The bbc, again.

[Wisbech Eagle]

Even the peaceful protesters said it’s out of order and a percentage only turned up to loot , attack police and generally cause mayhem. Do you not believe them either?

I don’t doubt for a moment that’s true. It’s always the case that some will seek to take advantage of such situations.

That that does not mean that most were peaceful. It’s entirely a separate scenario.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

How the feck did Sky turn this way?

the Sky production-office watched a few videos of the Charlie Hebdo production office.

 

[cryrst]

I don’t doubt for a moment that’s true. It’s always the case that some will seek to take advantage of such situations.

That that does not mean that most were peaceful. It’s entirely a separate scenario.

I never said they were a majority.
Most were peaceful but many 1000s were not and with 2-3k arrested so far it was quite a large minority.
See the ironic pun !

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I cannot read that report as I don’t have an account and am not going to get one. I have though found the BBC’s own reporting of this incident. Which, unsurprisingly, doesn’t match either your description or the Telegraph headline.

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit

The clip aired on Newsnight in 2022, two years before the Panorama that led to the director-general's resignation.

www.bbc.co.uk

Keep on telling yourself that. The Head of News and the Director General both resigned over the issue which seems a bit preemptive if there was no case to answer.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I never said they were a majority.
Most were peaceful but many 1000s were not and with 2-3k arrested so far it was quite a large minority.
See the ironic pun !

Then you are confirming what the report said! That most were peaceful. It made no other claim. Despite you trying to imply it did.

 

[Spindle]

Peaceful protests don’t get covered on TV. Rioting and destruction does.

So it’s hardly surprising you have SEEN nothing else. You would need to have attended every protest to reach an informed opinion.

Oh right, so you think on balance it's ok that an historic building was torched then

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Keep on telling yourself that. The Head of News and the Director General both resigned over the issue which seems a bit preemptive if there was no case to answer.

They resigned because the Board asked them to. The Head of News did so reluctantly because she knew it was nothing more than an editing error and wanted to fight. The DG was ready to go. It must be the most frustrating of jobs.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Oh right, so you think on balance it's ok that an historic building was torched then

Why on earth would I think that?

It’s a total non sequitur.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They resigned because the Board asked them to. The Head of News did so reluctantly because she knew it was nothing more than an editing error and wanted to fight. The DG was ready to go. It must be the most frustrating of jobs.

If there was no case to answer they'll clean up at their wrongful dismissal cases.

 

[cryrst]

Then you are confirming what the report said! That most were peaceful. It made no other claim. Despite you trying to imply it did.

Your tele not working I guess ?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Your tele not working I guess ?

It would definitely be better if your’s wasn’t!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

If there was no case to answer they'll clean up at their wrongful dismissal cases.

They resigned, not dismissed. Undoubtedly by agreement which would have included a separation package and NDA. It’s not unusual. Nor have either made public statements since.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They resigned, not dismissed. Undoubtedly by agreement which would have included a separation package and NDA. It’s not unusual. Nor have either made public statements since.

All for a completely innocent mistake. If Trump had been made out to be the good guy that would've been a genuine mistake but that didn't happen. However you try to defend this the BBC aired a deliberately misleading story as confirmed by their own internal report.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I will try to watch this programme before I make any detailed comment. It doesn’t feature on my usual viewing list. However, I would wager there is a great deal more involved than the simple accusations being tossed about.

Why would a BBC programme favour the right? They are required to be neutral!

It seems the programme isn’t on the BBC at all, but on a source available to teachers called Roblox. We cannot see it. Teachers choose whether to use it, or not.

It’s a theoretical scenario intended to get children to face challenging questions about a “southern European” country facing labour shortages. Not the UK. Nor illegal migration. Read more here, without having to get past the Mail spin machine:-

Population and migration: Increasing immigration

This BBC Bitesize Planet Planners on Roblox scenario puts students in charge of a region experiencing high immigration.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Spindle]

Why on earth would I think that?

It’s a total non sequitur.

Why on earth?

Do you think it justified or not? It's not nothing, it would be like burning down Blenheim Palace because you were unhappy with school funding. Is it ok or not?

 

[Spindle]

They resigned, not dismissed. Undoubtedly by agreement which would have included a separation package and NDA. It’s not unusual. Nor have either made public statements since.

How convenient

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

All for a completely innocent mistake. If Trump had been made out to be the good guy that would've been a genuine mistake but that didn't happen. However you try to defend this the BBC aired a deliberately misleading story as confirmed by their own internal report.

Totally untrue. Read the BBC’s own account rather than that from right wing sources whose sole motivation is to stick a knife into the BBC and ignore the truth.

Their internal report did not say that. You are simply repeating spin. This was an editing error. One considered unimportant because it made no material difference to the point being made about what motivated the rioters. They drew their motivation from a long sequence of Trump statements in the days and weeks prior to this event. The two clips ought to have been separated by a pause, that is accepted, but not that he was defamed, or that it was deliberate. It wasn’t about him and was a mistake. Nothing more.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How convenient

Have you ever signed a NDA. I have and remain bound by them. It isn’t convenient but it is pragmatic to avoid long drawn out tribunal hearings. Executives always possess company information that would be valuable to a competitor. That’s why it’s done.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Totally untrue. Read the BBC’s own account rather than that from right wing sources whose sole motivation is to stick a knife into the BBC and ignore the truth.

Their internal report did not say that. You are simply repeating spin. This was an editing error. One considered unimportant because it made no material difference to the point being made about what motivated the rioters. They drew their motivation from a long sequence of Trump statements in the days and weeks prior to this event. The two clips ought to have been separated by a pause, that is accepted, but not that he was defamed, or that it was deliberate. It wasn’t about him and was a mistake. Nothing more.

Read what the BBC said about it.

Last week, a leaked internal BBC memo claimed Panorama had misled viewers by splicing two parts of Trump's 6 January 2021 speech together, making it appear as though he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.