|
Post by vokeswagen on Jun 8, 2020 16:44:58 GMT
I can't find the article now but I read a BBC report on the trouble in London where it said something like "27 police officers injured in largely peaceful protests". From google searching trying to find the article, it seems the daily mail picked up on the absurdity / hypocrisy of that sentence and have their own article about it. That's unfortunate because I'm the opposite of a fan of that shitrag (the daily mail) so it probably hurts the point I'm making / incorrectly makes it seem like I'm being influenced by it rather than having the same thought independently, but it's a preposterous statement especially if you consider how they would word it if the same happened at other mass gathering. If 27 police officers were injured at a football match, I wonder if the BBC would write "27 police officers injured at largely peaceful local derby". I wonder what they would write if 27 were injured at a pro-Brexit gathering? Total cunt organisation. I'm proud that I haven't paid them in years and I'm making a vow now to stop checking their news page. I'm not even being facetious when I say this - Russia Today is less biased than the BBC's news arms. This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 17:03:39 GMT
I can't find the article now but I read a BBC report on the trouble in London where it said something like "27 police officers injured in largely peaceful protests". From google searching trying to find the article, it seems the daily mail picked up on the absurdity / hypocrisy of that sentence and have their own article about it. That's unfortunate because I'm the opposite of a fan of that shitrag (the daily mail) so it probably hurts the point I'm making / incorrectly makes it seem like I'm being influenced by it rather than having the same thought independently, but it's a preposterous statement especially if you consider how they would word it if the same happened at other mass gathering. If 27 police officers were injured at a football match, I wonder if the BBC would write "27 police officers injured at largely peaceful local derby". I wonder what they would write if 27 were injured at a pro-Brexit gathering? Total cunt organisation. I'm proud that I haven't paid them in years and I'm making a vow now to stop checking their news page. I'm not even being facetious when I say this - Russia Today is less biased than the BBC's news arms. This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?!Maybe I was being facetious when I said I'm not being facetious. But, not disregarding that there are surely many great individuals within our police forces, the UK police as a collective are a sick fucking joke. Their gross negligence in the grooming scandals demonstrates that. They were so terrified of igniting a tinderbox that they were wilfully blind to the infernos already raging. Maybe something similar is going on here. They're treading on eggshells and we all know why.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 8, 2020 17:04:56 GMT
I think the fact that clowns voted in a PM who can't even take the moral high ground on vandalism and threatening behaviour such is his chequered past speaks volumes and is entirely relevant. The fact you won't address the issue raised and presumably support it makes you a hypocrite of the most transparent kind. Let's address it, then. So in order to avoid hypocrisy, I guess your view of these 'protesters', and everyone associated with them, is same as your view of the Bullingdon Club? I look forward to your condemnation of the whole thing. If I did condemn it, it would hold more authority than the 50 quid note burning vandal and conspirator to violent behaviour, currently hiding in No 10.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 8, 2020 17:05:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 8, 2020 17:21:32 GMT
Let's address it, then. So in order to avoid hypocrisy, I guess your view of these 'protesters', and everyone associated with them, is same as your view of the Bullingdon Club? I look forward to your condemnation of the whole thing. If I did condemn it, it would hold more authority than the 50 quid note burning vandal and conspirator to violent behaviour, currently hiding in No 10. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jun 8, 2020 17:28:56 GMT
This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?!Maybe I was being facetious when I said I'm not being facetious. But, not disregarding that there are surely many great individuals within our police forces, the UK police as a collective are a sick fucking joke. Their gross negligence in the grooming scandals demonstrates that. They were so terrified of igniting a tinderbox that they were wilfully blind to the infernos already raging. Maybe something similar is going on here. They're treading on eggshells and we all know why. For all of the the mocking, I still stand by my perception that the protests are encouraged to cause even more division, not less. It's almost like they wanted the money-shot of the flag-burning when you consider the cop response of saying 'please come down' like trying to rationalise with a toddler, then leaving him/her/they (unclear) to get on with it. The police handed over control during the climate mob chaos on many occasions and we see the same approach here. It's a funded and sponsored 'riot', promoted by globalist mouthpieces such as the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 8, 2020 17:58:41 GMT
Disgraceful I hope they catch and imprison all the fuckers but then I'd also hope the guardian sacked the cartonist who has previous for drawing Pritti Patel as a fat cow, or the photography writing shit outside of cummings house, or the "journalist" laughing at the injured pc or the "journalist" offering to fuck said officers wife or seamus and his dodgy views and thats before we even mention owens time spent making weird edits to wikipedia re jews and jewishness. Oh and I forgot the "journalist" saying the tories sent out the "brown" faces to talk afterwards not that they sent out the home secretary.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 8, 2020 18:34:36 GMT
Maybe I was being facetious when I said I'm not being facetious. But, not disregarding that there are surely many great individuals within our police forces, the UK police as a collective are a sick fucking joke. Their gross negligence in the grooming scandals demonstrates that. They were so terrified of igniting a tinderbox that they were wilfully blind to their infernos already raging. Maybe something similar is going on here. They're treading on eggshells and we all know why. For all of the the mocking, I still stand by my perception that the protests are encouraged to cause even more division, not less. It's almost like they wanted the money-shot of the flag-burning when you consider the cop response of saying 'please come down' like trying to rationalise with a toddler, then leaving him/her/they (unclear) to get on with it. The police handed over control during the climate mob chaos on many occasions and we see the same approach here. It's a funded and sponsored 'riot', promoted by globalist mouthpieces such as the BBC. I don't think I'd go that far, but it certainly helps the government to have some rioting and wanton destruction going on as it divides opinion and deflects attention away from the actual issue. People then argue about the rioting and divide along the usual lines.
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Jun 9, 2020 5:23:50 GMT
This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?!Maybe I was being facetious when I said I'm not being facetious. But, not disregarding that there are surely many great individuals within our police forces, the UK police as a collective are a sick fucking joke. Their gross negligence in the grooming scandals demonstrates that. They were so terrified of igniting a tinderbox that they were wilfully blind to the infernos already raging. Maybe something similar is going on here. They're treading on eggshells and we all know why. I have to say as an "ordinary citizen" I do find it fairly alarming that perfectly decent "other ordinary citizens" such as yourself are so cynical about the BBC and the police as sources of information. They may not get it right all the time but they are provably more reliable than any number of online outlets with vested interests in whipping up hatred and misinformation about them. I do agree about the grooming gangs but I really don't think that "treading on eggshells" is a crazy idea here, given how the US protests have gone. There have been minimal arrests here and it's now calming down. Pragmatic policing. The real concern is that these conditions where folk such as yourself feel they have nothing to trust are exactly the conditions, history tells us, in which very bad people attain power and do very bad things.
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Jun 9, 2020 5:25:29 GMT
Maybe I was being facetious when I said I'm not being facetious. But, not disregarding that there are surely many great individuals within our police forces, the UK police as a collective are a sick fucking joke. Their gross negligence in the grooming scandals demonstrates that. They were so terrified of igniting a tinderbox that they were wilfully blind to the infernos already raging. Maybe something similar is going on here. They're treading on eggshells and we all know why. For all of the the mocking, I still stand by my perception that the protests are encouraged to cause even more division, not less. It's almost like they wanted the money-shot of the flag-burning when you consider the cop response of saying 'please come down' like trying to rationalise with a toddler, then leaving him/her/they (unclear) to get on with it. The police handed over control during the climate mob chaos on many occasions and we see the same approach here. It's a funded and sponsored 'riot', promoted by globalist mouthpieces such as the BBC. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jun 9, 2020 6:26:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 9, 2020 7:53:42 GMT
What happened to the UK thread? Is the Big Fight still on?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 10:28:42 GMT
Maybe I was being facetious when I said I'm not being facetious. But, not disregarding that there are surely many great individuals within our police forces, the UK police as a collective are a sick fucking joke. Their gross negligence in the grooming scandals demonstrates that. They were so terrified of igniting a tinderbox that they were wilfully blind to the infernos already raging. Maybe something similar is going on here. They're treading on eggshells and we all know why. I have to say as an "ordinary citizen" I do find it fairly alarming that perfectly decent "other ordinary citizens" such as yourself are so cynical about the BBC and the police as sources of information. They may not get it right all the time but they are provably more reliable than any number of online outlets with vested interests in whipping up hatred and misinformation about them. I do agree about the grooming gangs but I really don't think that "treading on eggshells" is a crazy idea here, given how the US protests have gone. There have been minimal arrests here and it's now calming down. Pragmatic policing. The real concern is that these conditions where folk such as yourself feel they have nothing to trust are exactly the conditions, history tells us, in which very bad people attain power and do very bad things.Good post. You are right in what you say about the bbc. The issue however is not whether the bbc is more or less partisan than private media organisations (in many cases provably less as you say) but that the bbc, unlike private media, has no right to meander from impartiality - and the organisation has wandered so far from the path of impartiality that it’s very difficult for someone like me (who sees the bad in their politics) not to see it as a total affront and a national outrage. The news site for example has been a progressive propaganda leaflet for the best part of a decade now. And, whilst people deny this, it’s also completely provable - their coverage of the referendum and the aftermath was a total scandal, and a total violation of any trust they had in my eyes. When influential people working there are incredulous at the suggestion that the bbc is biased, for the most part I actually think their unwillingness to even consider that there could be truth in the accusations is genuine. It makes sense to me. The woke, progressive and pro-globalist politics that the bbc champions is odd in that, the proponents of these mindsets have the generalised habit of feeling that their outlook is so righteous and so obviously correct, that they hardly even view it as a political position, and instead view it as a way of being. Good vs bad. So little wonder the “progressive” bbc don’t see their political biases. Ultimately though, a great many people do see the fallacies and dangers in their world outlook so I think it’s fairly fucking outrageous that they’re taxing the nation to then expose them to political outlooks that maybe only 10% of the country share. With regards to the worry that the resentment I and others harbour can lead to dark places - I take your point but I seriously don’t think there’s anyone ion this forum just biding their time before pledging their allegiance to hitler or Lord Voldemort. Maybe it’s a sign of the polarisation of politics that, you could largely split the EE political posters into two camps (yes I know retarded thought exercise and I wouldn’t like to pigeonhole myself or anyone else) but both sides seem terrified of the most extreme imagined consequences that the spread of the other sides’ ideas could lead to. I would bet my life that your worst fears will never even come close to pass. Let’s not forget that this is the same country that went to war vs the nazis in living memory, and paid for it with an empire. Maybe we all need to be a bit more introspective and a bit less willing to imagine the worst.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jun 9, 2020 11:13:24 GMT
From the ES, Lisa Nandy getting woke tough with the criminals:
Ms Nandy also appealed to the small number of people who have used violence at the Black Lives Matter protests to stop.
Asked what she would say to those who verbally abused and threw objects at police, she said: “I would say to them it’s wrong, stop it.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jun 9, 2020 13:02:26 GMT
I have to say as an "ordinary citizen" I do find it fairly alarming that perfectly decent "other ordinary citizens" such as yourself are so cynical about the BBC and the police as sources of information. They may not get it right all the time but they are provably more reliable than any number of online outlets with vested interests in whipping up hatred and misinformation about them. I do agree about the grooming gangs but I really don't think that "treading on eggshells" is a crazy idea here, given how the US protests have gone. There have been minimal arrests here and it's now calming down. Pragmatic policing. The real concern is that these conditions where folk such as yourself feel they have nothing to trust are exactly the conditions, history tells us, in which very bad people attain power and do very bad things.Good post. You are right in what you say about the bbc. The issue however is not whether the bbc is more or less partisan than private media organisations (in many cases provably less as you say) but that the bbc, unlike private media, has no right to meander from impartiality - and the organisation has wandered so far from the path of impartiality that it’s very difficult for someone like me (who sees the bad in their politics) not to see it as a total affront and a national outrage. The news site for example has been a progressive propaganda leaflet for the best part of a decade now. And, whilst people deny this, it’s also completely provable - their coverage of the referendum and the aftermath was a total scandal, and a total violation of any trust they had in my eyes. When influential people working there are incredulous at the suggestion that the bbc is biased, for the most part I actually think their unwillingness to even consider that there could be truth in the accusations is genuine. It makes sense to me. The woke, progressive and pro-globalist politics that the bbc champions is odd in that, the proponents of these mindsets have the generalised habit of feeling that their outlook is so righteous and so obviously correct, that they hardly even view it as a political position, and instead view it as a way of being. Good vs bad. So little wonder the “progressive” bbc don’t see their political biases. Ultimately though, a great many people do see the fallacies and dangers in their world outlook so I think it’s fairly fucking outrageous that they’re taxing the nation to then expose them to political outlooks that maybe only 10% of the country share. With regards to the worry that the resentment I and others harbour can lead to dark places - I take your point but I seriously don’t think there’s anyone ion this forum just biding their time before pledging their allegiance to hitler or Lord Voldemort. Maybe it’s a sign of the polarisation of politics that, you could largely split the EE political posters into two camps (yes I know retarded thought exercise and I wouldn’t like to pigeonhole myself or anyone else) but both sides seem terrified of the most extreme imagined consequences that the spread of the other sides’ ideas could lead to. I would bet my life that your worst fears will never even come close to pass. Let’s not forget that this is the same country that went to war vs the nazis in living memory, and paid for it with an empire. Maybe we all need to be a bit more introspective and a bit less willing to imagine the worst. There is no way the Beeb is lefty. Farage has highest appearences on QT matched with Ken Clark but he's averaging nearly 2 appearances a year! If you look at how the board is made up after the change to the Charter in 2016 impartiality is out the window. Aside from the government holding a gun to their head about changing to funding around licenses it also introduced the Unitary Board. Clementi heads it and he was the choice of Theresa May. The government then pick four members of the board directly to represent each country. Clementi then chairs the process to appoint another 5. The remaining 4 members, including director general, are chosen by the BBC. Although the Director General is responsible for editorial decisions the Unity Board 'output in the public interest'. The current Director General has quit and the interview process for their replacement is chaired by Clementi. The government have 5 members they've chosen plus Clementi's 6 so have 11 out of 14. Ofcom became independent regulator although government will provide 'guidence' to them on 'content requirements'. In terms of left v right I'd say they're centre-right traditional conservative all day long. In terms of bias they were completely biased beyond belief against Scottish Independence. On Brexit I could never make my mind up as one minute they'd have a sneering contempt for brexit voters they could barely hide but the next Britannia were ruling the waves with Nigel never off the tele.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Jun 9, 2020 13:27:23 GMT
I can't find the article now but I read a BBC report on the trouble in London where it said something like "27 police officers injured in largely peaceful protests". From google searching trying to find the article, it seems the daily mail picked up on the absurdity / hypocrisy of that sentence and have their own article about it. That's unfortunate because I'm the opposite of a fan of that shitrag (the daily mail) so it probably hurts the point I'm making / incorrectly makes it seem like I'm being influenced by it rather than having the same thought independently, but it's a preposterous statement especially if you consider how they would word it if the same happened at other mass gathering. If 27 police officers were injured at a football match, I wonder if the BBC would write "27 police officers injured at largely peaceful local derby". I wonder what they would write if 27 were injured at a pro-Brexit gathering? Total cunt organisation. I'm proud that I haven't paid them in years and I'm making a vow now to stop checking their news page. I'm not even being facetious when I say this - Russia Today is less biased than the BBC's news arms. This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?! Not unbiased at street level but controlled by wimpy seniors. Like everywhere else these progressives have got into high positions. Kneeling coppers are a political statement. They are suppose to be apolitical. And that useless cunt in Bristol shouldn't be anywhere near a uniform
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jun 9, 2020 13:33:45 GMT
This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?! Not unbiased at street level but controlled by wimpy seniors. Like everywhere else these progressives have got into high positions. Kneeling coppers are a political statement. They are suppose to be apolitical. And that useless cunt in Bristol shouldn't be anywhere near a uniform Read up on this organisation then, it explains a great deal about how we're in the position we're in: www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purposeI worked 10 years for an organisation where the bosses were members. Utterly deluded creatures. This is what you're up against.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jun 9, 2020 13:47:40 GMT
This is demonstrably not true if you read up on the standards that these organisations work to. In the case of the BBC reporting that the protests were largely peaceful, that is an assertion that's made by the police themselves. Maybe that's why the BBC stated it, assuming quite reasonably that the police were fairly well placed to determine how peaceful the protests were. Or are the UK police also more biased than Russia Today?! Not unbiased at street level but controlled by wimpy seniors. Like everywhere else these progressives have got into high positions. Kneeling coppers are a political statement. They are suppose to be apolitical. And that useless cunt in Bristol shouldn't be anywhere near a uniform Watching the interview with a "high ranking Police spokesman" the day after the statue was demolished confirmed to me that they would have let these thugs do almost anything, he said the Police did not intervene whilst the criminals were destroying the statue "because they have the proper equipment to do so safely", WTF is that about maybe if the mob didn't have the proper equipment the Police would have provided it for them. What a bunch of spineless useless twats they are paid to uphold the law not stand around watching criminals break it with no intervention, just off to rob a bank, do I have the proper equipment face mask, rubber gloves, swag bag, shotgun and assorted hammers, pretty sure I will get away with it talk about setting precedents, those officers who stood around were neglecting their roles which is a dereliction of duty and all should be sacked.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jun 9, 2020 13:48:10 GMT
I have to say as an "ordinary citizen" I do find it fairly alarming that perfectly decent "other ordinary citizens" such as yourself are so cynical about the BBC and the police as sources of information. They may not get it right all the time but they are provably more reliable than any number of online outlets with vested interests in whipping up hatred and misinformation about them. I do agree about the grooming gangs but I really don't think that "treading on eggshells" is a crazy idea here, given how the US protests have gone. There have been minimal arrests here and it's now calming down. Pragmatic policing. The real concern is that these conditions where folk such as yourself feel they have nothing to trust are exactly the conditions, history tells us, in which very bad people attain power and do very bad things.Good post. You are right in what you say about the bbc. The issue however is not whether the bbc is more or less partisan than private media organisations (in many cases provably less as you say) but that the bbc, unlike private media, has no right to meander from impartiality - and the organisation has wandered so far from the path of impartiality that it’s very difficult for someone like me (who sees the bad in their politics) not to see it as a total affront and a national outrage. The news site for example has been a progressive propaganda leaflet for the best part of a decade now. And, whilst people deny this, it’s also completely provable - their coverage of the referendum and the aftermath was a total scandal, and a total violation of any trust they had in my eyes. When influential people working there are incredulous at the suggestion that the bbc is biased, for the most part I actually think their unwillingness to even consider that there could be truth in the accusations is genuine. It makes sense to me. The woke, progressive and pro-globalist politics that the bbc champions is odd in that, the proponents of these mindsets have the generalised habit of feeling that their outlook is so righteous and so obviously correct, that they hardly even view it as a political position, and instead view it as a way of being. Good vs bad. So little wonder the “progressive” bbc don’t see their political biases. Ultimately though, a great many people do see the fallacies and dangers in their world outlook so I think it’s fairly fucking outrageous that they’re taxing the nation to then expose them to political outlooks that maybe only 10% of the country share. With regards to the worry that the resentment I and others harbour can lead to dark places - I take your point but I seriously don’t think there’s anyone ion this forum just biding their time before pledging their allegiance to hitler or Lord Voldemort. Maybe it’s a sign of the polarisation of politics that, you could largely split the EE political posters into two camps (yes I know retarded thought exercise and I wouldn’t like to pigeonhole myself or anyone else) but both sides seem terrified of the most extreme imagined consequences that the spread of the other sides’ ideas could lead to. I would bet my life that your worst fears will never even come close to pass. Let’s not forget that this is the same country that went to war vs the nazis in living memory, and paid for it with an empire. Maybe we all need to be a bit more introspective and a bit less willing to imagine the worst. Magnificent.
|
|
|
Post by longdistancekiddie on Jun 9, 2020 13:51:03 GMT
What happened to the UK thread? Is the Big Fight still on? Postponed due to covid. Venue, Old Hut, date to be confirmed
|
|
|
Post by murphthesurf on Jun 9, 2020 14:00:03 GMT
Good post. You are right in what you say about the bbc. The issue however is not whether the bbc is more or less partisan than private media organisations (in many cases provably less as you say) but that the bbc, unlike private media, has no right to meander from impartiality - and the organisation has wandered so far from the path of impartiality that it’s very difficult for someone like me (who sees the bad in their politics) not to see it as a total affront and a national outrage. The news site for example has been a progressive propaganda leaflet for the best part of a decade now. And, whilst people deny this, it’s also completely provable - their coverage of the referendum and the aftermath was a total scandal, and a total violation of any trust they had in my eyes. When influential people working there are incredulous at the suggestion that the bbc is biased, for the most part I actually think their unwillingness to even consider that there could be truth in the accusations is genuine. It makes sense to me. The woke, progressive and pro-globalist politics that the bbc champions is odd in that, the proponents of these mindsets have the generalised habit of feeling that their outlook is so righteous and so obviously correct, that they hardly even view it as a political position, and instead view it as a way of being. Good vs bad. So little wonder the “progressive” bbc don’t see their political biases. Ultimately though, a great many people do see the fallacies and dangers in their world outlook so I think it’s fairly fucking outrageous that they’re taxing the nation to then expose them to political outlooks that maybe only 10% of the country share. With regards to the worry that the resentment I and others harbour can lead to dark places - I take your point but I seriously don’t think there’s anyone ion this forum just biding their time before pledging their allegiance to hitler or Lord Voldemort. Maybe it’s a sign of the polarisation of politics that, you could largely split the EE political posters into two camps (yes I know retarded thought exercise and I wouldn’t like to pigeonhole myself or anyone else) but both sides seem terrified of the most extreme imagined consequences that the spread of the other sides’ ideas could lead to. I would bet my life that your worst fears will never even come close to pass. Let’s not forget that this is the same country that went to war vs the nazis in living memory, and paid for it with an empire. Maybe we all need to be a bit more introspective and a bit less willing to imagine the worst. Magnificent. Agreed. Magnificent indeed. Take a bow, stokiepmre89.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 14:01:48 GMT
Good post. You are right in what you say about the bbc. The issue however is not whether the bbc is more or less partisan than private media organisations (in many cases provably less as you say) but that the bbc, unlike private media, has no right to meander from impartiality - and the organisation has wandered so far from the path of impartiality that it’s very difficult for someone like me (who sees the bad in their politics) not to see it as a total affront and a national outrage. The news site for example has been a progressive propaganda leaflet for the best part of a decade now. And, whilst people deny this, it’s also completely provable - their coverage of the referendum and the aftermath was a total scandal, and a total violation of any trust they had in my eyes. When influential people working there are incredulous at the suggestion that the bbc is biased, for the most part I actually think their unwillingness to even consider that there could be truth in the accusations is genuine. It makes sense to me. The woke, progressive and pro-globalist politics that the bbc champions is odd in that, the proponents of these mindsets have the generalised habit of feeling that their outlook is so righteous and so obviously correct, that they hardly even view it as a political position, and instead view it as a way of being. Good vs bad. So little wonder the “progressive” bbc don’t see their political biases. Ultimately though, a great many people do see the fallacies and dangers in their world outlook so I think it’s fairly fucking outrageous that they’re taxing the nation to then expose them to political outlooks that maybe only 10% of the country share. With regards to the worry that the resentment I and others harbour can lead to dark places - I take your point but I seriously don’t think there’s anyone ion this forum just biding their time before pledging their allegiance to hitler or Lord Voldemort. Maybe it’s a sign of the polarisation of politics that, you could largely split the EE political posters into two camps (yes I know retarded thought exercise and I wouldn’t like to pigeonhole myself or anyone else) but both sides seem terrified of the most extreme imagined consequences that the spread of the other sides’ ideas could lead to. I would bet my life that your worst fears will never even come close to pass. Let’s not forget that this is the same country that went to war vs the nazis in living memory, and paid for it with an empire. Maybe we all need to be a bit more introspective and a bit less willing to imagine the worst. There is no way the Beeb is lefty. Farage has highest appearences on QT matched with Ken Clark but he's averaging nearly 2 appearances a year! If you look at how the board is made up after the change to the Charter in 2016 impartiality is out the window. Aside from the government holding a gun to their head about changing to funding around licenses it also introduced the Unitary Board. Clementi heads it and he was the choice of Theresa May. The government then pick four members of the board directly to represent each country. Clementi then chairs the process to appoint another 5. The remaining 4 members, including director general, are chosen by the BBC. Although the Director General is responsible for editorial decisions the Unity Board 'output in the public interest'. The current Director General has quit and the interview process for their replacement is chaired by Clementi. The government have 5 members they've chosen plus Clementi's 6 so have 11 out of 14. Ofcom became independent regulator although government will provide 'guidence' to them on 'content requirements'. In terms of left v right I'd say they're centre-right traditional conservative all day long. In terms of bias they were completely biased beyond belief against Scottish Independence. On Brexit I could never make my mind up as one minute they'd have a sneering contempt for brexit voters they could barely hide but the next Britannia were ruling the waves with Nigel never off the tele. Tim Davie has been appointed, here's the BBC link that doesn't once mention that he's was a councillor, and deputy chair of the Fulham Conservative party throughout the 90's..... link
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jun 9, 2020 14:17:16 GMT
There is no way the Beeb is lefty. Farage has highest appearences on QT matched with Ken Clark but he's averaging nearly 2 appearances a year! If you look at how the board is made up after the change to the Charter in 2016 impartiality is out the window. Aside from the government holding a gun to their head about changing to funding around licenses it also introduced the Unitary Board. Clementi heads it and he was the choice of Theresa May. The government then pick four members of the board directly to represent each country. Clementi then chairs the process to appoint another 5. The remaining 4 members, including director general, are chosen by the BBC. Although the Director General is responsible for editorial decisions the Unity Board 'output in the public interest'. The current Director General has quit and the interview process for their replacement is chaired by Clementi. The government have 5 members they've chosen plus Clementi's 6 so have 11 out of 14. Ofcom became independent regulator although government will provide 'guidence' to them on 'content requirements'. In terms of left v right I'd say they're centre-right traditional conservative all day long. In terms of bias they were completely biased beyond belief against Scottish Independence. On Brexit I could never make my mind up as one minute they'd have a sneering contempt for brexit voters they could barely hide but the next Britannia were ruling the waves with Nigel never off the tele. Tim Davie has been appointed, here's the BBC link that doesn't once mention that he's was a councillor, and deputy chair of the Fulham Conservative party throughout the 90's..... linkFFS - I had a fiver on the lass from Channel 4 but that was soley based on the fact she seemed the most suitably qualified.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jun 9, 2020 16:19:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 9, 2020 16:25:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jun 9, 2020 17:47:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 9, 2020 17:59:14 GMT
Ridiculous, What does this achieve other than more demonstrations of people trying to be more woke than everyone else No sane normal person supports racism
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 9, 2020 18:10:34 GMT
To be honest I wouldn't be averse to Angela kneeling in front of me.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 9, 2020 18:46:21 GMT
No sane normal person supports racism You sure? Mainstream broadcaster and friend of the Tory Party Nick Ferrari asks this black woman 'why do you stay in this country'. Unless you're white British, it doesn't matter, you never truly belong here regardless of your status. It's endemic and normalised and that's why just waiting around for things to change isn't an option.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 9, 2020 18:56:02 GMT
No sane normal person supports racism You sure? Mainstream broadcaster and friend of the Tory Party Nick Ferrari asks this black woman 'why do you stay in this country'. Unless you're white British, it doesn't matter, you never truly belong here regardless of your status. It's endemic and normalised and that's why just waiting around for things to change isn't an option. And kier Starmer kneeling down will stop idiots like that?
|
|