This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Badger11  Beckenham 21 Apr 24 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Just because if someone else was asked to write an article on the same subject doesn’t mean the BBC’s is “skewed”! This is the problem with these constant attacks on the BBC. They come from a different perspective. One which itself has a strong bias. The BBC is charged to look at things from a neutral viewpoint and its output is always going to be at odds with those whose are either on the left or the right. We can all disagree with what any writer says, decides is relevant or more or less important. They are also constrained by the space allocated to them, rewriting by sub editors and editors and the lawyer’s pen. So whilst others may consider that benefit fraud should have been at the heart of the article, whoever wrote this decided this piece would not include it. Not because of any inconvenience. Just a different approach. Benefit fraud is a big and important subject that deserves, and gets, discussed. In my own opinion not nearly enough though. I believe it’s a terrible blight on modern society that needs strong attention. That though doesn’t mean I think the BBC’s article on the level of sickness should be attacked. I think it’s their article and a useful contribution to the national debate. The article clearly stated in the headline why are more being get sick, it is reasonable to mention that some aren't and that the government is doing a poor job of weeding them out. Not to mention this as a factor is to ignore the obvious.
One more point |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Apr 24 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The article clearly stated in the headline why are more being get sick, it is reasonable to mention that some aren't and that the government is doing a poor job of weeding them out. Not to mention this as a factor is to ignore the obvious. Is an opinion another writer might have decided was valid and found space for. This one didn’t though. That’s what’s obvious.
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. |
|
Teddy Eagle  21 Apr 24 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Is an opinion another writer might have decided was valid and found space for. This one didn’t though. That’s what’s obvious. Great defence. Someone else might have done something differently.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Apr 24 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Well now, according to the BBC, Huw Edwards has resigned. He should have done that when the story broke. However it seems that the days of people resigning when they get caught out are long gone. They hang on for spurious reasons which most of us see as just getting paid for a long as possible. If he does have mental health issues I wish him well. No doubt when he feels better he will pop up somewhere. Update Edited by Badger11 (22 Apr 2024 2.50pm)
One more point |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Great defence. Someone else might have done something differently. It’s not a “defence”! There’s nothing to defend. It’s just a simple 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. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
He should have done that when the story broke. However it seems that the days of people resigning when they get caught out are long gone. They hang on for spurious reasons which most of us see as just getting paid for a long as possible. If he does have mental health issues I wish him well. No doubt when he feels better he will pop up somewhere. Update Edited by Badger11 (22 Apr 2024 2.50pm) Why on earth should he have resigned when the story broke? He denied he did anything wrong and so did the other party in the story, who contradicted what his mother had said to the Sun. How much was she paid I wonder? His wife has been loyal and very supportive which speaks volumes to me. If she says he is ill and needs privacy then I tend to believe her. My surprise is that the clinicians have advised him to resign. It’s a big salary to lose, so there must be some serious issues behind that.
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. |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Apr 24 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Why on earth should he have resigned when the story broke? He denied he did anything wrong and so did the other party in the story, who contradicted what his mother had said to the Sun. How much was she paid I wonder? His wife has been loyal and very supportive which speaks volumes to me. If she says he is ill and needs privacy then I tend to believe her. My surprise is that the clinicians have advised him to resign. It’s a big salary to lose, so there must be some serious issues behind that. He denied any criminality not his poor behaviour, if you believe this is all made up I think you are in a minority. As the face of BBC news he caused immense reputational damage to the company he worked for. Most corporations would have told him to resign or be sacked within days.
One more point |
|
| mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 22 Apr 24 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
He'll probably turn up as an MP with that CV
Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry. |
|
| Teddy Eagle 22 Apr 24 4.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It’s not a “defence”! There’s nothing to defend. It’s just a simple truth. You're right. It's not even an explanation.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 5.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
He denied any criminality not his poor behaviour, if you believe this is all made up I think you are in a minority. As the face of BBC news he caused immense reputational damage to the company he worked for. Most corporations would have told him to resign or be sacked within days.
I thought he simply denied doing anything wrong without expanding. There’s no way the BBC could have sacked him. That would have cost them dearly in a wrongful dismissal tribunal action, and kept the story in the headlines with all the negative publicity that the tabloids would have put up. It’s nothing to do with what I believe. I don’t have an opinion on something that no one knows the detail about. That the BBC has suffered reputational damage is undoubtedly true. Which is most likely what the Sun wanted in the first place. Remember who owns the Sun! Maybe now this has happened we will learn some more. That probably depends on his wife now.
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. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 5.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
You're right. It's not even an explanation. Nothing to explain either. What was written could be read by all. No writer needs to justify how they approach a subject. If they feel the need they will.
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. |
|
| Teddy Eagle 22 Apr 24 5.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Nothing to explain either. What was written could be read by all. No writer needs to justify how they approach a subject. If they feel the need they will. It's not an explanation to say that even though one person has done something another might not have.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Apr 24 5.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I thought he simply denied doing anything wrong without expanding. There’s no way the BBC could have sacked him. That would have cost them dearly in a wrongful dismissal tribunal action, and kept the story in the headlines with all the negative publicity that the tabloids would have put up. It’s nothing to do with what I believe. I don’t have an opinion on something that no one knows the detail about. That the BBC has suffered reputational damage is undoubtedly true. Which is most likely what the Sun wanted in the first place. Remember who owns the Sun! Maybe now this has happened we will learn some more. That probably depends on his wife now. No doubt he will choose to share his pain at some point. You can blame the Sun all you want but as your mate in the press will tell you "if you don't want bad press then don't get caught".
One more point |
|
| Teddy Eagle 22 Apr 24 6.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
No doubt he will choose to share his pain at some point. You can blame the Sun all you want but as your mate in the press will tell you "if you don't want bad press then don't get caught". Just a suggestion but if you don't want bad press don't pay a teenager lots of money to send you sexually explicit photographs.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Apr 24 6.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Just a suggestion but if you don't want bad press don't pay a teenager lots of money to send you sexually explicit photographs. Yup he's not denied that and the statements from the BBC seem to indicate that they believe that part of the story. That is why he should have resigned or been sacked. It's completely unprofessional for a person of his age and status within an organisation that is as high profile as the BBC. Suppose he had stayed how could he interview a politician who was being accused in a sex scandal which seems to happen daily. Question: Why wont you resign? Answer: Well you didn't Question: It's not about me I'm the interviewer Answer: Actually I think it is (deflecting). Etc.
One more point |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 8.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
It's not an explanation to say that even though one person has done something another might not have. It was you who said so!
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. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 8.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
No doubt he will choose to share his pain at some point. You can blame the Sun all you want but as your mate in the press will tell you "if you don't want bad press then don't get caught". Was he caught? Or stung by a malicious parent looking for a pay day? There must have been some kind of contact/relationship but it could have been entirely benign, based on common interests or a genuine concern. I don’t know but then no one really does.
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. |
|
| Teddy Eagle 22 Apr 24 8.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It was you who said so!
This one didn’t though.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Apr 24 10.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
This one didn’t though. It seems that there must be identity theft here, as this appeared in a post claiming to be from you:- “It's not even an explanation.”
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. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.