Which are all about documented evidence of bias - with 1 example below as proof.

From the day the conservative government announced a general election, all of the dominant right wing media mounted campaigns to destabilize the new government, as all opposition parties always do - the problem was there was a combination of majority right wing news coupled with a somewhat subservient BBC news service whose use of the biased right wing printed news got escalated to where it is now.

Below is a significant 'factual' example of how dangerous this is to the nation's cohesion and democracy.

On the 17th March the Guardian newspaper printed a devastating news story about Nigel Farage.

GB2GB's 'PR1' — The Farage Video

A controversial, newsworthy, and FACTUAL Guardian investigation into extremely distasteful videos of Nigel Farage generating over £374,000 according to the Guardian.

Covered only by 2 minor BBC journalists with only 30% of their reports 'loosely' describing the vagaries of what he did with no forensic commentary whatsoever - then dropped completely.

GB2GB's 'PR2' — The Mandelson Vetting Story

Another Guardian investigation into Lord Mandelson’s security vetting and 'claims' of the PM 'misleading parliament with then - with still no evidence whatsoever yet somehow causing another media 'storm'.

Blatantly NOW led by the BBC's editor Chris Mason 'this time' with further commentary continuing daily still on the PM's 'dangerous position, even more so with the up-coming by-election - now suddenly relevant to the BBC's campaign for the removal of the PM and in fact the Labour party itself over the last 2+ years.

Both stories were politically relevant and potentially damaging for the leaders - if true - but with the story regarding Nigel Farage being the only true one, it posed a question.

*Why the proven true story about the likely winner of the by-elections received no detailed coverage by the BBC at all*

Yet the UN-proven one about the PM is still exciting the entire BBC news 'assassination team' of Mason, Robinson, Barnett, Kuennsberg, Derbyshire, Hussein, Chu, Stayt, Munchetty, Reuben, Zeffman, Francis, Burgess, Hatton, Farley, Burrin, Morton, Whannel, Wheeler - etc.

Most fair minded citizens would regard the 'favourite to become the next PM using such foul language on a video he produced 'for money' (£375,000 according to the Guardian) newsworthy - but not the BBC?

The overwhelming evidence now - in the BBC's own 'words' (trying to take the BBC back to the 14 years of the Conservative government is according to the BBC officially "going down memory lane") - is that, with a by-election now just 9 days away to decide the fate of around 5000 seats in England 'WHY' such an approach by the BBC took the form it did - to protect Nigel Farage - at the expense of democracy.

HOW MANY VOTERS ON THE 7th WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR HIM ON THAT STORY ALONE?

Although it is only 'councillors' who are selected, it is the political party that each appointed councillor represents that is the most important factor.

And as the largest news media platform in the world, the BBC, have no doubt as to which party will gain the most seats - Nigel Farage's party.

To put this into perspective how out of date and out of control the publicly funded BBC is - here is their record over the last 18 years of dealing with 'complaints':

(2017–2025)

2,275,387 total BBC complaints

25 bias complaints upheld internally

1 Ofcom impartiality breach

THE BBC ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS