The bbc, again.

[Badger11]

Since Epstein was a Mossad agent, I would be surprised if there was anyone who would be off-limits to try and honey-trap.

It appears that the Democrats and the BBC might be cooperating.
Not a good look (again) for our supposedly politically neutral national broadcaster.

I have spent the week slagging off the BBC and rightly so.

However the driver here is the Democrats and the BBC was obligated to report it like every other MSM and also to report that the Republicans had released the same information without the unnecessary redaction.

Shame on the Democrats.

 

[McAhuna]

I have spent the week slagging off the BBC and rightly so.

However the driver here is the Democrats and the BBC was obligated to report it like every other MSM and also to report that the Republicans had released the same information without the unnecessary redaction.

Shame on the Democrats.

Yes, but don't you think it smacks of possible collusion?

It takes the flak off the BBC for a moment, and keeps Trumps lawyers occupied with something else.

 

[McAhuna]

If you might take off your monocular for a second...

No. our national broadcaster's news outlet has reported on a subject that is being widely reported elsewhere which includes, of course, the USA.

What else would you expect them to do? keep quiet about it because they're in fear of Trump?

They're news reporters, for goodness sake.

You need to read the post I was responding to
i.e. "Do they think threatening to print more information about Trump and Epstein might deter Trump and his legal action ?"

 

[ASCPFC]

You need to read the post I was responding to
i.e. "Do they think threatening to print more information about Trump and Epstein might deter Trump and his legal action ?"

Probably just make him double down on his threats of legal action.

 

[Spindle]

I wouldn't say I am a climate-denier. I think there is some man-made climate change, but likely other things going on as well, including solar cycles and mis-presented and exaggerated data. I think its interesting to examine what is really going on, not just what we are told is 'acceptable' to believe.

I certainly don't accept what teacher and/or Newsround says, and aggressively defend the establishment world-view like a brain-washed NPC beta cuck.

Oh ....and the "Please mods, please don't punish me" plea at the end. Hilarious and truly pathetic at the same time. Thanks for the entertainment 🤣

"Solar cycles" lol you are clueless, you've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Glazier#1]

You need to read the post I was responding to
i.e. "Do they think threatening to print more information about Trump and Epstein might deter Trump and his legal action ?"

And?

 

[McAhuna]

For the record though, the Epstein list obviously should be released in full and all clients investigated by the Police.

Just not used as a weasly shield to defend the 6 figure salaries of BBC execs.

 

[Spindle]

Ha ha ha BBC going at Trump. Gonna end well

Epstein alleged that Trump 'spent hours' with one of his victims, as thousands of documents released


That headline implies that it's a victim of Trump, but.....

the unnamed "victim" referenced is "the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever"

New Epstein emails that mention Trump released by House Democrats - live updates

The White House says released emails create a "fake narrative". It also says the victim - whose name is redacted in the emails - is the late Virginia Giuffre.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[McAhuna]

JUST IN: Karoline Leavitt: “Donald Trump’s lawsuit will continue despite apology.”

 

[Living In Hope]

I have probably missed it because there is so much posted on here. But I can't see much discussion on Martine Croxall amidst all the discussion of Panorama and Trump. In some ways I found that more disturbing than the Trump issue. In instructing its presenters to use the words "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" the BBC is clearly organisationally promoting the belief system of gender ideology in preference to the scientific fact of biological sex. You might be able to dismiss the Trump issue as a rogue journalist doing something completely inappropriate, but the Croxall issue tells of a particular belief system being completely ingrained in the systems and processes of the BBC.

The BBC's news / documentary reporting should be informed by science and fact. I respect people's right to believe in gender ideology, but the BBC should no more promote it than they should promote other non-scientific belief systems such as religions.

 

[eaglesdare]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1988677842117533811

BBC at it again.

 

[McAhuna]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1988677842117533811

BBC at it again.

Of all the weeks to do that.

If anyone was still on the fence about whether they are worth saving, this proves (once again) that they are rotten to the core. They can't help themselves.

 

[ASCPFC]

JUST IN: Karoline Leavitt: “Donald Trump’s lawsuit will continue despite apology.”

