Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 23 Mar 23 9.50pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
are you on drugs ? and if so, can you please only log onto HOL when you are feeling the need for another fix. And not when you are 'coming up' ? Edited by PalazioVecchio (23 Mar 2023 10.22am) As I have never taken an illegal drug in my 78 years I have no idea what "coming up" means, let alone feels like.
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. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| georgenorman 23 Mar 23 10.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Please explain what part of "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services" you don't understand. Especially the word "impartial". It's just unfortunate that this site has a majority of right leaning posters whose prejudices against the BBC are laid bare in threads like this. They don’t always act in the public interest, their campaign to bring the terrorist, Begum, back to this country is an example. They certainly give a disproportionate amount of time to some audiences, especially sexual minorities and racial groups for example. They are not always impartial, more often than not they are biased in favour of left/liberal politics. Their output is not always high-quality or distinctive, some of it, such as Eastenders, is downright rubbish. You could always trot off to the other place if you want left leaning/falling over posters to share your delusions with.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 23 Mar 23 10.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Please explain what part of "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services" you don't understand. Especially the word "impartial". The way the right, and indeed the left, constantly perceive bias in the BBC and moan about it is nothing new. It's just unfortunate that this site has a majority of right leaning posters whose prejudices against the BBC are laid bare in threads like this. So we regularly witness a festival of mutual bias confirmation which says so much more about them than ever it does about the BBC. Some of the recent posts are typical of this. It's both embarrassing to recognise that people really believe this, and amusing to see delusion. I think it extremely naive to claim that because any institution, organisation, individual etc makes a statement upon their own intentions it makes it so. Unless we take the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' at their word? The BBC, as with anything, will be subject to the whims and therefore bias of individuals within, from senior leadership to journalists. I have no doubt they have some internal policies and processes to enforce something constituting neutrality however they will equally face some (to even a very minor extent) political pressure but also be somewhat constrained to alignment with current zeitgeists - nonsense claiming to be 'liberalism/woke'. For all that said, I consider it to be viewed through a lens belonging to the beholder. Naturally, a lot of 'woke nonsense' will make the news and therefore be seen as an enemy of the right and I am sure vice versa with the left. For what it is worth, I use the BBC as my 'go to' and if there is/was/will be anything published by it that I consider to be bias nonsense I will treat it as such in isolation. I will and have no doubt viewed that as nothing more than a reflection of society however and very rarely if ever see it as intentional or purposeful. In recent times, I have seen it as more 'woke' than I would like however am highly suspicious this is due to my sensitivity and subjectivity in being adverse to such things. I've never seen anything so overt or outrageous to be worthy of note or remembrance however. Upon a quick read back, I have heavily contributed to the conflation with the 'BBC' thread. It's past my bedtime so I'll post but apologies! Edited by Nicholas91 (23 Mar 2023 10.01pm)
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 24 Mar 23 4.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I have never taken an illegal drug in my 78 years I have no idea what "coming up" means, let alone feels like. He didn’t say illegal; methadone is in prescription
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Mar 23 9.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They don’t always act in the public interest, their campaign to bring the terrorist, Begum, back to this country is an example. They certainly give a disproportionate amount of time to some audiences, especially sexual minorities and racial groups for example. They are not always impartial, more often than not they are biased in favour of left/liberal politics. Their output is not always high-quality or distinctive, some of it, such as Eastenders, is downright rubbish. You could always trot off to the other place if you want left leaning/falling over posters to share your delusions with. This post merely confirms what I said in the one it responds to. That you don't approve of the way the BBC approach things doesn't mean they aren't impartial. It means you aren't. The BBC has a Board of Governors to oversee its impartiality, whose Chairman is certainly not "left/liberal". For sure it gives a voice to those it sees as under-represented minorities. If it didn't, who would when there is no commercial imperative to do so? That though is to to ensure impartiality and not show bias. That those on both sides of politics believe the BBC leans the other way, simply because they question things, isn't anything new. Labour supporters said exactly the same kind of things, during the relatively short periods they have held power during my lifetime. We have had 13 years of Tory government, so it's just not fresh in the memory. No soap opera is to my taste either, but they appeal to a lot of people. They also examine important social issues in their storylines which inform some who would not otherwise think about them. I have a friend who was a writer on Eastenders for many years, and subsequently has been the Director of another major British soap, alongside writing novels. He has a BAFTA for his work. The amount of research and consultation with specialists that goes into the preparation of storylines is huge.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Mar 23 10.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
