|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 22, 2019 14:11:34 GMT
Because she is consistently ludicrous? I've watched QT for years, and seen Farage and many right wing MPs harangued week after week, and audiences full of lefties cheering every comment by Dimbleby and other guests. Where was the outcry, then? Now Diane Abbott gets some shit for being utterly inept, and everyone is up in arms? The one time I have seen the Brexit supporters getting the upper hand(and a hearing), and all the fuss is about Abbott and something supposedly being whipped up. Not buying it. nick Griffin and a left wing audience carefully selected for ethnicity was put on QT purely to make him look a dick He may be a dick but the bbc and qt have previous Where was the condemnation of the way griffin was treated Oh no total silence
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 22, 2019 14:15:04 GMT
Well heard it now Looking back at that post can you detect a touch of double standards there There is absolute no proof of any racism having occurred by the bbc And to accuse the socialist luvies at the bbc of right wing biases is beyond parody They have consistently tried to embarrass every Tory and mp’s and government in living memory Whilst giving the Blair government a free ride There is absolutely no question of the BBC when it comes to racism. If anything, the BBC are currently running the equivalent of some form of British affirmative action, especially with the 'BME only' jobs that were knocking around a few years ago. However, we're not talking about the BBC. We're talking about Question Time and specifically what happened to Diane Abbott last Thursday. If Fiona Bruce was cracking jokes about Abbott and Corbyn shagging 30 years ago, while the audience sat there howling, then you've immediately put her at an unfair disadvantage. I think it's Sal who said above: once someone is undermined so shamelessly, publicly and embarrassingly, others will naturally think "well, she's fair game"..... the questioning gets more hostile, the tone of voice gets more aggressive, people take her less seriously, it becomes okay to interrupt her etc. There are conflicting reports, with audience members claiming it happened, while other audience members claim it didn't...... If it did happen, then both Fiona Bruce and the BBC should be ashamed of themselves. I cannot stand Diane Abbott.... she's one of the reasons I get further and further away from the Labour party, but she's also a respected politician and doesn't deserve to be bullied. By all means, call her out on her gaffes, poor arithmetic, divisive comments about white people..... don't bully her because she happened to sleep with the current leader the Labour party in 1980..... That If is doing alot of heaving lifting, the audience member claiming it happened is a member of staff for Labour MP Chris Williamson, of 300 or 400 people there the only people to say anything are labour employees or activists hmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jan 22, 2019 15:01:32 GMT
See metal's point about Fiona cracking jokes at Abbott's expense in the warm-up - listen I agree she didn't cover herself in glory answering the questions or getting on a good wavelength with the audience - but then when someone's been so badly undermined from the start, how can anyone honestly see that straight? and yet still she goes back to that program time and again So true... wonder if that's Abbott keeping on putting herself in the stocks or Central Office sending her? It does seem daft tactically either way, she has to have cost Labour votes.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jan 22, 2019 15:04:26 GMT
nick Griffin and a left wing audience carefully selected for ethnicity was put on QT purely to make him look a dick He may be a dick but the bbc and qt have previous Where was the condemnation of the way griffin was treated Oh no total silence And just to be punctiliously fair.... that's totally fair comment too, he did get put in the stocks, I remember it. Maybe we always do this to Far Right and Far Left in this country/climate. Whereas Farage got given a disproportionately good hearing in relation to the seats UKIP then didn't have... but then he can look after himself and has brilliant instincts for what to say when and where.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jan 22, 2019 15:06:00 GMT
But, if any more clarification's needed, this one's exactly what fair comment's all about (right or wrong - I think she's better than alleged here but it's true she does blag shamefully sometimes, I'm a Labour supporter too, passionately anti-racist but would like to see her shadowing a less high-profile job for a while and someone from the next generation like Rebecca Long Bailey given the Shadow Home Sec role) Is she competent in your opinion Sal to be the next home secretary? More competent than rumour would have it, imho, but there are others I'd choose first
