Evidence of collusion in plain sight between BBC and Anna Soubry 

If you don’t know by now how last night’s BBC Question time went then I can only suggest you seek out the videos in relation to the attacks on John McDonnell by the entire panel but specifically Anna Soubry, Alistair Campbell and David Dimbleby himself.

We though have noticed something that others may have not.

There is always debate around wether panelists are pre-prepared for the questions that will be levelled at them and somehow we expect that to be the case even if the BBC says it isn’t, but what if evidence arose that showed collusion?  Collusion between the BBC and another panelist(s) on attacking another panelist. 

Well, we believe that footage from the episode last night at the very least shows a good probability that collusion occurred. You can see the video at the end of this article but allow us to explain first what we are seeing. 

The video shows John McDonnell at the end of answering why Labour are behind in the polls. He is replying that the coup has been to blame and has been a “distraction” 

McDonnell is then interuptted by a query from David Dimbleby where he begins by saying..

“I’m interested in one thing do you think the country as a whole has moved to the left, I mean you make no bones about saying you’re a Marxist…”

McDonnell repeatedly states “I’m a socialist” but Dimbleby keeps repeating the same line about McDonnell being a Marxist. 

Here is where it gets interesting. At 31 seconds into the video Anna Soubry begins to intervene by saying “you said look…” whilst looking down at her piece of paper pointing with her finger.. she is unable to complete here sentence as Dimbleby continues his attack on McDonnell.  

At 42 seconds into the footage Soubry interrupts once again whilst also pointing to her piece of paper in the exact same position with her finger and says “you said ‘I’m a Marxist’” before exclaiming that people can go on YouTube to find the offending statement. 

As McDonnell continues to try to explain Soubry again interrupts saying “I’ll tell you something else, you’re a very nasty piece of work”

Now think. Dimbleby appears to have randomly brought up a prior talk by Mr McDonnell around his Marxist comment, it’s either an incredible coincidence that Soubry had the same comment about Marxism written down in front of her at that very moment or she was pretending to read off the piece of paper in front of her. 

As the footage twice caught her seemingly reading from the piece of paper it does suggest it was written down. Did she know that the comment about Marxism was coming from Dimbleby? If so, then it shows collusion in one way or another. Perhaps Dimbleby had pre-prepared the comment he was going to make but it’s odd that Soubry had the exact same comment written down. How could she have known it was coming? Or were the entire panel just so obsessed with the idea that McDonnell might be a Marxist that they all happened to write down that same quote? 

In fact it suggests that Dimbleby had told Soubry that he was going to bring it up during the show and Soubry had then written the quote down on her paper. The fact that Dimbleby allowed the tirade to continue against McDonnell without intervening shows a level of collusion we haven’t seen before. 

Make up your own mind. To us, it suggests collusion in which case an explanation needs to be given by the BBC around impartiality and bias.

Footage from BBCQT 

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Evidence of collusion in plain sight between BBC and Anna Soubry ”

    1. BBC QUESTION TIME 16/9/16
      Anna Soubry’s disgraceful personal attack on BBC’s Question Time programme yesterday evening on John McDonnell was appalling and a terrible indictment of how low the standards of conduct now are on the BBC. I was shocked and outraged that David Dimbleby, the programme’s anchor man and Chairperson, did nothing to stop this personal abuse and indeed he afterwards gave John McDonnell very little opportunity to defend himself compared with the time allotted to his detractors i.e. Anna Soubry, (Tory) and Alistair Campbell (New Labour). I do hope that people complain to the BBC about this personal bullying of John McDonnell and indeed members of Labour’s Momentum who were also much maligned by Soubry and Campbell. 😡

      Like

      1. I didn’t see the programme but only these excerpts and perhaps people should ask themselves why so many of us are putting all our hopes on Jeremy Corbyn and his Shadow Cabinet ,after watching the performance of Anna Soubry and as for Alistair Campbell conveniently forgetting about Iraq and no- one reminding him,who can we trust ?

        Like

  1. Surely Soubry’s outburst was slanderous?!! She ought to be told to justify her comments immediately and I believe that John McDonnell should bring charges against her. It was blatantly obvious that there had been prior collusion and that Campbell had been brought on specifically to attack Jeremy Corbyn through John McDonnell in the last days of the leadership contest. It is Dimbleby’s job as Chairman to remain neutral and not to act like one of the panel. Last night’s show was a disgusting and disgraceful spectacle and Soubry, Campbell and Dimbleby should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I watched QT and I also picked up on what you have discussed. To me it seemed pre planned and obvious. It was a new low for the BBC. The abuse from Soubry was extraordinary I thought? Dimbleby should not have allowed it. I got the feeling that McDonnell had walked into an ambush. I wish that Labour would now refuse to ever take part in QT again. They’d lose half their audience.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. If you disgusted by this complain to the BBC. Easy to do using the website, the complain link is at the bottom of the page. Here is what I have written:

    I wish to complain that on the program in question, the presenter, Mr Dimbleby, allowed one of the panellists, Ms Sourby, to make a personal attack on another panellist, Mr McDonnell, by calling him “..a nasty piece of work..” and insinuating that he was responsible for the personal abuse of MP’s with no evidence to support her claims. Mr Dimbleby failed to intervene, even though he had interrupted Mr McDonnell only seconds earlier and allowed Ms Sourby to continue.

    In my opinion this either shows that Mr Dimbleby is incompetent as the adjudicator of the program or was allowing a personal bias that prevented him from stopping the tirade.

    Mr Dimbleby should issue a public apology for his failure in allowing this to happen, on a well respected program, and bringing into dispute the reputation of the BBC.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Right with you. We have sent a complaint in to the BBC and we know multiple others that have done the same. Good advice. If you’re reading this then add your complaint to the BBC also.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with all the previous comments. McDonnell was bullied, in the main by Soubry and this was compounded by Dimbleby. He should have intervened immediately as chairman and not allowed her to continue with her interruption. In fact he only allowed John to respond after he demanded to be heard following John’s use of the word abuse – he soon shut up then! As for Campbell he’s doing what he still gets paid to do and that is to spin his webs of slimy deceit – unfortunately there are people out there who still believe him. Anyone seeing the way he sat back in an almost self congratulatory way with Soubry would surely see what kind of a “socialist” he could ever claim to be and the sooner him and his ilk find a different camp, the better imho! I look at him and see everything that has been wrong with the Labour Party. I thought, considering the combined bashing, John McDonnell did well in maintaining his cool and got all the points across that he needed to – admirable under the circumstances. The other thing I wanted to mention was the discreet glances that were going on between Dimbleby and Campbell – don’t know if anyone else noticed; to me it appeared to be more than the chairman indicating that he was next to be invited to respond. Disgraceful

    Liked by 1 person

  5. When has anyone seen a Tory agree with Campbell. it was disgraceful show with bullying. Corbyn has them running scared not only is he going to win the leadership. he is going to be PM because people are sick to death of the Politicians that lies as soon as they open there mouths.
    Time people saw the BBC for what it is and that,s trash.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Although I agree entirely with your outrage at the way McDonnell was bullied, I don’t subscribe to your collusion thesis. I forget where it was located, but I had read an article about McDonnell saying “I’m a Marxist” much earlier in the day – someone had dredged it up from somewhere. You can be sure that Soubry and Dimbleby had also seen that, which is why she had it written down.
    I have never been a Marxist, but I have a lot of sympathy with his views on the future of capitalism. He is a major figure in Western philosophy, and people really should not use his name as an insult.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Panelists’ through their PR people would obviously research as much as they can on hot topics before coming on to the show and given the presence of JM, the question of leadership and related issues would be bound to come up. So, I’m agreeing with you to a certain extent. The question asked by an audience member was about the credibility of opposition and future electability of the Labour Party. What I don’t understand is why Dimbleby, supposedly a neutral chair, would feel that he should be the person to interrupt JM in order to pursue the JM you’re a Marxist aren’t you question. I would understand Soubry making that point but not the chairperson. I also am appalled by the fact that he didn’t stop her immediately she made her nasty comment and enabled her to continue with her interruption – this is not something he would usually allow as chair.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I agree:

