Friday, 8 March 2013

Amy Rutland (rutters101) Labour campaigner planted in #bbcqt as the disgraceful BBC show appalling bias once again

How low can a corporation go? All the way low and lower is the answer. The BBC have for an eternity been a bias deceitful and corrupt institution and is fast showing its age as a broadcaster which is a relic from a bygone era.

Last night UKIP candidate Diane James appeared on Question Time and even before the show began I raised concerns about 'what would go down?'. I expected the normal gang leaders to turn on the most vulnerable and I expected Dimbleby to fan the flames. You see, Diane James and UKIP are threatening to break up the cushy little status quo that exists and will continue to exist unless the three mains political parties are ousted and the BBC dismantled and broken up.

What I didn't expect was there to be the most blatantly obvious attempt to discredit Diane James with a plant in the audience. The plant, it has been confirmed to the shame of 'auntie' is Labour campaigner Amy Rutland (@rutters101). Last night Amy Rutland had a pro Labour backdrop on her Twitter page, tweets were unlocked and her main picture was of her campaigning with Labour crests emblazoned to high heaven. Today, it is a more solemn seaside picture and tweets have been locked whilst she poses with what appears to be a disabled person. Lovely touch isn't it?

This is what @rutters101 had to say last night in case anybody is unawares!

"Don't miss out on Question Time tonight, you'll see me rip into the disgusting UKIP woman! -- Amy Rutland (@rutters101)"

That this silly girl had the audacity to label Diane James 'disgusting' is beyond belief. Shame on her. She wanted her five minutes of fame and boy was she going to use every last second. But it looks like her little plan and the BBC's complicity in it is being unravelled. In this day of modern breaking news and social networking corruption and deceit is being throttled. It took a nano-second for people to think 'what's wrong with this picture' when an apparently opinionated lady started speaking in the BBC Question Time audience. But from the moment she opened her mouth something didn't fit. And all was to be revealed some time after.

Shame on her? Obviously. But the bigger proportion of the blame goes on the now disgraceful and incompetent BBC who I and many now loathe dishing out our monthly income too. The corporation needs to be dismantled. Completely. Enough is enough. Their agenda to keep their noses in the trough has gone on for too long and it's time they were sent packing.

23 comments:

  1. Hi,

    Found this blog entry from an internet search. You're absolutely spot on, of course - I've known for some time about Question Time, and it was all confirmed when Nick Griffin appeared. The tricks used then were the stuff of legend - a good friend was in the audience!

    In the meantime, may I interest you in this:-

    http://beebbiascraig.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/letter-to-lyons.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Give us her full name, address and phone number.

    Make her life hell for the next 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I am sorry but if anyone does this they can go and fuck off. Cyber bullying is not something to be encouraged and it would turn people against UKIP supporters. She's a young naive child its written all over her face the way she speaks, her composure and her treatment of her twitter account. I don't know how old she is but maturity is not based upon age it is based upon character. Attacking a young girl over the internet because she stated an opinion you disagree with is morally, ethically wrong. Doing such a thing is vile and would frankly make her insult valid. I can see it now a two page spread in the Guardian about how nasty Kippers insulted her over the internet. If nothing else the party does not need such bad press.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Whilst I agree it is wrong to publish her address online, (Isn't it "care of The Labour Party")..... She can however reap the storm of public opinion, Remember she was the one who started flinging the insults. Since she labelled a few million decent British people as "disgusting" and "racists" on primetime TV, it stands to reason that a large proportion of them are going track her down online and return the complement. Poetic justice really

      Delete
    4. I have to absolutely agree with Admin.

      The culture we are currently in is a very vile one indeed whereby everything is arse backwards. The perpetrator generally in life, due primarily to this new age liberalism, gets away with murder (quite literally in some cases) whilst the initial 'wronged' is pole-axed for standing their ground against somebody who has caused offence.

      There is NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, that Rutland had an agenda to provoke and embarrass knowing full well that being sat in the audience gave her some kind of cloak. It is then typical of this country that all softies jump on the bandwagon to protect the one that runs their mouth. Rutland is not some sincere little girl lost, if she is big enough to run her mouth on national television branding half the population 'disgusting' then yes, there IS going to be some flak flying her way. That is only natural.

      Perhaps it is a lesson learnt for these so-called wannabe five minute famers!

      Delete
  3. Diane James handled her with grace, composure and dignity

    Sign this petition to restrict Bulgarian and Romanians from entering the UK:
    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41492

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bit weird. You seem to miss the point a bit. Her tweet was after the recording but before it was broadcast. The BBC records it live and broadcasts it as live. They do not edit anything or remove anything (Dimbleby explains this to the audience before the broadcast). Therefore, she knew that her comment would be broadcast, hence her tweet.

    Basically, this is all a storm over nothing. Calm down with the conspiracy theories :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before/after. The point is that the BBC put her in there to discredit UKIP. We're all in this together remember. Then she has the audacity to tweet about her upcoming attack, pre-planned.

      This in my book is worse!