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jan 22, 2019 15:09:37 GMT
There is absolutely no question of the BBC when it comes to racism. If anything, the BBC are currently running the equivalent of some form of British affirmative action, especially with the 'BME only' jobs that were knocking around a few years ago. However, we're not talking about the BBC. We're talking about Question Time and specifically what happened to Diane Abbott last Thursday. If Fiona Bruce was cracking jokes about Abbott and Corbyn shagging 30 years ago, while the audience sat there howling, then you've immediately put her at an unfair disadvantage. I think it's Sal who said above: once someone is undermined so shamelessly, publicly and embarrassingly, others will naturally think "well, she's fair game"..... the questioning gets more hostile, the tone of voice gets more aggressive, people take her less seriously, it becomes okay to interrupt her etc. There are conflicting reports, with audience members claiming it happened, while other audience members claim it didn't...... If it did happen, then both Fiona Bruce and the BBC should be ashamed of themselves. I cannot stand Diane Abbott.... she's one of the reasons I get further and further away from the Labour party, but she's also a respected politician and doesn't deserve to be bullied. By all means, call her out on her gaffes, poor arithmetic, divisive comments about white people..... don't bully her because she happened to sleep with the current leader the Labour party in 1980..... The post I was replying to said the bbc might as well wear blue rosettes under no way has the bbc shown a right wing preference in the last fifty years It’s consistently peddled a left of center viewpoint There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jan 22, 2019 15:19:40 GMT
and yet still she goes back to that program time and again So true... wonder if that's Abbott keeping on putting herself in the stocks or Central Office sending her? It does seem daft tactically either way, she has to have cost Labour votes. The trouble is unfortunately for the current labour leadership Abbott is just about the most credible I’ve noticed they have started to roll out this long-Bailey woman she’s worse at answering questions than Abbott At least with Abbott. You do at least think she believes in what she’s saying
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 22, 2019 15:34:38 GMT
The post I was replying to said the bbc might as well wear blue rosettes under no way has the bbc shown a right wing preference in the last fifty years It’s consistently peddled a left of center viewpoint There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. Or just a realistic assessment of the various qualities the party leaders possess . The poles reflect this in the electorate as a whole , when there is a comparison between the two leaders the voters do not trust Corbyn at all despite Mays shortcomings.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 15:40:44 GMT
So true... wonder if that's Abbott keeping on putting herself in the stocks or Central Office sending her? It does seem daft tactically either way, she has to have cost Labour votes. The trouble is unfortunately for the current labour leadership Abbott is just about the most credible I’ve noticed they have started to roll out this long-Bailey woman she’s worse at answering questions than Abbott At least with Abbott. You do at least think she believes in what she’s saying I agree - Long-Bailey has been already verbally mauled in a couple of interviews that I've seen, and just she keeps digging herself further into the hole when it would be better to either shut up or do the classic politicians trick of not answering the specific question. Maybe she'll improve in time but I don't think she's particularly media savvy right now. Whether she's competent or not is another question as well.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Jan 22, 2019 15:56:13 GMT
The post I was replying to said the bbc might as well wear blue rosettes under no way has the bbc shown a right wing preference in the last fifty years It’s consistently peddled a left of center viewpoint There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. I would love to see the figures on Brexit across the TV companies! I would hazard a guess at it being 95% negative. Nowt done about that, either.
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Jan 22, 2019 15:57:35 GMT
There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. Or just a realistic assessment of the various qualities the party leaders possess . The poles reflect this in the electorate as a whole , when there is a comparison between the two leaders the voters do not trust Corbyn at all despite Mays shortcomings. Or, you could say that means voters still trust BBC news and current affairs to be impartial despite evidence to the contrary.. Which wing did Harry B generally play on again??
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 22, 2019 15:59:24 GMT
Or just a realistic assessment of the various qualities the party leaders possess . The poles reflect this in the electorate as a whole , when there is a comparison between the two leaders the voters do not trust Corbyn at all despite Mays shortcomings. Or, you could say that means voters still trust BBC news and current affairs to be impartial despite evidence to the contrary.. Which wing did Harry B generally play on again?? The right of course 😀
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 22, 2019 16:03:23 GMT
There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. Or just a realistic assessment of the various qualities the party leaders possess . The poles reflect this in the electorate as a whole , when there is a comparison between the two leaders the voters do not trust Corbyn at all despite Mays shortcomings. His own mp's didn't want him as leader in the run up to the election and over 100 of his mps refused to serve under him how do you describe that positively
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 22, 2019 16:04:15 GMT
Or just a realistic assessment of the various qualities the party leaders possess . The poles reflect this in the electorate as a whole , when there is a comparison between the two leaders the voters do not trust Corbyn at all despite Mays shortcomings. Or, you could say that means voters still trust BBC news and current affairs to be impartial despite evidence to the contrary.. Which wing did Harry B generally play on again?? Although he was famous for his left foot
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jan 22, 2019 16:06:05 GMT
Or just a realistic assessment of the various qualities the party leaders possess . The poles reflect this in the electorate as a whole , when there is a comparison between the two leaders the voters do not trust Corbyn at all despite Mays shortcomings. His own mp's didn't want him as leader in the run up to the election and over 100 of his mps refused to serve under him how do you describe that positively And many of his MP,s openly defy his directives
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jan 22, 2019 16:10:02 GMT
Where was the condemnation of the way griffin was treated Oh no total silence Actually, there was an official complaint logged about the way in-which Nick Griffin was treated on the BBC. Whether anyone actually cared to act upon it is another story. Griffin was given a hard time when he appeared on QT, but then most of the comments directed at him were entirely valid and accurate. The whole "Did you hang out with the National Front?", "You shared a stage with David Duke" etc etc.... with respect, Nick Griffin needed to explain why he was willing to stand on a stage and give a speech with David Duke and don't repeat his line of Duke being the leader of "a peaceful sect of the KKK". There is no such thing as a peaceful KKK and dressing them up in suits and ties doesn't make them any less hateful. The BNP are a joke. Why anyone would sympathise with them or Griffin is beyond me. That If is doing alot of heaving lifting, the audience member claiming it happened is a member of staff for Labour MP Chris Williamson, of 300 or 400 people there the only people to say anything are labour employees or activists hmmmmm Again, surely the most obvious thing for the BBC to do is to release the footage prior to the show airing. Mr Williamson will look like a liar, and the complaint will be laughed out the building? There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. I find the BBC are politically non-partisan. They are driven by an agenda, rather than a political ideology. Their core values appear to be driven by identity rather than political allegiance. That is why they get a reputation for being left wing though, because their identity agenda (if you will) is broadly shared by the left. An interesting example of this, are two BBC shows I saw about 3 years ago: - One was called 'Is This Rape?' and it was shown on BBC Three. The idea was to drip feed small details of a fictional rape case involving two very young college students. The case was watched by a group of youngsters who needed to deduce whether he was guilty or not. Initially, she was painted in quite a bad light but as details emerged, it became clear he had raped her. He essentially took advantage of her being heavily intoxicated. They actually did a superb job of showing firstly how too many young people don't understand consent, and secondly how rape isn't always "a man in a dark alley". Then............. the last 10 minutes took a M Night Shyamalan-esque turn, in-which they went from portraying him as a drunken opportunist into a psychopathic remorseless rapist with absolutely no emotion whatsoever. I'm surprised they didn't have him pull off a mask like in a Scooby-Doo cartoon that revealed his true identity to be John Worboys or something. They went even further with this by having his (obviously male) friends celebrate his subsequent rape via a group chat on WhatsApp. It went from being a brilliant educational show on how youngsters don't understand rape, how rapes on University campus' happen (and go unreported) etc etc, to simply being an all-out-attack on young males. The WhatsApp group stuff at the end was absolutely shocking and smacked of the UVA Rape Case style of reporting. - I forget the name of the second show (although it was available to view at the same time on iPlayer), but it was essentially about how 