      Marxism Simplified by Martijn Sjoorda

      Once upon a long time ago there was a man called Karl Marx. He looked a bit scary but he was really nice and smart, a bit like Hagrid from Harry Potter.

      In the time where he lived, there were a few very rich people who owned nearly everything and many, many people who were very poor and had to work for the rich people and owned nothing.

      Karl thought that this was unfair. He wrote a book called das Kapital (the BIG money in German) in which he explained all this. So he said that the poor people should get together and demand that they owned the factories they worked in, be paid better by the rich people and have rights and a normal life too.

      It became a bestseller and many people were inspired by his book and thoughts. So much so that they went on the streets and protested. A lot.

      In the end, in many countries, this book helped people earn fairer amounts of money and they got to vote as well and create their own parties.

      Because Karl wrote this important book, they called this set of ideas Marxism.

      The rich people didn’t like this at all, so they got very angry. So did the poor people, so sometimes they even went to war with each other for a few years. In some countries, like Russia some 100 years ago, they had a revolution and they threw out the king and his fellows and took over the country.

      But they went too far, because for many years, they didn’t treat people any better than the rich people treated them previously.

      That probably would have made Karl very sad.

      Like

  7. nothing wrong with being marxist only if people are not believing that all contries calling themself communist are by extention of marxism. the capital by marx is a theoritical demonstration of how economy should serve the people and not the opposite and certainly not a minority. karl marx is a humanist and his theory has been used and devoided of his contents by individuals seeking power. Mc Donnell did a very good performance in avoiding the remark by defining himself as a socialist (no time to explain what marxism means). to tell him he was “a nasty piece of work” was a big mistake when you re complaining about bullying… well done mcDonnell and JC, keep going, you give us hope.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Absolutely SLANDEROUS allegations by Soubry, and far worse is that the BBC so BLATANTLY colluded in it. She should be made to justify every single last allegation she made there OR RESIGN. An apology is simply not good enough. And I am not a Labour Party member. In fact I am a member of the SNP and have every reason to distrust Labour, but this was outrageous. Also the swipe at the SNP was just plain childish. But what can you expect from what is nothing other than the Tory party propaganda broadcaster? The relationships between the two are almost incestuous in nature.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. BBC QUESTION TIME 16/9/16
    Anna Soubry’s disgraceful personal attack on BBC’s Question Time programme yesterday evening on John McDonnell was appalling and a terrible indictment of how low the standards of conduct now are on the BBC. I was shocked and outraged that David Dimbleby, the programme’s anchor man and Chairperson, did nothing to stop this personal abuse and indeed he afterwards gave John McDonnell very little opportunity to defend himself compared with the time allotted to his detractors i.e. Anna Soubry, (Tory) and Alistair Campbell (New Labour). I do hope that people complain to the BBC about this personal bullying of John McDonnell and indeed members of Labour’s Momentum who were also much maligned by Soubry and Campbell. I too, believe that there is evidence of collusion here. 😡

    Like

  10. An opponent researches the past of a controversy merchant & writes down incriminating evidence. Hardly amounts to collusion, just political naivety on your part.

    Like

    1. Of course that’s a possibility and that is addressed as a possibility in the article by the coincidence element. So it doesnt amount to political naivety but does perhaps amount to your inability to read articles thoroughly.

      Like

  11. The audience is often the source of my interest in QT. They see through the spin, at times. Dimbleby, like his predecessor Robin Day, deflects the conversation or states,”We have dealt with that previously” whenever some awkward truth arises from an audience member. There are other techniques used to shape the flow.
    The young woman at the back towards the end put Sourpuss in her place, provoking even more shouty nonsense from her

    Like

  12. Collusion or not it was a disgraceful display, not worthy of the BBC’s longstanding and worldwide reputation, which of late has been in tatters and shows Dimbleby to be totally unprofessional biased and incompetent. I complained to the BBC first thing this morning. This is my fourth complaint since Corbyn was elected. Before that I had lived my entire life not feeling the need to make one.

    Like

  13. Fancy Sourby sat next to the nasty piece of work Alistair Campbell and daring to call Mc Donnell a nasty piece of work, and why on earth was the disgraced advisor to Tony Blair on the programme??? His credibility went out of the window years ago , he is a spent force that cannot resist the lure of money or the chance to talk his rubbish. As for Sourbry she has disgraced herself with her bad manners and lack of judgement quite a few times . She is not independent minded but is always ‘handy’ to play other peoples games . As for Dimbley he should be now retired , he is an long time establishment crony who will say anything for the supposed powers that be , he is not a unbiased person in any way and now we see the mask slip even more on this particular programme .

    Like

  14. I’m not completely convinced of collusion, JM was certainly set up by the producers of the show and being the presenter, one can only imagine, Dimbelby would have been Involved in that.

    Like

  15. A loose and temporary coalition and alignment of interests between Soulbury and Campbell. You will also note the other panellists got involved to a certain degree and not in support of McDonnell. Is it a conspiracy by “the establishment” or just that McDonnell and Momentum have done some pretty indefensible things and misrepresented the truth to suit the political agenda?

    If a conspiracy then most of Labour’s MP’S are in on it too and deselection before they are elected for the GE is the only way Labour could form a government.

    Personally I think McDonald’s delusional bullshit is no better than Campbell’s past spin. The differences will be seen at the ballot box in middle England.

    Like

    1. I just had to breakdown your statement, which seems to me so grossly misdirecting it would lead me to challenge your motives. Either there must be an outside hand directing, or you have a bad case of confirmation bias.

      “A loose and temporary coalition and alignment of interests between Soubry and Campbell”.

      ANY loose and temporary coalition or alignment of interests between a Tory and alleged Labourite has to be viewed with suspicion.

      “You will also note the other panellists got involved to a certain degree and not in support of McDonnell.”

      THIS is superb deflection from the point of the article, that the attack on McDonnell was stage-managed, aided and abetted by a non-neutral chair.

      “Is it a conspiracy by “the establishment” or just that McDonnell and Momentum have done some pretty indefensible things and misrepresented the truth to suit the political agenda?”

      THIS is plainly propagandist. You don’t even name one “indefensible thing” to prop up your statement, or even one example of misrepresenting the truth. Where is your substantiation of a very broad based smear? Is it because your comment is baseless?

      “If a conspiracy then most of Labour’s MP’S are in on it too and deselection before they are elected for the GE is the only way Labour could form a government.”

      FINALLY the sun peeks through the clouds. The point is about having socialists who are not on the gravy train but have some iota of service about them (like McDonnell, I would suggest, and many others).

      “Personally I think McDonald’s delusional bullshit is no better than Campbell’s past spin. The differences will be seen at the ballot box in middle England.”

      OMG and you were doing so well! What “delusional bullshit” are you referring to – and I’m unsure as to why you consider someone who holds principles can be conflated with someone who lies, distorts, flannels, destabilises.

      Like

  16. Soubery has been on QT 6 times since January 2015. In every instance she has been seated next to Dimbleby. Centre stage and using it to full effect. She is allowed to interrupt with impunity, she will tap/touch Dimbleby to get attention, she leans across Dimbleby and presents herself as a co -chair of the panel.
    Conspiracy on the specific question, who knows?
    Collusion with production team ? Yes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s