This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by W12
All you have done there is demonstrate your own political outlook and bias If by that you mean I try to maintain a sense of balance and responsibility then I agree.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| W12 12 Jun 19 10.46am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If by that you mean I try to maintain a sense of balance and responsibility then I agree. You think it's responsible that journalists should be free to ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases. Thousands of Children. In fact they did worse in many cases and tried to shift the blame from the actual perpetrators to the police, teachers, social workers and politicians involved despite the fact they they were complicit in creating the politically correct hegemony that stopped these people speaking out in the first place. We can do with hell less of your "balance".
|
|
|
Originally posted by W12
You think it's responsible that journalists should be free to ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases. Thousands of Children. In fact they did worse in many cases and tried to shift the blame from the actual perpetrators to the police, teachers, social workers and politicians involved despite the fact they they were complicit in creating the politically correct hegemony that stopped these people speaking out in the first place. We can do with hell less of your "balance". That is a quite ridiculous claim. No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases". With the benefit of hindsight it looks as though some serious errors of judgement have been made by some people. You cannot though make a blanket condemnation of a whole industry because of that. I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests. Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why enquiries are held. Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future. I have no more idea than you what the editors involved decided at the time, or why. What I expect is whatever decisions were taken would have been because they were either unaware of the scale of the problem, or perhaps that it so serious that it needed to be handled quietly by the authorities without the oxygen of a public outcry stirring things up. That you and others now disagree with the latter possible approach doesn't mean that, if taken, such a decision was made in bad faith. Journalists don't "shift the blame"! Only people in forums try to do that. They report things as they see them and when they believe it to be fit and proper to do so. I have known a few in my life and their integrity is beyond question. Whatever their personal feelings might be their loyalty was always to the truth.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I read those reports! Did you? What both say is neither surprising nor any kind of indication that actual bias exists. What they confirm is that the perception of bias has increased which is obviously true but not the same at all. From the Express piece "The British broadcaster is still believed to be performing well “in many respects”." From the Guardian "The impartiality of the corporation’s news output has come under attack from all sides in recent years, especially following the Brexit referendum. It has been at the focus of discussions over whether the national broadcaster should be giving airtime to individuals who represent extreme views in the name of balance. Hall said that perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality had ‘“weakened in recent years”, adding: “We need to see what we can do to strengthen them.” That Ofcom should investigate complaints of bias is quite right and is only doing it's duty. That doesn't mean that bias actually exists, especially if the source of the complaints is itself biased in one direction or the other. Your own attitude is confirmation of a biased viewpoint. The BBC have a tricky path to find and then follow. I think they do pretty well. Daily Politics over the last few years back my argument, especially when hosted by Jo Coburn. They have been so biased towards the left and Remain it got ridiculous. They have been warned and have changed tract slightly. If my own view is biased, it is only because a licence-funded organisation should not show such bias.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That is a quite ridiculous claim. No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases". With the benefit of hindsight it looks as though some serious errors of judgement have been made by some people. You cannot though make a blanket condemnation of a whole industry because of that. I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests. Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why enquiries are held. Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future. I have no more idea than you what the editors involved decided at the time, or why. What I expect is whatever decisions were taken would have been because they were either unaware of the scale of the problem, or perhaps that it so serious that it needed to be handled quietly by the authorities without the oxygen of a public outcry stirring things up. That you and others now disagree with the latter possible approach doesn't mean that, if taken, such a decision was made in bad faith. Journalists don't "shift the blame"! Only people in forums try to do that. They report things as they see them and when they believe it to be fit and proper to do so. I have known a few in my life and their integrity is beyond question. Whatever their personal feelings might be their loyalty was always to the truth. I am sure the victims whole-heartily agree with your assessment.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That is a quite ridiculous claim. No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases". With the benefit of hindsight it looks as though some serious errors of judgement have been made by some people. You cannot though make a blanket condemnation of a whole industry because of that. I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests. Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why enquiries are held. Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future. I have no more idea than you what the editors involved decided at the time, or why. What I expect is whatever decisions were taken would have been because they were either unaware of the scale of the problem, or perhaps that it so serious that it needed to be handled quietly by the authorities without the oxygen of a public outcry stirring things up. That you and others now disagree with the latter possible approach doesn't mean that, if taken, such a decision was made in bad faith. Journalists don't "shift the blame"! Only people in forums try to do that. They report things as they see them and when they believe it to be fit and proper to do so. I have known a few in my life and their integrity is beyond question. Whatever their personal feelings might be their loyalty was always to the truth. I still can’t believe that every media outlet, of whatever political leaning, decided independently that this story shouldn’t be reported. They are in competition with each other not in collusion for the greater good. One paper’s principled embargo is another’s scoop.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Daily Politics over the last few years back my argument, especially when hosted by Jo Coburn. They have been so biased towards the left and Remain it got ridiculous. They have been warned and have changed tract slightly. If my own view is biased, it is only because a licence-funded organisation should not show such bias. Rather like Cathy Newman’s attempted takedown of Jordan Peterson.
|
|
| W12 12 Jun 19 3.18pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That is a quite ridiculous claim. No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases". With the benefit of hindsight it looks as though some serious errors of judgement have been made by some people. You cannot though make a blanket condemnation of a whole industry because of that. I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests. Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why enquiries are held. Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future. I have no more idea than you what the editors involved decided at the time, or why. What I expect is whatever decisions were taken would have been because they were either unaware of the scale of the problem, or perhaps that it so serious that it needed to be handled quietly by the authorities without the oxygen of a public outcry stirring things up. That you and others now disagree with the latter possible approach doesn't mean that, if taken, such a decision was made in bad faith. Journalists don't "shift the blame"! Only people in forums try to do that. They report things as they see them and when they believe it to be fit and proper to do so. I have known a few in my life and their integrity is beyond question. Whatever their personal feelings might be their loyalty was always to the truth. No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases". I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests. Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why inquiries are held. Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future Journalists don't "shift the blame" So called journalists in the mainstream media rarely even leave their desks these days. They rarely talk to people they don't like (usually that ends badly for them) ultimately they are not journalists but activists who live in the south east bubble and troll social media for outrage.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Daily Politics over the last few years back my argument, especially when hosted by Jo Coburn. They have been so biased towards the left and Remain it got ridiculous. They have been warned and have changed tract slightly. If my own view is biased, it is only because a licence-funded organisation should not show such bias. This is nothing more than a personal opinion. We all have one and are entitled to it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by W12
No journalist would ever "ignore a generation of children being abused and trafficked because they didn't like the facts of the cases". I have little doubt that whatever decisions were taken at the time they were made in good faith and in the belief that, with all the facts then available, they were in everyone's best interests. Mistakes are a fact of life. They can never be eliminated. All we can do is learn and improve, which is why inquiries are held. Pointing the finger, getting angry and claiming that you knew better serves no-one because no-one can ever see the future Journalists don't "shift the blame" So called journalists in the mainstream media rarely even leave their desks these days. They rarely talk to people they don't like (usually that ends badly for them) ultimately they are not journalists but activists who live in the south east bubble and troll social media for outrage. That demonstrates very clearly what your own biases are. That's your business but just because you believe them doesn't mean they are true or the actions you believe are necessary are actually necessary. You see I do believe that "Robinson" and Farage are both purveyors of fake messages who have character traits and policy proposals that are resonant of the Nazi era. Full blown Nazis no, but I can understand why the mud gets thrown. Describing those on the left as "grifters" is further evidence of your bias. You are fully entitled to hold whatever views you like but please don't expect me to take them too seriously when they are so full of such obvious bias.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That demonstrates very clearly what your own biases are. That's your business but just because you believe them doesn't mean they are true or the actions you believe are necessary are actually necessary. You see I do believe that "Robinson" and Farage are both purveyors of fake messages who have character traits and policy proposals that are resonant of the Nazi era. Full blown Nazis no, but I can understand why the mud gets thrown. Describing those on the left as "grifters" is further evidence of your bias. You are fully entitled to hold whatever views you like but please don't expect me to take them too seriously when they are so full of such obvious bias. He didn’t say “those on the left”are grifters though, did he? He specifically named two people. Two people whose own bias is so colossal it frames everything they say about anything.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This is nothing more than a personal opinion. We all have one and are entitled to it. So what exactly are your opinions then? You cannot just dismiss opposing views by stating the obvious like that. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (12 Jun 2019 5.44pm)
|
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That demonstrates very clearly what your own biases are. That's your business but just because you believe them doesn't mean they are true or the actions you believe are necessary are actually necessary. You see I do believe that "Robinson" and Farage are both purveyors of fake messages who have character traits and policy proposals that are resonant of the Nazi era. Full blown Nazis no, but I can understand why the mud gets thrown. Describing those on the left as "grifters" is further evidence of your bias. You are fully entitled to hold whatever views you like but please don't expect me to take them too seriously when they are so full of such obvious bias. I don't like Robinson,in fact I think hes a c***. But for you to deny there wasn't a cover up and conspiracy to keep the extent quiet ..outrageous.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This is nothing more than a personal opinion. We all have one and are entitled to it. It is not a personal opinion, just watch the programmes without your rose-tinted glasses. Believe it or not you can be wrong
|
|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
I don't like Robinson,in fact I think hes a c***. But for you to deny there wasn't a cover up and conspiracy to keep the extent quiet ..outrageous.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
He didn’t say “those on the left”are grifters though, did he? He specifically named two people. Two people whose own bias is so colossal it frames everything they say about anything. That's true, he didn't say ALL those on the left are "grifters" but I expect most understood the point from the context. Nevertheless thanks for the clarification. I wouldn't say that either of those two would qualify as being on the far left at all. Not so far as others in the Labour party who do regularly come in for negative coverage. I admit bias but I hope that is towards objectivity and fairness rather than anything remotely tribal. I have no time for either of the extremes in politics, or anything approaching them. I believe in compromise and in looking for shared values and the common ground on which to build our future on.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
It is not a personal opinion, just watch the programmes without your rose-tinted glasses. Believe it or not you can be wrong Of course it's a personal opinion. It's your personal opinion. Mine is different. Of course I can be wrong, but so can you. You can be quite sure that if it was a proven fact that the BBC charter would ensure it was dealt with. You might like to read this :- [Link]
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course it's a personal opinion. It's your personal opinion. Mine is different. Of course I can be wrong, but so can you. You can be quite sure that if it was a proven fact that the BBC charter would ensure it was dealt with. You might like to read this :- [Link] What does their charter say about the several celebrity abuse cases which they kept quiet about?
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.