Well, Hindus, these cow-protecting good people, they pay other people to kill the animals the "protect" because they don't want to get punished for killing the holy holy animal. They pay others to kill, then then eat and wear their skin on their shoes. To me, that's a fucking hypocrisy.

It's like saying USA did nothing wrong, they paid Private Military Companies to fight in Middle-East.

Can I buy a terrorist to torture?

> ``[11:04] Weez: Don’t forget the BBC do not write opinion pieces, they only post fact.``
<:GWchadMEGATHINK:366999806343774218> boi

fucking volcano take

right after dank's video on their obvious-as-fuck hit-docu on him, too

If that was a hit piece they succeeded

In hitting their own reputation

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

the bbc have no reputation here to begin with

but it's plainly obvious as to why they did it

I mean

They found the absolute worst comedian to represent their side of the argument then

How stupid must they be if they don't get that right

extremely. again, this is known

I know it's usually best to assume incompetence over malice, but that's so many levels of fail

like the only thing these people are actually competent at are being the mafia

that's it

TR also exposed them good a while back

I guess it's a classic example of don't stop your enemy from making a mistake

BBC is 140 % objective what are you talking about <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

I mean, the BBC is fine <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

OFC when they start talking about things you don't like, then BBC MAN BAD!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/uk_leaves_the_eu

How is any of this incorrect?

Or opinion pieces?

It's objective fact.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47470864

Even this, isn't written in a negative way

"No-deal Brexit: 10 ways it **could** affect you"

"The contents of your shopping basket **may** change"

"And Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said that, in a worst-case scenario, our shopping bills **could** increase by 10%. "

Nowhere do they say they WILL. They say they COULD.

@GalaxyBrainer

k

Can you show me where the BBC isn't objective?

Or posting factual information?

here's a pretty cool example of a non-objective article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-47974036

see all the slanting and fanciful wording? sure, everything written here is true when you look at it... but it's written fairly disingenuously, don't you think? it's also interesting how all of their quotes are from people opposed to the topic in question. no pro- or even neutral parties

you can still be factual and objective and show insane bias

or are you a stupid retard?