People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs. A vote is an action.
Yet without division, there'd be no vote. I can accept other's voting as they do without hating them. That doesn't mean I agree with what they're voting for.
I can accept the vote of others, but I don’t see how there is a situation where (if you know how they voted) it is out of order to hate those who voted National Front or BNP amongst others. I wouldn’t ban those others, but reserve the right to hate them vehemently. I couldn’t reach a state of rapprochement with racists for example, especially when I start from a position of hatred and contempt. How does toleration and acceptance come about in the situation I describe, be a teensy bit racist myself in order to get along with them?
Fully understood, and we're drifting so far down the river from the thread subject I feel quite embarrassed.
Incidentally, loving seeing you use the word 'rapprochement' here. Don't often see that, or expect it on CL if I'm being honest. I was going to extol the virtues of the English language, but as that has distinctly French undertones, I probably shouldn't, not in the spirit of entente cordiale.
It’s featured 18 times in 17 years, though Seth has been responsible for 7 of those. I would say it’s a favourite of his, but then again, he is responsible for a lot of words on here… :-)
Had it's annual outing today then. I've not been on a year yet. Does the 18 include me repeating it today?
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
The point is Fiona Bruce didn't say in her opinion it was a one off.
She was reporting that someone else said it was a one off, which is entirely different. I watched QT & she was reporting "news" not offering opinion.
It's not her fault that people are too thick to understand the difference (not you soapboxsam).
Apparently, she was told to say that from the voice in her ear. We don't notice that but it can't be easy and I feel a lot of sympathy for her. For the record, Boris Johnson's mum told the press it wasn't a one off and Bruce was confirming family friends said the incident happened and how I understand it, they said it was a one off. I don't think she was giving an opinion and is probably very upset by all of this given it must be a subject she feels strongly about.
Apparently, she was told to say that from the voice in her ear. We don't notice that but it can't be easy and I feel a lot of sympathy for her. For the record, Boris Johnson's mum told the press it wasn't a one off and Bruce was confirming family friends said the incident happened and how I understand it, they said it was a one off. I don't think she was giving an opinion and is probably very upset by all of this given it must be a subject she feels strongly about.
Yeah at the risk of sounding "thick" (thanks for the personal attack CE) he is reported to have hit her multiple times, it being a 'violent household' and most know that domestic abuse is not a one-off. Additionally in her words he made her feel "like she deserved it". Weird Bruce didn't say that.
The number of times doesn't particularly matter anyway does it? Think of someone who's 'only' killed one person. Now imagine someone at the BBC chiming in to say "oh but it was a one-off."
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
The point is Fiona Bruce didn't say in her opinion it was a one off.
She was reporting that someone else said it was a one off, which is entirely different. I watched QT & she was reporting "news" not offering opinion.
It's not her fault that people are too thick to understand the difference (not you soapboxsam).
Actually and at the risk of being accused of being thick. What she was doing is reporting other people’s opinion and giving it a level of credence that was not appropriate. Stanley Johnson’s friends might know that he hit his wife at least once. What they could not possibly know is that it was only once, assuming they were not with them at all times. Two people who will have definitely known are Stanley Johnson and his late ex wife. She is in record as saying it happened on multiple occasions and he is too cowardly to go on record about it.
It might be true that Fiona Bruce was told what to say, in which case the BBC are at fault, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were overly defending someone who has committed a serious act of domestic violence. If they felt the need to add clarity they should also have reported that his wife said it happened on multiple occasions.
I do wonder how many times it is acceptable to break your wife’s nose before you can’t be considered for a knighthood.
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
The point is Fiona Bruce didn't say in her opinion it was a one off.
She was reporting that someone else said it was a one off, which is entirely different. I watched QT & she was reporting "news" not offering opinion.
It's not her fault that people are too thick to understand the difference (not you soapboxsam).
Actually and at the risk of being accused of being thick. What she was doing is reporting other people’s opinion and giving it a level of credence that was not appropriate. Stanley Johnson’s friends might know that he hit his wife at least once. What they could not possibly know is that it was only once, assuming they were not with them at all times. Two people who will have definitely known are Stanley Johnson and his late ex wife. She is in record as saying it happened on multiple occasions and he is too cowardly to go on record about it.
It might be true that Fiona Bruce was told what to say, in which case the BBC are at fault, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were overly defending someone who has committed a serious act of domestic violence. If they felt the need to add clarity they should also have reported that his wife said it happened on multiple occasions.
I do wonder how many times it is acceptable to break your wife’s nose before you can’t be considered for a knighthood.
