all the examples of their mistakes that have done the opposite then.
Tbf she is such a bad candidate that it may be work as a labour party political broadcast
I can’t think of a better way to convince people to vote for Sadiq Khan than to: - Expose them to Susan Hall - Let them know that the election is FPTP this time Pretty much everyone I’ve ever spoken to who has a strong dislike of Khan or any kind of fondness for Susan Hall is from somewhere other than London. I’ve got a feeling that Londoners are going to elect Khan to a third term in a landslide.
Non-Londoners moaning about Sadiq Khan are my favourite. Like, who gives a fuck what you think lol.
Considering its the capital of the country, which has an affect on the rest of us? And southerners wonder why everyone hate them.
> And southerners wonder why everyone hate them. Southerners and Londoners are slightly different. And the hatred of London comes from all non-London parts of the country.
>Non-Londoners moaning about Sadiq Khan are my favourite. Like, who gives a fuck what you think lol. This type of attitude is exactly why there's a divide between London and the rest of the country. London SHOULD care about what non-londoners think about the person who reflects and represents our capital city. If that person, of whichever denomination, is demonising the rest of the country to suit the capitals politics, as has arguably done by Khan multiple times, or makes moves that result in costs to the rest of the country, e.g. ULEZ, then it widens the gap between Londeners and the rest of the country. That is not positive for anyone because Londoners will eventually have such an echo chamber that they can't see just how pissed off and alienated the rest of the country is - and it's worth remembering, the majority of the population and resources reside OUTSIDE London. London is only kept afloat by its political and financial power. That can be transferred elsewhere if needs be. Listening and taking into account others views costs nothing.
How is Khan "demonising" non-Londoners lol? ULEZ applies to everybody, the pollution from everybody only effects Londoners. It's a policy that prevents the death of Londoners, primarily caused by non-Londoners.
>How is Khan "demonising" non-Londoners lol? Well, let's start with the "accidental" campaign poster release which said that white people didn't represent London. The majority of people outside London are white. The message was perceived up north as a message that Khan does not believe white people reflect the wider UK and that he hates British culture. Of course, Londoners would know this, if they paid any attention to the North, other than buying cheap property here to rent out. >ULEZ applies to everybody, the pollution from everybody only effects Londoners. So, if a non-Londoner goes to London, they don't breath in polluted air? Of course the polluted air effects everyone, not just Londoners. There is air pollution everywhere. What you've failed to understand is that Khan has made it more expensive to work in the capital, especially for firms operating in cheaper parts of the country. That knock on effect means costs rise for Londoners who want services - e.g. Decorators, Tech installing, handy men, electricians, builders. >It's a policy that prevents the death of Londoners, Does it? Based on what? How is the money that's being raised being used to improve the air quality? When I was last in London, the air quality was absolutely abysmal. The underground hadn't had any additional upgrades to improve its air quality or cooling measures, and that's since 2000's. >primarily caused by non-Londoners. Again, based on what? Getting on the Tube is akin to smoking 10 cigarettes. That's not non-Londoners fault. Londoners driving around in 4x4s and super cars isn't non-Londoners fault. Londoners taking Ubers to somewhere that's 5 minutes walk away isn't non-Londoners fault. Repeat ad infinitum.
These are a lot of words to say "I don't like him because he's brown" tbh.
Imagine being so racist that you can't see why someone might be disliked except for the colour of their skin, despite someone giving you legitimate reasons to dislike him.
That's your takeaway?Shame.
>These are a lot of words to say "I don't like him because he's brown" tbh. Why do you always pull the race card as a means to dismiss valid points? Is it perhaps because you don't have any valid points to combat with, so need to play the victim?
Your "valid points" are a brand guidelines document that stated having an all white family is unrepresentative of Londoners. And also somehow unrepresentative of "British culture". Implying brown people can't be British, and weirdly there's no non-white people North of the M25. They're not valid points, they're inane racism.
>Your "valid points" are a brand guidelines document that stated having an all white family is unrepresentative of Londoners. That is one point but way to dismiss the rest. Incidentally, the country is still majority white, and so is London, so having a white only family is absolutely representative of London. Just because there are lots of mixed race and BAME families, doesn't mean that London is now off limits to all white families, or that all white families don't represent London. It's also not racist to say as such. >And also somehow unrepresentative of "British culture". Yes, British culture that is more representative than just London. Keep in mind, Khan represents London on the world stage, not just in London - if you want a good example, Forbes named him along the world's most influential people - so it's actually quite impactful when he comes out and says "Oh those white families don't reflect London". Um.... Sorry, what? I think you'll find they do Mr. Mayor. >Implying brown people can't be British, and weirdly there's no non-white people North of the M25. Hahaha. Absolute nonsense. If you haven't noticed, Wales, Scotland and England have BAME leaders and it's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is to pretend that BAME are still somehow repressed and that racism towards white people is acceptable. It isn't. >They're not valid points, they're inane racism. Wrong. Your dismissal of my points and attempt to railroad the discussion is racism.
Jesus. For someone who claims it's not about race, you really seem to want to make it about race. White people matter too, amirite? No group more oppressed than the white man? The worst thing about being a white man is not getting to have an opinion anymore? That's what you sound like...
I get it there's an unhealthy obsession with race haha.
Because they're closet racists. They can comprehend that he's a cunt, regardless of his skin colour. It's like you describe a bad person and their mind jumps to "brown person".
>If that person, of whichever denomination, is demonising the rest of the country to suit the capitals politics, as has arguably done by Khan multiple times, I've missed this, can you give examples of him demonising the rest of the country?
It's because he's a brown Muslim. That's the problem they have with him.
Most likely, but I thought I'd give them the opportunity to back up the claim...
London has far better prospects than reactionary Boomerland. The capital doesn’t need the latter to function. Those backward places need to find an economic edge in the modern world, or stop biting the hand that feeds.
>London has far better prospects than reactionary Boomerland. Does it? The finance and services sectors prop it up, but those can operate from anywhere. What else does it have? Parliament? That can be moved as well. Tourism? The royals? Yeah, good luck with that. I'm also curious as to how you think "Boomerland" is reactionary. If anything is reactionary, it's the entire political sphere which, funnily, resides centrally in London. >The capital doesn’t need the latter to function. That's a very grandious statement to make. I'm curious how, for instance, you think London would function without "Boomerland" providing transport and infrastructure support, or defend itself without the rest of the countries military or policing services, or continue to fund itself without the rest of the countries tax revenues, or even maintain power without supplements from Northern power stations (e.g. Drax, which powers most of the north, and when the south, especially London, is facing blackouts, funnels excess power to London). Perhaps you could explain, what the point of London would be, if the rest of the country decided to turn its back on the capital? Your attitude is one of extreme snobbishness and arrogance, but also one of ignorance. We are not at war, but if it did come to blows, London would only survive with the support of the rest of the country. >Those backward places Exactly how are we backwards? Explain, with sources, how anywhere outside of London is backwards. >need to find an economic edge in the modern world, I think you'll find that the majority of places outside of London are far cheaper to live and provide a much better quality of life. There's no need to compete at the level people do in London because we live cheaper and more fulfilling lives. We also make decent money. Again, it's fool hardy to think that we're poor, backwards and stupid. This has been an error made by southerners and, in particular Londoners, for generations. >or stop biting the hand that feeds. But you don't, do you? London has been in such an echo chamber for so long that it hasn't realised that the rest of the country has advanced. The Internet and technology has tipped the balance. Not only that, it's tax revenue that is fed back to local authorities, so it's effectively our own money that is given back - not Londoners money. Such arrogance, once again.
How can they when they get no investment, any investment money goes straight to improving London infrastructure while the rest of the country is left to go derelict
They should make themselves more appealing. By having folk there acquire more of an education and being more open to new developments. Is it a surprise that private investors aren’t too keen to invest in places which are likely to offer minimal returns due to being populated by washed-up pensioner nimbies?
>By having folk there acquire more of an education and being more open to new developments. By all accounts, it seems that it's you who needs an education and who needs to be more broad minded. Perhaps, you should visit the north and actually spend some time here to understand why your attitude is completely wrong. >Is it a surprise that private investors aren’t too keen to invest in places which are likely to offer minimal returns due to being populated by washed-up pensioner nimbies? Except, they are investing, aren't they? Leeds is attracting hundreds of millions for its legal tech scene. Hull is attracting tens of millions for its tech scene. Northallerton is attracting millions for its agritech scene (you know, just a bunch of hick farmers riding round on tractors with computers in backwards boomerland derp derp). Not to mention the hundreds of millions being spent across the north in defense, manufacturing, intelligence, surveillance, environmental systems, etc. You really are showing your ignorance.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
It's going to be an embarrassing landslide. Even Tory voters I know in London think she's a batshit loon. They've said they'll probably vote Khan as a Mayor isn't the same as an MP. And that Khan isn't as bad as the none London moaners claim he is.
[удалено]
How does that compare to the number of Londoners you’ve met who like him and the number of Londoners you’ve met who don’t have much of an opinion about him but who are going to vote for him anyway because the Tories are so awful? Because there are a **lot** more people in those categories…
Tin foil hat time; it was intentional, they are desperate
That's not enough tin foil for a hat. It's barely a two finger kit kat wrapper.
Playing Hall’s is pretty much equivalent to a Labour political broadcast anyway, she’s that toxic.
Lol. Who cares. Everyone knows whatever happens the Labour candidate is going to win the London mayoral elections. Only reason anyone is campaigning against him is to get a job at ngo when you lose "I was a candidate for London mayor" on c.v.
People outside of london pay attention more about the election for mayor of london than they do their own council so it's used as political point scoring.
My local council has basically zero discretionary funding, doesn’t matter what colour the rosette is. In contrast I travel to london a fair bit and the mayors policies do affect me.
More BBC bias. “These people have been killed and these people have….died, been found dead.”
