As you would love an excuse to give me a yellow card I will try to be polite. I have no idea if you are an oaf but what you are claiming is untrue. This is what you wrote:-

"You have to read right to the end of the article before finding out that the boy had died which is absolutely shocking jounalism".

There is just no way of seeking to pretend that your reason for claiming this was "shocking jounalism" was anything other than that "the boy had died".

You didn't criticise the piece for "giving the impression that this boy had died" as your fan boy has suggested. Nor did you criticise it because "the shoddy journalism in the whole article as the whole thing was poorly written" as you have yourself claimed.

You did it because you thought that as the boy had died that "fact" ought to have appeared earlier. A fact that wasn't actually a fact.

Whether, or not, the piece was "shocking journalism" was totally beside the point. We all make errors and misunderstanding what the phrase "could have caused a severe injury and led to the boy's death" meant was one and is nothing to be ashamed about. Others did too.

What is inexcusable is the pin dancing trying to pretend that what you wrote meant something else. It didn't.

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.

We have a post where WE complains about someone pin dancing.

I think I've just about read it all now.

He seems to be blaming ME and others, me included for taking one of two interpretations from a poorly written sentence.

Nothing ME wrote was 'inexcusable', that's utter nonsense.
This article is worthy of criticism and for some reason this poster doesn't seem to want to move on.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

"He seems to be blaming ME and others, me included for taking one of two interpretations from a poorly written sentence."

Once again SS is either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what I actually wrote.

It was NOTHING about anyone's "interpretation" of something that was capable of being misinterpreted.

It was only about ME's false claim, which followed that misinterpretation, and not the misinterpretation itself.

The continuing attempts to try to defend it are really quite illuminating.

It seems some people are incapable of ever admitting a mistake yet would rush to accuse others of them at the slightest opportunity.

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.

The "panorama stitch up of TR" simply demonstrates your own lack of objectivity and says nothing about the BBC's core values. You are entitled to your opinion of course but they obviously come from a particular perspective and not from a neutral stance.

One definition, from the BBC themselves, of their values is that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Seem pretty reasonable to me. Of course individual journalists may not achieve those high aspirations and they certainly won't always match the opinions of those who, like you, already have an established 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.

Bye bye to the BBC that can afford this:

[Tweet Link]

WE writes....'The "panorama stitch up of TR" simply demonstrates your own lack of objectivity'

This on a Panorama programme that had to be cancelled and saw the main journalist sacked months after because their very objectivity was brought into question.

Could Robinson have relied on the BBC to be objective in coming to that decision by their own internal processes?

No, it had to be displayed to the world by Robinson carrying out a sting operation on Panorama's main journalist via honey trap. If that footage hadn't been out there the BBC would have done nothing.....nothing...and that hatchet programme would have come out. Robinson had evidence that the 'impartial' BBC had worked with 'hope not hate' on it.....that footage exposed what these far left middle class parasites really think.

Oh and don't give it about an 'individual journalist'....John Sweeney had been with the BBC for decades and fronted many a programme and was a major part of Panorama.....Good riddance to the lying drunk.

Objective my arse.

An elitist, defending the elite, once again.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2020 2.01am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Give in. I have as it's plainly a waste of time discussing anything with him as he's just an argumentative ****pot.

Going off at a tangent for a moment I wonder how many people have been put off reading and entering into discussions on this forum because of Wisbech The Rottweiler.

I know that I hardly bother any more and at least one other moderator who used to be active here has gone missing and he and I can't be then only ones that no longer bother much

Like yourself I had never heard of her before she made the headlines in this case. Apparently she presents Newswatch which is a program that I have never heard of either.

I am guessing that if the Government wish to change the way that the BBC is funded they will use payouts like this to show how our money is being wasted.

Hopefully we may see some sort of subscription model being introduced with varying levels of subscription being brought in for various different types of BBC product with them being told that they have to work within their budgets.

Why don't you trying reading your OWN posts and then accept that you were wrong!

It would be a lot, lot quicker than me having to "argue" about it. I am not actually "arguing" about anything. Arguments require some degree of possible merit on either side. This is factual. You made a mistake but simply cannot admit it and then, together with your support team, seek to make out that the fault lies with me because I am a "Rottweiler".

Such reprehensible tactics are unfortunately very common here.

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.

Oh dear I went to Russia last year does that make me a commie no fascist no wait...

I don't care about TR or what he thinks (sorry Stirling) so maybe for once the BBC is right his trip is just not newsworthy. I'm sure if there was some juicy dirt the BBC would be happy to publish it.

One more point

So did you watch John Sweeney on panodrama?