Agreed, she was reporting someone else's opinion, which is not defending them and she deserves even less criticism if she was told to say that through her ear piece.
My impression of Fiona Bruce on question time is she is a racist reactionary, and I don’t give a damn about her earpiece. She didn’t have to say what she said ‘for balance’. I mean how many times breaking a partners nose is acceptable? And if she is so innocent why is she ‘stepping back’ from her Domestic Violence charity?
My impression of Fiona Bruce on question time is she is a racist reactionary, and I don’t give a damn about her earpiece. She didn’t have to say what she said ‘for balance’. I mean how many times breaking a partners nose is acceptable? And if she is so innocent why is she ‘stepping back’ from her Domestic Violence charity?
The thing is, how it all works, is this episode has guaranteed Johnson will not get the knighthood. The risk won't be taken of him getting it and stories coming out. Not sure Boris did him too much of a favour either as I have been surprised for some time how he seems to get a free ride over what is rightly viewed by society as taboo.
I gave up watching QT years ago, but I follow the carnage on Twitter. I also know Fiona Bruce and her husband Nigel Sharrocks personally, albeit it must be 10 years since I last met him, and as for FB it's more than 30 - the day she exited the mini office opposite mine at BMP (the Valley Party agency) to take a job at the BBC as a researcher, much to everyone's surprise.
People have to remember that QT is now one of the many shows that the BBC outsource to an independent production company. In this case its Mentorn Media. It is they who select the audience. They have come under fierce scrutiny, especially after Alison Fuller Pedley, one of their top people on the show, was discovered sharing posts from one of the far-right "parties" that recruit from the football hoolie world. The producer who whispered in FB's ear is also a Mentorn employee, and it is their job to whisper in FB's ear throughout the programme.
So the first port of call for complaint is Mentorn. However we have no direct recourse to complain, as it's a private company. The complaints about them and the show are legion and yet the BBC have seen fit to renew their contract over many years.So the BBC cannot evade responsibility for what output their sub-contractor produces for a widely watched programme. Lineker is of course not accused of anything to do with his work for MOTD.
My impression of both Fiona Bruce and her husband is that they are centrist Tories- maybe FB has at times voted for the Lib Dems. I have read that Sharrocks is a bit more actively a Tory but I can't be sure. They definitely are not radicals, and probably disapprove of Braverman. But both are types who will never rock the boat when the boat is labelled "career". That is perfectly OK, especially if you just do Antiques Roadshow and read the news from an autocue. However FB knew what she was taking on when she took the QT gig, and for sure she knows all the criticisms levelled at Mentorn. So while the main blame lies with the BBC for continuing to deploy Mentorn, I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that FB does not apparently push back on her producer when stuff like this kicks off.
Apparently, she was told to say that from the voice in her ear. We don't notice that but it can't be easy and I feel a lot of sympathy for her. For the record, Boris Johnson's mum told the press it wasn't a one off and Bruce was confirming family friends said the incident happened and how I understand it, they said it was a one off. I don't think she was giving an opinion and is probably very upset by all of this given it must be a subject she feels strongly about.
A ‘one-off’ incident of domestic abuse can still kill someone.
It should have been obvious to FB that the line she was being fed was bollocks that couldn't possibly end well. The single line she was fed said both that Johnson had never beaten his wife and that was a one off. Which is it, it can't be both and somebody in FB's position should have realised that straight away, that she was parroting a line that at best would make her look foolish, and at worst like she was defending a wife beater.
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
It's quite ironic that so many people in the media and on here are saying why is everyone talking about the "Lineker" situation, when there are far more important matters.
I agree, so here's a polite thought. Perhaps consider stop talking about it?
Back in the day when we were lads there was a saying: Today's newspaper caper is tomorrow's chip paper. Doesn't quite work with social media but just like night follows day, a new issue will grab the headlines for days or weeks and then disappear or just simmer until words can be quoted again.
Strikes in the UK should be the news stories but apparently it doesn't sell newspapers or get enough hits on social media platforms.
Fiona Bruce who has had a successful career in the media gets slated for trying to be neutral about the bum slapper and breaker of his ex wife's nose (according to his ex wife) Stanley Johnson on question time. Boris wants to give his dad a knighthood; what for exactly?
Considering Bruce has been an ambassador of women's Refuge for 25 years its a sad situation but not sure if she had to say it was a "one off". According to a friend who worked at a woman's refuge it hardly ever a one-off with men who hit women.
Plenty of stories waiting there turn to get on the front pages.
The point is Fiona Bruce didn't say in her opinion it was a one off.
