The bbc, again.

[Common Sense Club]

Anyone who watched Trump’s behaviour from the point when it looked possible he was going to lose the election until even today, knows he was trying to overturn a legitimate result. He, and those around him, were lying. He encouraged the dissent. He did nothing to stop it either before or during the time the mob were inside the Capitol building trying to hunt down the representatives. He has subsequently pardoned those involved.

If all of that isn’t sufficient to convince you it’s true then we disagree. It does me.

Meanwhile, Biden probably didn’t even know he was the President…

 

[eaglesdare]

Meanwhile, Biden probably didn’t even know he was the President…

His auto pen was 🤭

 

[Spindle]

No I don’t agree they altered what he said!

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Removing one word from three in a sentence alters the meaning but removing 53 minutes of a speech and splicing together two unrelated comments doesn't. Can't you see the absurdity of this position?

They aren’t though unrelated. They are part of a pattern that started months before the speech and continues to today.

Trump lies. You need to look beyond his words at any particular moment, which could be anything at all, to put the totality of the event into it’s context.

He was addressing a mob. A mob he had encouraged to believe the election had been “stolen”. A mob intent on trying to stop Congress confirming the result. He didn’t tell them to go home and let democracy prevail. He described the representatives as good people, presumably because he was encouraging the mob to think they would listen to them. He also told them to fight.

If I was a Barrister I would have no problem justifying the way the speech was edited to present the truth behind it.

 

[Spindle]

Thing is Wisbech, nobody believes your mental gymnastics except for you. You're like a child lying to his mum. Mum knows

 

[georgenorman]

Thong is Wisbech, nobody believes your mental gymnastics except for you. You're like a child lying to his mum. Mum knows

He’s like one of those guys you sometimes see in town centres shouting nonsense and waving their arms around.

 

[Spiderman]

Anyone who watched Trump’s behaviour from the point when it looked possible he was going to lose the election until even today, knows he was trying to overturn a legitimate result. He, and those around him, were lying. He encouraged the dissent. He did nothing to stop it either before or during the time the mob were inside the Capitol building trying to hunt down the representatives. He has subsequently pardoned those involved.

If all of that isn’t sufficient to convince you it’s true then we disagree. It does me.

I was talking about the BBC programme you advised us all to watch. Jeez Trump really is in your head isn’t he

 

[Teddy Eagle]

They aren’t though unrelated. They are part of a pattern that started months before the speech and continues to today.

Trump lies. You need to look beyond his words at any particular moment, which could be anything at all, to put the totality of the event into it’s context.

He was addressing a mob. A mob he had encouraged to believe the election had been “stolen”. A mob intent on trying to stop Congress confirming the result. He didn’t tell them to go home and let democracy prevail. He described the representatives as good people, presumably because he was encouraging the mob to think they would listen to them. He also told them to fight.

If I was a Barrister I would have no problem justifying the way the speech was edited to present the truth behind it.

You would though have a large problem not getting laughed out of court.
It seems in some peculiar way that in this case the end justifies the means but the law doesn't work like that; rob a burglars' house and see what the law says.
The BBC is supposed to be impartial - not a vigilante organisation shaping public opinion on political matters.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

He’s like one of those guys you sometimes see in town centres shouting nonsense and waving their arms around.

There are a lot of them in Birmingham.

 

[ASCPFC]

You would though have a large problem not getting laughed out of court.
It seems in some peculiar way that in this case the end justifies the means but the law doesn't work like that; rob a burglars' house and see what the law says.
The BBC is supposed to be impartial - not a vigilante organisation shaping public opinion on political matters.

Exactly, the editing has happened. The deed has been done. Now it's the consequences for that.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Exactly, the editing has happened. The deed has been done. Now it's the consequences for that.

And there's no need to wait for the results of any enquiry, or even hold one, when the verdict is so obvious.

 

[eaglesdare]

Always cracks me up 🤣🤣🤣

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Removing one word from three in a sentence alters the meaning but removing 53 minutes of a speech and splicing together two unrelated comments doesn't. Can't you see the absurdity of this position?

Looked at in total isolation it obviously does.

You cannot ever decide anything about Trump in total isolation. It’s absurd to suggest you can.

Panorama weren’t broadcasting a speech! They were making sense of an event. One that started the moment Trump decided wasn’t going to accept the result and hasn’t yet really finished.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Looked at in total isolation it obviously does.

You cannot ever decide anything about Trump in total isolation. It’s absurd to suggest you can.

Panorama weren’t broadcasting a speech! They were making sense of an event. One that started the moment Trump decided wasn’t going to accept the result and hasn’t yet really finished.

They obviously weren't. They were misrepresenting what he said which was:

We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

The Panorama Version
"We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."

How are those even remotely similar and the absurdity is in thinking it's alright just because it's Trump.

 

[Common Sense Club]

They obviously weren't. They were misrepresenting what he said which was:

We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

The Panorama Version
"We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."

How are those even remotely similar and the absurdity is in thinking it's alright just because it's Trump.

When you have TDS there is no cure…

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You would though have a large problem not getting laughed out of court.
It seems in some peculiar way that in this case the end justifies the means but the law doesn't work like that; rob a burglars' house and see what the law says.
The BBC is supposed to be impartial - not a vigilante organisation shaping public opinion on political matters.

Of course not!

Every barrister is afforded the courtesy of being listened to and their arguments given due consideration. Something sadly lacking by some here who make up their minds on the BBC solely by prejudice. As soon as it became known the BBC had allowed the edit to stand there was no chance anyone on the right would dream of accepting it was justified.

Your analogy is nonsensical. What Panorama did was produce a report, using journalistic judgment to tell their story. That’s not illegal. If Panorama had suggested that people should march to the White House and that they must fight to preserve democracy, then equivalence could be argued. That could be illegal.

You don’t like the Panorama report. That’s your choice. Others are available. Many though telling the same story.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

When you have TDS there is no cure…

Those defending Trump are the only people who are truly deluded.

As some commentators on this site regularly confirm.

TDS is simply an invented slur used by Trump supporters to try to make themselves feel better in their constant denials of the obvious.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Of course not!

Every barrister is afforded the courtesy of being listened to and their arguments given due consideration. Something sadly lacking by some here who make up their minds on the BBC solely by prejudice. As soon as it became known the BBC had allowed the edit to stand there was no chance anyone on the right would dream of accepting it was justified.

Your analogy is nonsensical. What Panorama did was produce a report, using journalistic judgment to tell their story. That’s not illegal. If Panorama had suggested that people should march to the White House and that they must fight to preserve democracy, then equivalence could be argued. That could be illegal.

You don’t like the Panorama report. That’s your choice. Others are available. Many though telling the same story.

Laughed out of court is just an expression which seemed appropriate - surprised you've never heard it.
The analogy was to point out it's no more correct to lie about a liar than it is to steal from a thief.
Why should anyone like the fact that Panorama wilfully misrepresented what he said; it's unacceptable and calls into question the veracity of their reporting on other matters.
Misinformation is suddenly a good thing.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Those defending Trump are the only people who are truly deluded.

As some commentators on this site regularly confirm.

TDS is simply an invented slur used by Trump supporters to try to make themselves feel better in their constant denials of the obvious.

And defence of the Panorama story is used to make Trump haters feel better about the fact they were duped.

 

[Common Sense Club]

Those defending Trump are the only people who are truly deluded.

As some commentators on this site regularly confirm.

TDS is simply an invented slur used by Trump supporters to try to make themselves feel better in their constant denials of the obvious.

I feel better, thank you. Trump would probably feel better if he knew how obsessed you are with him.