'men' don't understand women's issues. Unlike the show above, this show was never intended to be useful at all. It was a young woman with a megaphone going out and shouting ridiculously antagonistic remarks to males as they walked to work. Her crescendo moment was stood outside a tube station and as two men left she screamed (something along the lines of) "I'm sorry but I bleed for 5 days every month, does that make you uncomfortable?". No, it doesn't, but someone shouting down a megaphone in my ear does. These may seem like apolitical issues, but it's clear that this content is directed at a predominantly younger hard-left audience, hence why the BBC have got this reputation for being left wing. Like I said, I don't believe that... their agenda is identity, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 22, 2019 17:16:22 GMT
Where was the condemnation of the way griffin was treated Oh no total silence And just to be punctiliously fair.... that's totally fair comment too, he did get put in the stocks, I remember it. Maybe we always do this to Far Right and Far Left in this country/climate. Whereas Farage got given a disproportionately good hearing in relation to the seats UKIP then didn't have... but then he can look after himself and has brilliant instincts for what to say when and where. UKIP were the largest party in the European elections Sal and making huge inroads into both Conservative and Labour votes. This was due to Farage himself being the most competent politician in British politics and the fact that anti EU voters had been ignored and lied to by both parties over decades.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 22, 2019 17:18:42 GMT
Is she competent in your opinion Sal to be the next home secretary? More competent than rumour would have it, imho, but there are others I'd choose first I've not seen any evidence of her being competent I have seen evidence that she got the post by being the last woman standing amongst all Corbyn's many mass resignations.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 22, 2019 17:19:58 GMT
Hi Mermaidsal Apologies for any trouble my post may have caused you. I was responding to the earlier post. I was astounded, literally, that anyone would come on a forum with such ignorant attitudes,and I honestly did not want to believe the inference from the pos t in question. I was hoping that the poster had a less sinister thought in his mind, clearly not. Anyway, Regards I don't think that any sensible person thought that you were doing anything other than calling him out.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jan 22, 2019 17:22:11 GMT
The post I was replying to said the bbc might as well wear blue rosettes under no way has the bbc shown a right wing preference in the last fifty years It’s consistently peddled a left of center viewpoint There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. It's an absolute irrelevance Corbyn came to the election with so much baggage a huge chunk coming out of the mouths of his own MPs and the more sensible members of the Labour party
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 22, 2019 17:45:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 22, 2019 17:46:18 GMT
Where was the condemnation of the way griffin was treated Oh no total silence And just to be punctiliously fair.... that's totally fair comment too, he did get put in the stocks, I remember it. Maybe we always do this to Far Right and Far Left in this country/climate. Whereas Farage got given a disproportionately good hearing in relation to the seats UKIP then didn't have... but then he can look after himself and has brilliant instincts for what to say when and where. Fair comment if there was actual silence There is loads on the net if you can be arsed to look
|
|
|
Post by bobby1eye on Jan 22, 2019 17:53:51 GMT
Love her or loathe her, I feel she is an old school MP who got into the job because she wanted to represent the people that she represents. I feel she is given a hard time because she's not camera-savvy and never will be. It’s a little more than...” not camera-savvy” don’t you think Shays thick as fuck.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 17:56:50 GMT
It’s a little more than...” not camera-savvy” don’t you think Shays thick as fuck. and arr bet shay Conner cook
|
|
|
Post by bobby1eye on Jan 22, 2019 17:57:31 GMT
and arr bet shay Conner cook She cost fuckin eat tho.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 22, 2019 18:45:31 GMT
I see Mongmentum are accusing other people of being bullies.
Oh the irony 😂
How's the anti-semitism going, guys?
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jan 22, 2019 19:08:56 GMT
The post I was replying to said the bbc might as well wear blue rosettes under no way has the bbc shown a right wing preference in the last fifty years It’s consistently peddled a left of center viewpoint There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. That’s not necessarily bias. It’s just that’s theres a dam site more positive things to say about May than there is about Corbyn
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 8:47:05 GMT
Just seen BBC Newswatch which was about Abbott on QT. Apparently lots of complaints about her treatment but also some basically saying that she was just incompetent. The Beeb have quite rightly in my view completely denied any bias or unfair treatment. To give a "neutral" view on the situation the studio guest this morning was .......a Labour supporter who had lived in Abbott's constituency !
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Jan 26, 2019 10:14:13 GMT
Where was the condemnation of the way griffin was treated Oh no total silence Actually, there was an official complaint logged about the way in-which Nick Griffin was treated on the BBC. Whether anyone actually cared to act upon it is another story. Griffin was given a hard time when he appeared on QT, but then most of the comments directed at him were entirely valid and accurate. The whole "Did you hang out with the National Front?", "You shared a stage with David Duke" etc etc.... with respect, Nick Griffin needed to explain why he was willing to stand on a stage and give a speech with David Duke and don't repeat his line of Duke being the leader of "a peaceful sect of the KKK". There is no such thing as a peaceful KKK and dressing them up in suits and ties doesn't make them any less hateful. The BNP are a joke. Why anyone would sympathise with them or Griffin is beyond me. That If is doing alot of heaving lifting, the audience member claiming it happened is a member of staff for Labour MP Chris Williamson, of 300 or 400 people there the only people to say anything are labour employees or activists hmmmmm Again, surely the most obvious thing for the BBC to do is to release the footage prior to the show airing. Mr Williamson will look like a liar, and the complaint will be laughed out the building? There's a study I don't have time to find right now but it was someone impartial and responsible, LSE or somewhere, that simply listed and contrasted the words used by the BBC to describe May and Corbyn in the lead-up to the 2017 General Election. Approx 75% of the BBC descriptors for May were positive, approx 75% for Corbyn were negative. That's bias. I find the BBC are politically non-partisan. They are driven by an agenda, rather than a political ideology. Their core values appear to be driven by identity rather than political allegiance. That is why they get a reputation for being left wing though, because their identity agenda (if you will) is broadly shared by the left. An interesting example of this, are two BBC shows I saw about 3 years ago: - One was called 'Is This Rape?' and it was shown on BBC Three. The idea was to drip feed small details of a fictional rape case involving two very young college students. The case was watched by a group of youngsters who needed to deduce whether he was guilty or not. Initially, she was painted in quite a bad light but as details emerged, it became clear he had raped her. He essentially took advantage of her being heavily intoxicated. They actually did a superb job of showing firstly how too many young people don't understand consent, and secondly how rape isn't always "a man in a dark alley". Then............. the last 10 minutes took a M Night Shyamalan-esque turn, in-which they went from portraying him as a drunken opportunist into a psychopathic remorseless rapist with absolutely no emotion whatsoever. I'm surprised they didn't have him pull off a mask like in a Scooby-Doo cartoon that revealed his true identity to be John Worboys or something. They went even further with this by having his (obviously male) friends celebrate his subsequent rape via a group chat on WhatsApp. It went from being a brilliant educational show on how youngsters don't understand rape, how rapes on University campus' happen (and go unreported) etc etc, to simply being an all-out-attack on young males. The WhatsApp group stuff at the end was absolutely shocking and smacked of the UVA Rape Case style of reporting. - I forget the name of the second show (although it was available to view at the same time on iPlayer), but it was essentially about how 'men' don't understand women's issues. Unlike the show above, this show was never intended to be useful at all. It was a young woman with a megaphone going out and shouting ridiculously antagonistic remarks to males as they walked to work. Her crescendo moment was stood outside a tube station and as two men left she screamed (something along the lines of) "I'm sorry but I bleed for 5 days every month, does that make you uncomfortable?". No, it doesn't, but someone shouting down a megaphone in my ear does. These may seem like apolitical issues, but it's clear that this content is directed at a predominantly younger hard-left audience, hence why the BBC have got this reputation for being left wing. Like I said, I don't believe that... their agenda is identity, nothing more. I'd offer as another example a quiz on the BBC3 website last week which asked you to identify examples of workplace sexual harassment. Positive examples included a compliment on a colleague's perfume.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Jan 26, 2019 10:18:14 GMT
Just seen BBC Newswatch which was about Abbott on QT. Apparently lots of complaints about her treatment but also some basically saying that she was just incompetent. The Beeb have quite rightly in my view completely denied any bias or unfair treatment. To give a "neutral" view on the situation the studio guest this morning was .......a Labour supporter who had lived in Abbott's constituency ! The one bit I thought was shabby was when the bloke in the audience was given a free shot (in fairness, only saying things a majority probably think) but Abbott wasn't given an opportunity to respond or defend herself.
|
|