The bbc, again.

Good insight to the real nature of the BBC here.


If people didn't know already, the BBC have a statue outside their London offices by Eric Gill, a notorious paedophile.
They have refused to take it down, of course.
I have personally seen the statue protected by rows of coppers (probably all on overtime).
The BBC didn't make 'honest mistakes'. They are openly pro-nonce.
 
McAhuna said:
Good insight to the real nature of the BBC here.


If people didn't know already, the BBC have a statue outside their London offices by Eric Gill, a notorious paedophile.
They have refused to take it down, of course.
I have personally seen the statue protected by rows of coppers (probably all on overtime).
The BBC didn't make 'honest mistakes'. They are openly pro-nonce.
Click to expand...
Gill was a lot worse than that but, nevertheless, the point remains.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
There were probably no depths which he didn't reach. The definition of wrong 'un.
Click to expand...
Wisbelch will be on in a minute defending them all and telling us how proud we should be and that we should be paying them more money.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So you agree that they altered what he said but still defend them for doing so. Apparently there's no difference in saying "I will not do something" and "I will do something" if the BBC says so.
This defence is just ridiculous and in this particular case Samuel Johnson was right in what he said about patriotism.
Click to expand...
No I don’t agree they altered what he said! Because he did say it. He just said other things as well that must have been thought either unimportant, deliberately misleading or confusing.

What they did was edit the speech. Something that is completely normal. What remained told the story. What they edited out didn’t. In their opinion. It was their report and their judgement. They don’t have to submit their reports to Trump, or anyone else, for approval. They need to ensure accuracy or they risk being sued for defamation or censure by Ofcom. Presumably they believed it was accurate. Obviously one member at least of the reviewing committee disagreed and has decided to leak their opinion to a newspaper known for their hostility towards the BBC.

What, if anything, happens next is unknown. The BBC are held to very high standards. Something their journalists take very seriously indeed. So it’s definitely possible that they could decide, on further review, that things could have been made clearer. We will know soon enough. Not that will stop the hate fest.

If you want to see the BBC at its best try watching, as I have this evening, Empire with David Olusoga. Really informative not only from a historical perspective but also in explaining a great deal about modern Britain.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No I don’t agree they altered what he said! Because he did say it. He just said other things as well that must have been thought either unimportant, deliberately misleading or confusing.

What they did was edit the speech. Something that is completely normal. What remained told the story. What they edited out didn’t. In their opinion. It was their report and their judgement. They don’t have to submit their reports to Trump, or anyone else, for approval. They need to ensure accuracy or they risk being sued for defamation or censure by Ofcom. Presumably they believed it was accurate. Obviously one member at least of the reviewing committee disagreed and has decided to leak their opinion to a newspaper known for their hostility towards the BBC.

What, if anything, happens next is unknown. The BBC are held to very high standards. Something their journalists take very seriously indeed. So it’s definitely possible that they could decide, on further review, that things could have been made clearer. We will know soon enough. Not that will stop the hate fest.

If you want to see the BBC at its best try watching, as I have this evening, Empire with David Olusoga. Really informative not only from a historical perspective but also in explaining a great deal about modern Britain.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable.
You used the words I agree. By your logic you do.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No I don’t agree they altered what he said! Because he did say it. He just said other things as well that must have been thought either unimportant, deliberately misleading or confusing.

What they did was edit the speech. Something that is completely normal. What remained told the story. What they edited out didn’t. In their opinion. It was their report and their judgement. They don’t have to submit their reports to Trump, or anyone else, for approval. They need to ensure accuracy or they risk being sued for defamation or censure by Ofcom. Presumably they believed it was accurate. Obviously one member at least of the reviewing committee disagreed and has decided to leak their opinion to a newspaper known for their hostility towards the BBC.

What, if anything, happens next is unknown. The BBC are held to very high standards. Something their journalists take very seriously indeed. So it’s definitely possible that they could decide, on further review, that things could have been made clearer. We will know soon enough. Not that will stop the hate fest.

If you want to see the BBC at its best try watching, as I have this evening, Empire with David Olusoga. Really informative not only from a historical perspective but also in explaining a great deal about modern Britain.
Click to expand...
TR also has Muslims who like him but you call him racist. They said it !
 
Hopefully he sues ,wins and the damages finish the BBC. They have enough assets to sell for any potential damages and will be forced to stop broadcasting in the USA if they refuse to pay.

Senior executives and others who were involved in the fake news should also be made to contribute financially.

Based on the ABC case might be in the 10-20 million pound range
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top