The bbc, again.

[Badger11]

The David Lammy of HOL.

Comical Ali more like, "What tanks?"

 

[Badger11]

Sigh, another day another....

BBC coverage of gender issues is being 'censored' by pro-trans staff

Other staff members at the public broadcast have shared concerns that a 'small group of people' are keeping anti-transgender 'perspectives off the air'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This one from the Head of OFCOM still it's only the Mail so nothing to see here.

Ofcom boss calls for BBC to 'seriously' examine impartiality concerns

The head of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom has called on the BBC to 'seriously' examine concerns over impartiality - as the whistleblower prepares to give evidence to parliament.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[georgenorman]

Orwell talking about the BBC:
“At present I’m just an orange that’s been trodden on by a very dirty boot.”
“[The BBC’s] atmosphere is something halfway between a girls’ school and a lunatic asylum, and all we are doing at present is useless, or slightly worse than useless.”
“I have left the BBC after two wasted years in it.”
“one rapidly becomes propaganda-minded and develops a cunning one did not previously have.”
“I am regularly alleging in all my newsletters that the Japanese are plotting the attack Russia but “I don’t believe this to be so.”
“All propaganda is lies, even when one is telling the truth. I don’t think this matters so long as one knows what one is doing, and why.”

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Sigh, another day another....

BBC coverage of gender issues is being 'censored' by pro-trans staff

Other staff members at the public broadcast have shared concerns that a 'small group of people' are keeping anti-transgender 'perspectives off the air'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This one from the Head of OFCOM still it's only the Mail so nothing to see here.

Ofcom boss calls for BBC to 'seriously' examine impartiality concerns

The head of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom has called on the BBC to 'seriously' examine concerns over impartiality - as the whistleblower prepares to give evidence to parliament.

www.dailymail.co.uk

So the same guy who has criticised the BBC on other issues is making a fuss about another one! That says more about him than ever it does about the BBC. We know there are people, almost exclusively on the political fringes, who believe the BBC are biased. That’s not true though of the majority.

What do you expect Ofcom to say? Just ignore the criticism and carry on?

Of course they want the BBC to consider it and respond. As they should and will.

This isn’t news! It’s the Mail doing what the Mail always does whether ever anything potentially negative about the BBC surfaces. They stir up the shite and wind up the prejudiced.

If I have a criticism of the BBC it is that they appear intimidated by the constant attacks by the right and are consequently favouring them to placate them. I would like them to be more robust in defence of their even handed approach.

 

[McAhuna]

Hrolf is right, ignored people shouldn’t be able to reply to your posts.

Unless their posts are selectively edited by the mods to make them sound like an even bigger bellend.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Yes they did.

BBC accused of selectively editing Trump clip from day of Capitol attack

Panorama spliced together clips to make it appear clearer president encouraged attack, former external adviser says

www.theguardian.com

Read the headline.

That anyone accuses someone of doing something doesn’t mean they did it.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

After BBC style editing.

So the same guy who has criticised Trump on other issues is making a fuss about another one! That says more about him than ever it does about Trump.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

GB News - shut it down
BBC - the subject needs editing for the audience

Top trolling

What a surprise! If your comment had a headline it would be:-

“Right wing supporter of Trump cannot tell a lie from the truth”

 

[Common Sense Club]

Read the headline.

That anyone accuses someone of doing something doesn’t mean they did it.

Perhaps the hearing could be at Snaresbrook Crown Court, just to give the defendant a better chance of being found not guilty...

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Read the headline.

That anyone accuses someone of doing something doesn’t mean they did it.

But they did.

In his speech in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Trump said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
However, in Panorama's edit, he was shown saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Perhaps the hearing could be at Snaresbrook Crown Court, just to give the defendant a better chance of being found not guilty...

Not just a better chance at Snaresbrook - almost a racing certainty.

 

[Mattconrov]

Unless their posts are selectively edited by the mods to make them sound like an even bigger bellend.

I would imagine that anyone blocked by someone, will naturally touch on something written by their nemesis through other posts.
It would be difficult to moderate.

Personally if you can't take someone else's opinion on here, then probably don't bother coming on it at all.

Just like the footballers getting different kinds of abuse on line. Don't have a social media platform if you can't stand hurty words.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

After BBC style editing.

So the same guy who has criticised Trump on other issues is making a fuss about another one! That says more about him than ever it does about Trump.

The difference being I don’t deny it. I defend doing it.

Trump is such a massive danger to us all that everything he does needs to be examined and questioned.

Those that seek to dismiss this as just me being obsessed with a particular subject are out of touch with reality. There are millions of people as concerned, all responding in their own way.

Mine being countering bs and criticising ambivalence on web forums.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The difference being I don’t deny it. I defend doing it.

Trump is such a massive danger to us all that everything he does needs to be examined and questioned.

Those that seek to dismiss this as just me being obsessed with a particular subject are out of touch with reality. There are millions of people as concerned, all responding in their own way.

Mine being countering bs and criticising ambivalence on web forums.

And with great success. He's really on the ropes after 9 years of posting to people who can't vote for him.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

But they did.

In his speech in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Trump said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
However, in Panorama's edit, he was shown saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart.

So what!

You need to look at the whole picture, of his attitude and words in the days and weeks prior, of what he said in total during the speech, but also what he didn’t say! Then look at what he did as the mob broke into the Capitol and threatened the people there, forcing them to take refuge and fear for their lives. He just watched. It wasn’t until late in the day he, under pressure from Ivanka, he told them it was enough and they should go home.

Was that really “cheering our brave senators and congressmen and women” or were those words just thrown in to prepare some plausible deniability?

Did he try to calm the mob and reassure them that democracy must always be respected?

So did the editing portray the reality of his actions, or not?

The answer will depend on how you view Trump. It’s not absolute.

 

[georgenorman]

So what!

You need to look at the whole picture, of his attitude and words in the days and weeks prior, of what he said in total during the speech, but also what he didn’t say! Then look at what he did as the mob broke into the Capitol and threatened the people there, forcing them to take refuge and fear for their lives. He just watched. It wasn’t until late in the day he, under pressure from Ivanka, he told them it was enough and they should go home.

Was that really “cheering our brave senators and congressmen and women” or were those words just thrown in to prepare some plausible deniability?

Did he try to calm the mob and reassure them that democracy must always be respected?

So did the editing portray the reality of his actions, or not?

The answer will depend on how you view Trump. It’s not absolute.

Goebbels would be proud of you.

 

[McAhuna]

I would imagine that anyone blocked by someone, will naturally touch on something written by their nemesis through other posts.
It would be difficult to moderate.

Personally if you can't take someone else's opinion on here, then probably don't bother coming on it at all.

Just like the footballers getting different kinds of abuse on line. Don't have a social media platform if you can't stand hurty words.

My comment that mods should edit the posts was tongue in cheek given the thread topic.

But I agree with what you say. I haven't blocked anyone.
But I find it amusing that Wisbech liked the above post, after announcing he was blocking me for hurty words. 🤣

 

[Common Sense Club]

So what!

You need to look at the whole picture, of his attitude and words in the days and weeks prior, of what he said in total during the speech, but also what he didn’t say! Then look at what he did as the mob broke into the Capitol and threatened the people there, forcing them to take refuge and fear for their lives. He just watched. It wasn’t until late in the day he, under pressure from Ivanka, he told them it was enough and they should go home.

Was that really “cheering our brave senators and congressmen and women” or were those words just thrown in to prepare some plausible deniability?

Did he try to calm the mob and reassure them that democracy must always be respected?

So did the editing portray the reality of his actions, or not?

The answer will depend on how you view Trump. It’s not absolute.

I don’t recall him saying that they should slit their throats whilst gesturing the action, but perhaps that was edited out.

 

[McAhuna]

So what!

You need to look at the whole picture, of his attitude and words in the days and weeks prior, of what he said in total during the speech, but also what he didn’t say! Then look at what he did as the mob broke into the Capitol and threatened the people there, forcing them to take refuge and fear for their lives. He just watched. It wasn’t until late in the day he, under pressure from Ivanka, he told them it was enough and they should go home.

Was that really “cheering our brave senators and congressmen and women” or were those words just thrown in to prepare some plausible deniability?

Did he try to calm the mob and reassure them that democracy must always be respected?

So did the editing portray the reality of his actions, or not?

The answer will depend on how you view Trump. It’s not absolute.

Are we playing the game of what people didn't say?

Because I must have missed your condemnation of the multiple peadoes at the BBC and 'our treasured national broadcasters' role in covering them up.

 

[McAhuna]

But they did.

In his speech in Washington DC on 6 January 2021, Trump said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
However, in Panorama's edit, he was shown saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."
The two sections of the speech that were edited together were more than 50 minutes apart.

That is clearly indefensible by the BBC, and far more serious then just editing out the waffle.