They'll just go double or quits again. It's other people's money.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I have probably missed it because there is so much posted on here. But I can't see much discussion on Martine Croxall amidst all the discussion of Panorama and Trump. In some ways I found that more disturbing than the Trump issue. In instructing its presenters to use the words "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" the BBC is clearly organisationally promoting the belief system of gender ideology in preference to the scientific fact of biological sex. You might be able to dismiss the Trump issue as a rogue journalist doing something completely inappropriate, but the Croxall issue tells of a particular belief system being completely ingrained in the systems and processes of the BBC.

The BBC's news / documentary reporting should be informed by science and fact. I respect people's right to believe in gender ideology, but the BBC should no more promote it than they should promote other non-scientific belief systems such as religions.

What nonsense. It’s one sub editor changing some text. Was this before, or after, the Supreme Court ruling on the issue? A ruling that was acknowledged at the time was going to produce challenges for journalists.

There is no evidence at all that the BBC have taken any particular stance on this. They have reported the dissenting voices. Women are people so it’s a perfectly true statement, which ought not matter to anyone.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1988677842117533811

BBC at it again.

What did the original report say? It’s been removed and updated. It looks pretty accurate to me. Lowe getting a poor response from all sides of the House.

Big bag of nothing but spite towards the BBC.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

BBC publishes stories linking Trump with Epstein via emails. I'm wondering if that's a good idea, as the BBC were so obviously in the wrong for the story Trump is primed to sue for.
Do they think threatening to print more information about Trump and Epstein might deter Trump and his legal action ?
Interesting.

New Epstein emails that mention Trump released by House Democrats - live updates

The White House says released emails create a "fake narrative". It also says the victim - whose name is redacted in the emails - is the late Virginia Giuffre.

www.bbc.co.uk

They aren’t publishing the stories. They are reporting on them.

Do you expect them to ignore them?

 

[Living In Hope]

What nonsense. It’s one sub editor changing some text. Was this before, or after, the Supreme Court ruling on the issue? A ruling that was acknowledged at the time was going to produce challenges for journalists.

There is no evidence at all that the BBC have taken any particular stance on this. They have reported the dissenting voices. Women are people so it’s a perfectly true statement, which ought not matter to anyone.

You are ignoring the fact that she was formally admonished by the BBC for rolling her eyes at being obliged to say "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" ? That is very clear evidence that the BBC has an official stance on the matter.

I have until recently defended the BBC, and I still very much hope that the answer is adjustment of the BBC, not its destruction.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

GB News are under far more scrutiny than any other news channel and have seen several attempts to have them closed down. When did they not comply?

Simply untrue.

There is clearly a coordinated campaign on the right of British politics to scrutinise everything the BBC does to try to find anything they can complain about.

GBNews is not really a news channel. It’s unashamedly biased to the right and makes no apologies for doing so. It has been found guilty 5 times so far of breaking the broadcasting code by Ofcom.

Ofcom has rules on broadcaster impartiality – so why is GB News getting away with breaking them?

Evidence shows the public still want impartiality from broadcasters.

theconversation.com

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The BBC being self appointed arbiters of what is and isn't true is hardly impartial. Take Trump out of the equation and this reasoning would be even more specious.

But they are not “self appointed”!

It’s required by us, via the Charter.

They are obliged to approach everything from an arbitrary point of view. That some people will disagree with every judgement is just inevitable but it doesn’t mean they don’t approach the task diligently and professionally.

The BBC is one of our last remaining pieces of treasure that sets us apart. You might not trust it but those around the world who live in countries with state controlled media do.

Live in Russia and want the truth? Do you go to Izvestia and get Putin’s opinion, or the BBC? Or you can try, via a VPN, because it’s blocked now.

 

[eaglesdare]

You are ignoring the fact that she was formally admonished by the BBC for rolling her eyes at being obliged to say "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" ? That is very clear evidence that the BBC has an official stance on the matter.

I have until recently defended the BBC, and I still very much hope that the answer is adjustment of the BBC, not its destruction.

Who could this: