Huw Edwards may - or may not - be many things but rich is not one of them. He was a television news anchor on the BBC. A bang-average Premier League footballer could easily out earn him.
Huw Edwards may - or may not - be many things but rich is not one of them. He was a television news anchor on the BBC. A bang-average Premier League footballer could easily out earn him.
He’s his mommy’s special little prince:
I found it tiresomely political and strangely dogmatic way too much of the time. I didn’t get the impression that there was a wide cross-section of people on there.
What a fantastic level of humanity you have. “Orcs in the meat grinder” are (sometimes) sons and husbands and fathers etc first and foremost. It’s good to not necessarily conflate every single soldier with the regime.
I used rhythmbox on a system running Mint to move music to and from an iPod nano 2. It was fairly straight forward. Save the transfers before closing the programme and you’re good to go.
Enough with your psyop, Bill. Go back to trying to cure malaria to atone for your past sins.
Your final sentence is painfully true.
Yeah, that’s true, but in the UK XL Bullies specifically have been doing all the maulings recently that have generated serious press coverage; also they themselves have just been added as the sixth (?) banned canine breed in the UK.
The irony of that comment has really tickled me. Thanks internet stranger. Best of luck to you for the future. Good bye. 👋
To quote your own source again: “…government-approved regulatory and competition authority…” If you think that is synonymous with being a part of the UK government then that is on you and no amount of help will change that. On a side note - are you interested in replacing Ofcom with an industry approved regulator instead?
The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting… looks like it says government-approved to me. That’s different to being a part of the government.
You definitely need to work on your reading comprehension… but try the bit further down your quoted article where it says that Ofcom is a “statutory corporation”. And then read the article on that phrase. Still convinced Transport For London is a government agency? Hell, with your (incorrect) argument that would make the actual BBC a government agency as it itself is a statutory corporation. So why would the government need Ofcom? Hmmmm
I’m not questioning that they’re regulated and never have - you absolute ham sandwich. I’m correcting you in your mistaken belief that the regulator is the government. Ofcom is not the government - regardless of what you want to believe. It doesn’t matter how loud you shout - you’re wrong when you say the BBC is regulated by the government. It is regulated by Ofcom. Please do some research.
Wow. Believe whatever you want - don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. You are so colossally misunderstanding what the phrase “government approved regulator” means. Thanks for the laugh.
Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.
Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.
No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.
Have you been watching “Reefer Madness” and thinking it’s a documentary? Spoiler: it isn’t.
Dishonest, no. The vast majority of British people would have happily classed him as black - the same with Vaughn. Whether through racism or ignorance I’m not sure. In South Africa the term coloured/colored is used with zero negative connotations but in the UK “coloured” (and I assume the US too) is viewed very negatively as that is how the older generation categorised anybody who wasn’t white… whether you were Bangladeshi, Nigerian, Chinese etc it didn’t really matter.
Exactly. He may well be rich relative to a poor person but in the scheme of overall wealth hoarding he’s not even a blip on the radar. The reason he got the sentence he got is nothing to do with his assets. It would be glib to suggest otherwise.