Forum Topic

A sign of dementia can be a rigid insistence that something is true when all the evidence suggests it isn't.I've watched the Biden interview with Nick Robinson and there is no pretending that he could have served a second term as an effective US president. He is probably still well able to play a daily round of golf, not attend briefings, watch Fox News for most of the day and sign the occasional executive order but that is not what an effective US president does. Biden would have continued to try and do what he did in his first term by working within the constitution to improve things for Americans and the world in general but he is a tired old man who clearly lacks the remaining energy to have taken on such an arduous task.Although there are a few trademark Biden gaffes (something he has been prone to all the way through his career) such as consistently referring to Russia as the Soviet Union, there is nothing else in this interview to indicate senility. He clearly and quite powerfully articulates how the Trump presidency so far has been a strategic disaster.Trump is already becoming aware that he is starting to increasingly be compared negatively to Biden. He has mentioned him by name nearly 500 times in public statements and tries to blame him for everything. Biden's interview has further enraged him and his MAGA acolytes like Mr Taylor so they are going full barrel with the dementia narrative.We are getting more and more personal testimony about the events leading up Biden stepping down. Filled as many accounts are with recrimination and vicious back-biting with factions within the Democrats anxious to avoid the blame for defeat, nobody is talking about the President having been mentally incapable. Lacking the stamina to take the office yes, but not senile.It is perhaps a sign of the pervasive fear in American media at the moment that they seem to have reckoned that hosting an interview with a lucid Biden would have been seen as a hostile act by the sitting President. We should be proud that the BBC was chosen to carry out this interview which is as clear a demonstration as you could wish for, for its continuing international reputation for journalistic truth.The fact that it will continue to call out the lies that we are being peddled will enrage those that are peddling them but none of them will actually watch this interview or anything else that challenges their delusions.

Francis Rowe ● 6d

Thank you Felicity. It has nothing to do with 'nice' reason at all. If you genuinely consider that her delivery has always been excellent then you plainly haven't seen all her news reading episodes/deliveries have you? I have seen more that enough of this to prompt me to rewind and go back to what she said i.e. came out of her mouth. I also called my wife to come and listen to her poor diction and trouble with pronouncing words that are staring at her from the autocue, and it was nigh impossible to understand what she was saying, unless you played it back and listened to the relevant parts. They appeared to be those with more that 3/4 syllables. I have an 'O' level in knitting, and also attended Durham university, but so what? She can have all the qualifications in the world, but when your job with the BBC, or any other news outlet for that matter, is in front of a camera, seen by millions of people, your prime duty is surely at least, to be able to read an autocue? Yes? Can't be that difficult can it? On occasions, she has not possessed those essential qualities, and should not therefore be in that job. With regards to Sudan, I have tried, and failed abysmally I might add, to discover where and to whom all the money goes. The audit trail just fizzles out. I can guess why, but why didn't she pursue this huge problem? Perhaps you could enlighten us, and explain exactly where all this overseas aid goes to in Sudan, and numerous other countries? If she possesses this unparalleled expertise, qualities and qualifications, why is she not on TV regularly as an expert in her field, as and when required, say on Newsnight or other plentiful news outlets for example? All I can see is that she is a newsreader, no more no less, and a not very good one. I suspect the BBC must also think that she is not quite up to scratch in that respect, together with other channels, and the rest of us. I am not talking about unfamiliarity with an accent, that's totally irrelevant. It's to do with clarity of speech, or can't you understand? Perhaps you could explain why she is never seen on our mainstream media channels as there must be a good reason for this, of which I and many others are not aware? Also perhaps you could explain why, in their infinite wisdom, the BBC paid Huw Edwards that bastion of probity, £437,000.00 back in 2023, while at the same time being suspended from work?

Brian Coyle ● 55d