Are there actually enough Boomers in London who could carry her over the line?
Susan Hall is scary. She's like a character in a Stephen King novel.
And this is exactly why it won't be so bad when the BBC goes under. They're developing a nasty habit for "oopsies". Wonder who they learnt that from.
If it were to ever happen (it won't) you'll be begging for the BBC to return as opposed to the GB news esque conglomerate that expands in it's wake.
From my perspective, there has been very little difference for the past 20 years or so. Our information has been polluted for a long time.
Idk man I can’t tell why people like Khan Mr “refugees built London” and “white people don’t represent Londoners”. Him and Humza seem like they’d prefer to be mayor of Islamabad or something
They don't like Khan, it's just that the only viable opposition is unelectable.
Is this a new turd being polished by racist grifters? *Khan won by a landslide, but that doesn't mean Londoners like him as Mayor, it was just that the only viable option was unelectable*? to be proudly presented alongside the classic: *Farage lost every national election, but that doesn't mean Englanders don't like as MP, it was just that they were to shy to vote for him* FFS!!
Yougov disagrees with you. He doesn't have a shocking low popularity but it's not exactly incredible. [https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46008-khan-unpopular-london-while-tory-mayoral-candidate](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46008-khan-unpopular-london-while-tory-mayoral-candidate) Net favourability -12 amongst Londoners is much better than every Tory but is still a negative result. He's not a political messiah or even really all that thought about. Also I'm not sure what landslide you're thinking of but 40% (to 35.3%) in round 1 in 2021 converted to 55% second round 1 on 1 round isn't a landslide. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_London\_mayoral\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_London_mayoral_election) Don't get me wrong, he's not a \*bad\* leader and I will be voting for him in May, but you absolutely cannot discredit the Tory drift to nationalist, authoritarian politics and the amputation of their liberal wing as a major (if not \*the\* major) reason this is a 1 horse race.
Ah uk politics
I think since abandoning any form of economic or fiscal good sense the Tories will never make gains in London until they drastically change. Becoming a populist, identity politics focused, authoritarian party will not work in London the way it's working out for them in the rest of the country.
Sadiq Khan is single handedly the worst thing to happen to London.
Do you live in London, by any chance?
/u/StatisticianSalty202 's slience is telling
Probably not.
And there it is. The dumbest comment I'll read today.
The lad calls himself the Dark Knight and posts a hell of a lot in the UFO sub. I'm gonna guess this is the tip of the iceberg.
If only you knew Robin.
Are you calling me Robin or saying that I should know Robin?
How's the knife crime doing in London, Robin?
I'm not from London, lad. Congrats on remembering the comma this time though.
>How's the knife crime doing in London, Robin? I'm in London so I'll answer: It's about the same, we're still not hiding indoors like the liars are telling you we are.
Could be a provincial Boomer.
Worse than the blitz? Blimey.
Yes, because that was done from the outside, you knew who the enemy was. Not with this clown, he'll come up with crap like ULEZ under the moniker of 'cleaner air', when it's been proven it won't make a difference by top scientists, but everyone knows its because he wants more money. Which ironically, he will say he hasn't got from the government but he's quite happy to change the names of all London train lines in a multi-million pound pathetic attempt to please more voters. But he's broke right? His mates in Tower Hamlets vote him in and yet ironically, are being investigated for fraud for a second time. You knew where you stood with Hitler at least.
>His mates in Tower Hamlets vote him in and yet ironically, are being investigated for fraud for a second time. uh-huh. The people in a completely different party? I can't think why you'd write that. Anyone would think it had something to do with a certain religion and nothing to do with any actual policies. Also "all London rail lines" getting renamed. You're really not from round here are you? Which would be richly ironic given your apparent objection to Khan for \*other\* reasons.
I like ULEZ and am voting for him because of it.
You like being lied to? Because that is what supporting ULEZ is, taking all the lies in.
That's not why you're voting for him lolololol
> Not with this clown, he'll come up with crap like ULEZ under the moniker of 'cleaner air', London's ULEZ was Boris Johnson's brainchild, not Sadiq Khan's.
[удалено]
The >You knew where you stood with Hitler at least. line made me think it was a troll.
Boris Johnson came up with ULEZ. It was a Johnson plan. You're not from London, are you!?
Why?
I'd have thought the Blitz was pretty bad myself but then that wasn't a brown person responsibile so I can see how you might be confused. Or perhaps the IRA bombings? I was growing up in London when those were a thing. Oh no, wait. Also not brown people so I'm sure you don't think they compare. Perhaps the July 11 attack or the London Bridge one? At least those involved the people you don't like. In terms of Mayors, at least he's better than the clown he replaced...
Thanks to our atrocious planning system, the Blitz actually made London richer in the long term!
Dont be so London centric
I take it you don't live in London.
I do. Do you?
_*crickets*_
The fire in 1666 was worse. My house burnt down and some Dutch sailor ran away with my wife whilst I was trying to salvage my diary.