She was reporting that someone else said it was a one off, which is entirely different. I watched QT & she was reporting "news" not offering opinion.
It's not her fault that people are too thick to understand the difference (not you soapboxsam).
Actually and at the risk of being accused of being thick. What she was doing is reporting other people’s opinion and giving it a level of credence that was not appropriate. Stanley Johnson’s friends might know that he hit his wife at least once. What they could not possibly know is that it was only once, assuming they were not with them at all times. Two people who will have definitely known are Stanley Johnson and his late ex wife. She is in record as saying it happened on multiple occasions and he is too cowardly to go on record about it.
It might be true that Fiona Bruce was told what to say, in which case the BBC are at fault, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were overly defending someone who has committed a serious act of domestic violence. If they felt the need to add clarity they should also have reported that his wife said it happened on multiple occasions.
I do wonder how many times it is acceptable to break your wife’s nose before you can’t be considered for a knighthood.
Good post. On these sort of programmes the voice in your ear isn't so much telling you what to say, it's giving you information to use to provide balance, and it's up to the presenter how to use the info. A producer must have read somewhere that friends of Johnson said 'it was a one-off' and passed that on to Bruce. She's an experienced broadcaster, but her interjection was a bit clumsy on this occasion, and she should definitely have countered it with Johnson's wife's claims that is was a regular occurrence. I think part of the problem is that the BBC is so kowtowed that they're terrified of getting something wrong and upsetting the government.
When Fiona Bruce started she would leave the non white panellist until last, interrupt them the most, and give them the shortest time. I wonder if that was because she had whispers in her ear. Or maybe it was a one or two or three or four off.
When Fiona Bruce started she would leave the non white panellist until last, interrupt them the most, and give them the shortest time. I wonder if that was because she had whispers in her ear. Or maybe it was a one or two or three or four off.
I thought this had been debunked. I don't feel comfortable in having Bruce, or anyone else, condemned as a racist on such scant grounds. It risks derailing the thread and is also potentially libelous. Probably best to drop this one now.
When Fiona Bruce started she would leave the non white panellist until last, interrupt them the most, and give them the shortest time. I wonder if that was because she had whispers in her ear. Or maybe it was a one or two or three or four off.
I presume you have the factual evidence to back up these accusations?
i always thought bruce, like kuensburg suffered more criticism than male counterparts and have always been wary of criticising them too much. Especially when, as prague mentioned before, andrew neil got away with far worse tweeting etc whilst working for the bbc.
Bruce is following on from a borderline national treasure in david dimbleby and a very tough act to follow. I haven't been too impressed with her moderating. But i also think QT as a whole has become a farce, which began it slow descent by giving well known anti semite Nick Griffin a platform all those years ago.
i always thought bruce, like kuensburg suffered more criticism than male counterparts and have always been wary of criticising them too much. Especially when, as prague mentioned before, andrew neil got away with far worse tweeting etc whilst working for the bbc.
Bruce is following on from a borderline national treasure in david dimbleby and a very tough act to follow. I haven't been too impressed with her moderating. But i also think QT as a whole has become a farce, which began it slow descent by giving well known anti semite Nick Griffin a platform all those years ago.
Agreed. I don't think she's a very good QT host, as she's too "nice" to do the job, rather than because of her political views, whatever they might be.
Politicians of all parties need reigning in when they start spouting off on rehearsed soundbites with little relevance to the topic. Robin Day for example was very tough on them, he had that sort of authority needed to be the chair.
When Fiona Bruce started she would leave the non white panellist until last, interrupt them the most, and give them the shortest time. I wonder if that was because she had whispers in her ear. Or maybe it was a one or two or three or four off.
I presume you have the factual evidence to back up these accusations?
I have tried to search youtube for early Fiona Bruce episodes of Question Time to back up my assertion, but they are not available. My memory at the time was that she marginalised non white panellists. It prompted me to make this observation in February 2019:
As with a fortnight ago, Fiona Bruce ignored one panellist for nearly twenty minutes, and seemed to be brought in as an afterthought. (the previous one was in Scotland) It is unfortunate that both of those panellists have something in common, and it isn't gender. If it happens for a third time I think it will reflect poorly on Fiona Bruce, maybe there will be an eagerness to compensate on future programmes.
Then there was the time Dianne Abbott complained about her treatment on Question Time:
i always thought bruce, like kuensburg suffered more criticism than male counterparts and have always been wary of criticising them too much. Especially when, as prague mentioned before, andrew neil got away with far worse tweeting etc whilst working for the bbc.
Bruce is following on from a borderline national treasure in david dimbleby and a very tough act to follow. I haven't been too impressed with her moderating. But i also think QT as a whole has become a farce, which began it slow descent by giving well known anti semite Nick Griffin a platform all those years ago.
Agreed. I don't think she's a very good QT host, as she's too "nice" to do the job, rather than because of her political views, whatever they might be.
Politicians of all parties need reigning in when they start spouting off on rehearsed soundbites with little relevance to the topic. Robin Day for example was very tough on them, he had that sort of authority needed to be the chair.
That is of course going back some time when we had journalists and not presenters. I agree with the point however.
I don’t think any views she may have sway the programme one way or the other. The fact that supporters from each side of the political divide claim bias / unfair treatment / agendas from time to time just prove it is about right.
What doesn’t help from time to time are the dumbed down audience questions which sometimes just pander to weekly topical but not always important matters meaning the guests can go off tangent.
Comments
She was reporting that someone else said it was a one off, which is entirely different.
I watched QT & she was reporting "news" not offering opinion.
It's not her fault that people are too thick to understand the difference (not you soapboxsam).
The number of times doesn't particularly matter anyway does it? Think of someone who's 'only' killed one person. Now imagine someone at the BBC chiming in to say "oh but it was a one-off."
It might be true that Fiona Bruce was told what to say, in which case the BBC are at fault, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were overly defending someone who has committed a serious act of domestic violence. If they felt the need to add clarity they should also have reported that his wife said it happened on multiple occasions.
I do wonder how many times it is acceptable to break your wife’s nose before you can’t be considered for a knighthood.
The BBC are at fault not Lineker & Bruce.
I mean how many times breaking a partners nose is acceptable? And if she is so innocent why is she ‘stepping back’ from her Domestic Violence charity?
Such a neigh-sayer
People have to remember that QT is now one of the many shows that the BBC outsource to an independent production company. In this case its Mentorn Media. It is they who select the audience. They have come under fierce scrutiny, especially after Alison Fuller Pedley, one of their top people on the show, was discovered sharing posts from one of the far-right "parties" that recruit from the football hoolie world. The producer who whispered in FB's ear is also a Mentorn employee, and it is their job to whisper in FB's ear throughout the programme.
So the first port of call for complaint is Mentorn. However we have no direct recourse to complain, as it's a private company. The complaints about them and the show are legion and yet the BBC have seen fit to renew their contract over many years.So the BBC cannot evade responsibility for what output their sub-contractor produces for a widely watched programme. Lineker is of course not accused of anything to do with his work for MOTD.
My impression of both Fiona Bruce and her husband is that they are centrist Tories- maybe FB has at times voted for the Lib Dems. I have read that Sharrocks is a bit more actively a Tory but I can't be sure. They definitely are not radicals, and probably disapprove of Braverman. But both are types who will never rock the boat when the boat is labelled "career". That is perfectly OK, especially if you just do Antiques Roadshow and read the news from an autocue. However FB knew what she was taking on when she took the QT gig, and for sure she knows all the criticisms levelled at Mentorn. So while the main blame lies with the BBC for continuing to deploy Mentorn, I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that FB does not apparently push back on her producer when stuff like this kicks off.
On these sort of programmes the voice in your ear isn't so much telling you what to say, it's giving you information to use to provide balance, and it's up to the presenter how to use the info. A producer must have read somewhere that friends of Johnson said 'it was a one-off' and passed that on to Bruce. She's an experienced broadcaster, but her interjection was a bit clumsy on this occasion, and she should definitely have countered it with Johnson's wife's claims that is was a regular occurrence.
I think part of the problem is that the BBC is so kowtowed that they're terrified of getting something wrong and upsetting the government.
I wonder if that was because she had whispers in her ear.
Or maybe it was a one or two or three or four off.
Bruce is following on from a borderline national treasure in david dimbleby and a very tough act to follow. I haven't been too impressed with her moderating. But i also think QT as a whole has become a farce, which began it slow descent by giving well known anti semite Nick Griffin a platform all those years ago.
Politicians of all parties need reigning in when they start spouting off on rehearsed soundbites with little relevance to the topic. Robin Day for example was very tough on them, he had that sort of authority needed to be the chair.
(the previous one was in Scotland)
It is unfortunate that both of those panellists have something in common, and it isn't gender.
If it happens for a third time I think it will reflect poorly on Fiona Bruce, maybe there will be an eagerness to compensate on future programmes.
Then there was the time Dianne Abbott complained about her treatment on Question Time:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/question-time-diane-abbott-bbc-audience-fiona-bruce-video-polls-corbyn-labour-a8735036.html
Then of course there is this: