More BBC propaganda!

[sniffy]

+1!

GM strains of skunk? gief pls.

 

[Kennysevenfold]

i dont really care tbh, it tastes good

 

[mattheman]

I take it you haven't read the report then? The BBC piece is a fair commentary of the paper, which seems to be scientifically sound and the conclusions fair. They have also been balanced in the sense that they have added comment from the soil association.

To call it propaganda is complete nonsense.

When your looking for one thing its easy to find what you want but then when you add other aspects such as other variables, then thats when the facts become less positive.
Believe what you want but the BBC is bias even reporters that work at the BBC have said so.

The BBC now is a future speculator, and speculates more than it produces facts.

 

[Sankari]

I don't mean to hop on the bandwagon, but the BBC is the state-run television channel after all.

What's that got to do with anything? This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

 

[Strife212]

The BBC was pretty much taken over by Labour just after the invasion of Iraq after they ousted the Director General was it not?

 

[NeilF]

I don't mean to hop on the bandwagon, but the BBC is the state-run television channel after all.

Ummmm... How is it any different to any other channel, except for its finances?

It's not as if MPs have any control over programming?

 

[oli collett]

When your looking for one things its easy to find what you want but then when you add other aspects such as other variables then thats when the facts become less positive.
Believe what you want but the BBC is bias even teh reports that work at the BBC have said so.

The BBC now is a future speculator, and speculates more than it produces facts.

You're missing the point. If you don't agree with the paper's conclusions, address the paper. The only way you can think the BBC article is biased is if you think the paper comes to a different conclusion, but something tells me you haven't bothered reading it?

 

[Tefal]

He can't tell you because you might propaganda it

 

[mattheman]

You're missing the point. If you don't agree with the paper's conclusions, address the paper. The only way you can think the BBC article is biased is if you think the paper comes to a different conclusion, but something tells me you haven't bothered reading it?

for example whats better for you organic bread or non organic bread.

 

[Cosimo]

for example whats better for organic bread or non organic bread.

Well what is better?

 

[Fenris]

for example whats better for organic bread or non organic bread.

Chocolate bread.

Now put your tinfoil had back on, sit in the corner and mutter about radio waves.

 

[oli collett]

for example whats better for organic bread or non organic bread.

You're not making any sense?

 

[Tefal]

Chocolate bread.

Now put your tinfoil had back on, sit in the corner and mutter about radio waves.

Immigrants and teeth are mat's things, it's magick who does the radio waves.

 

[Cosimo]

You're not making any sense?

Have you only just noticed.

 

[mattheman]

Well what is better?

organic bread.

 

[Raikiri]

organic bread.

Not according to this study

 

[mattheman]

Not according to this study

Bread from hovis and companies contain added sugar and a few other chemicals that destroy your system.

 

[Tefal]

I didn't, I just buy it to avoid consuming any sort of pesticide.

So know you know organic food is still covered with pesticides will you continue to buy it?

 

[Tefal]

Bread from hovis and companies contain added sugar and a few other chemicals that destroy your system.

You know most organic stuff is made by huge corporations too right?

Also what are these chemicals that "destroy our systems"?


any proof they do the damage you say?

 

[Raikiri]

Bread from hovis and companies contain added sugar and a few other chemicals that destroy your system.

Oh no, sugar and... what chemicals were they again?