I think it extremely naive to claim that because any institution, organisation, individual etc makes a statement upon their own intentions it makes it so. Unless we take the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' at their word? The BBC, as with anything, will be subject to the whims and therefore bias of individuals within, from senior leadership to journalists. I have no doubt they have some internal policies and processes to enforce something constituting neutrality however they will equally face some (to even a very minor extent) political pressure but also be somewhat constrained to alignment with current zeitgeists - nonsense claiming to be 'liberalism/woke'. For all that said, I consider it to be viewed through a lens belonging to the beholder. Naturally, a lot of 'woke nonsense' will make the news and therefore be seen as an enemy of the right and I am sure vice versa with the left. For what it is worth, I use the BBC as my 'go to' and if there is/was/will be anything published by it that I consider to be bias nonsense I will treat it as such in isolation. I will and have no doubt viewed that as nothing more than a reflection of society however and very rarely if ever see it as intentional or purposeful. In recent times, I have seen it as more 'woke' than I would like however am highly suspicious this is due to my sensitivity and subjectivity in being adverse to such things. I've never seen anything so overt or outrageous to be worthy of note or remembrance however. Upon a quick read back, I have heavily contributed to the conflation with the 'BBC' thread. It's past my bedtime so I'll post but apologies! Edited by Nicholas91 (23 Mar 2023 10.01pm) I think that's a fair and reasonable approach and one I respect. It's certainly naive to assume that because an organisation issues a mission statement all its employees will respect it. The BBC does though have significant oversight, and uses 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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Mar 23 10.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
He didn’t say illegal; methadone is in prescription Which, I believe, is only prescribed to those who are being helped to come off illegal drugs. So wouldn't be prescribed to me!
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 24 Mar 23 11.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This post merely confirms what I said in the one it responds to. That you don't approve of the way the BBC approach things doesn't mean they aren't impartial. It means you aren't. The BBC has a Board of Governors to oversee its impartiality, whose Chairman is certainly not "left/liberal". For sure it gives a voice to those it sees as under-represented minorities. If it didn't, who would when there is no commercial imperative to do so? That though is to to ensure impartiality and not show bias. That those on both sides of politics believe the BBC leans the other way, simply because they question things, isn't anything new. Labour supporters said exactly the same kind of things, during the relatively short periods they have held power during my lifetime. We have had 13 years of Tory government, so it's just not fresh in the memory. No soap opera is to my taste either, but they appeal to a lot of people. They also examine important social issues in their storylines which inform some who would not otherwise think about them. I have a friend who was a writer on Eastenders for many years, and subsequently has been the Director of another major British soap, alongside writing novels. He has a BAFTA for his work. The amount of research and consultation with specialists that goes into the preparation of storylines is huge. People can watch and listen to the BBC and make their own minds up. I'm confident that the majority would see clear and obvious bias in their output. Eastenders is rubbish on all levels, including its social messages.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Mar 23 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
People can watch and listen to the BBC and make their own minds up. I'm confident that the majority would see clear and obvious bias in their output. Eastenders is rubbish on all levels, including its social messages. They certainly can, and do! Only those with strong political leanings, and an inability to understand that other opinions exist, believe there is a "clear and obvious bias". Majority? No. Noisy and active minority? Yes.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 24 Mar 23 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They certainly can, and do! Only those with strong political leanings, and an inability to understand that other opinions exist, believe there is a "clear and obvious bias". Majority? No. Noisy and active minority? Yes. Let's hold a referendum on it. (Of course it is the Left that constantly try to close down other opinions.) As for the BBC not being biased: - “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” [Orwell 1984] Edited by georgenorman (24 Mar 2023 1.05pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  24 Mar 23 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Let's hold a referendum on it. (Of course it is the Left that constantly try to close down other opinions.) Edited by georgenorman (24 Mar 2023 12.57pm) Better hold three, or five, just in case any deluded and misinformed people get involved.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 24 Mar 23 4.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I have never taken an illegal drug in my 78 years I have no idea what "coming up" means, let alone feels like. ah, ok. I am just trying to grapple with some of the opinions you express on here. no drugs then ? did you ever work on a building Site ? and get clunked on the head, really hard, by a metal bucket swinging from a crane ? Look, and if the answer is 'yes' you will have my sympathy and i will buy you a pint at the next HOL meet-up.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.