      Delete
    2. Why would labour choose such a bad person to express their views? If she was a plant she was bad plant. A really bad plant. She did not express her argument at all she said 'disgusting' 'UKIP' and 'scaremongering' the rest was all mumbling. Personally I don't buy into the idea that she was a plant. What is inappropriate however is the eagerness of the host to get Diane James to comment on that issue. She was attempting to bring the debate back into something which mattered - taxes! Taxes are important to address a young girls opinion on a political party is not important and we should not be wasting time on national television to indulge such bickering. We could have had a very rational discussion about the sate of our economy and how taxes play into that but instead we had a pissing contest between three people. I was not impressed by the program last night.

      Delete
    3. Ian: You know not of what you speak.

      The programmes is recorded, finishes about an hour before broadcast time, rush edited, and ready for broadcast only half an hour or so before broadcast.

      It's only a storm over nothing if your a Liebour activist, and quite frankly, she's very lucky she didn't have me to deal with, or the stupid and ignorant young woman would've received a lesson in Labour politics of the last 20 years she'd never forget.

      Delete
    4. I do because I've been on BBCQT. It's recorded as live and broadcast as live. She sent the tweet between the recording and the broadcast. Not really sure what the problem is. Think most people who argued with a panellist would tweet 'check me out later, I argued with X'. It's a non-story and really not worth more than a moment's thought.

      Delete
    5. PS for clarity, have never voted Labour in the 16 years I've been able to vote.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. 'Recorded live and broadcast live'... Up to a point, Lord Copper. They will edit it prior to broadcast, that's undeniable. At one end of the scale, that will be to reduce audience noise that makes the panel harder to hear. At the other end, an audience member or members who start creating ructions can be cut out of the programme. Otherwise, it might as well be broadcast live...

      Re-posted due to 'too/to' confusion (I'm a perfectionist)

      Delete
  5. The BBC caught at it. It was notable that Dimblebug's usual line on audience interevention was temporarily parked AND he didn't let Diane James answer the original question. I watch Question Time, in part, to observe Dimblebug's skilful manipulation of debate. He is a master of subtlely delivering a prescribed agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bolshevik Broadcasting Comrades - what do you expect??

    ReplyDelete
  7. Didn't Boris Johnson do something similar on a radio interview with a Liberal Democrat who was on their show? So why all the fuss? Anyone can be in the QT audience and ask questions and if someone on the show cannot answer then they have shown themselves to be unfit to be in Parliament although in truth most of these greedy self serving so called Right Honorable members are anything but?

    As for the UKIP party, they are nothing but a bunch of racists living in the past, British Empire mentality dreamers, who are as bad as the 3 main parties if not even worse? Only a party run by real people, not millionaires, who understand the problems and difficulties of ordinary working people, will someone please start one up, can return sensible policies to any future government but alas I don't see it happening in my lifetime?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moron. Do some research for yourself if your capable. So in your view keeping your country's sovreignty and the ability to determine its own destiny is a "British empire mentality"? So democracy is the past to you? None of your main parties can deliver policies on borders, crime, education or energy and all because we have other men (that you seem happy to trust with your children's futures) sitting in Belgium delivering regulation and laws designed to cede power from our parliament. Wake up for once, if you dont agree with all ukip's policies thats fine but you need to realise that nobody else is representing ordinary working class people because as far as the other parties are concerned its simply an inconvenience to have to represent anyone in the first place

      Delete
  8. Have you noticed whenever they discuss the housing shortage or unemployment they never mention immigration as a major factor unless a real world person like Nigel Farage is on the panel.
    The only good reason for our being in the EU that Mary Beard woman could come up with on Question Time was that we've got cleaner beaches & better regulated food!
    Duhhh... couldn't we have achieved that on our own or does she think we need to be nannied by the EU Politburo to do so.
    She was then really quite offensive in describing Nigel's comments as spurious articulations.
    She's another educated beyond her intelligence middle class leftie sat in ivory tower on a fat salary so lives in a nice area & doesn't feel like she lives in Eastern Europe every time she goes out side her front door!
    I feel sorry for the horse she bragged about eating.
    The ludicrous contradiction is she's a Liberal yet the EUssr means less liberty & more & more centralised control.
    They underestimated Polish immigration by 10 to 1. It'll be the same with Romanians & Bulgarians.
    We need to GTF out the EUSSR.
    This is the reality of the EUSSR >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Vjc_PeYtc
    Farage for PM >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoBG5DdIca4

    ReplyDelete
  9. Couple of notes, the disabled person is a family member it's not a 'posed shot'. Anyone who looked at her facebook or twitter before they were blocked off would know that.
    She made a comment to another audience member that David picked up on and asked her to justify. She didn't start out making a direct attack.
    Also, do you think that she was the only person on there with a political affiliation? If you do its a very naive view point. Everyone in that audience has a party they were supporting, that's why people go into that audience as they are interested in politics and want to be involved in the debate.
    Its a shame all of the online trolls are now attacking her and are actually going to her home to attack her, now that is Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free.

    ReplyDelete