BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Teddy Eagle  14 Mar 23 4.29pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
*they My profuse apologies to them.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Teddy Eagle 14 Mar 23 4.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I have patiently explained she had previous, been warned and arrested before. But she continued to stand there. You don't have to say anything to be heard. Just being there communicated a message that was considered intimidating. You might disagree, but were neither there nor responsible for deciding. She wanted to be arrested. It was the point of her being there. You don't need to read anyone's thoughts. The actions were enough. I have never said the Ashers were finally cleared of lawbreaking. Only that the law needs revising. If I was in Belfast I would boycott the Ashers bakery on principle. We all benefit from the BBC via the reputation it brings to this country abroad. It's the most trusted broadcaster in the world. I have been in places where the local news is so distrusted that the people tune into the BBC to know what is really happening. The BBC is our greatest advocate and one of our greatest achievements. That is of huge benefit to each of us. The BBC were also protectors of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall's reputations until the position became untenable.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
georgenorman  14 Mar 23 4.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I have patiently explained she had previous, been warned and arrested before. But she continued to stand there. You don't have to say anything to be heard. Just being there communicated a message that was considered intimidating. You might disagree, but were neither there nor responsible for deciding. She wanted to be arrested. It was the point of her being there. You don't need to read anyone's thoughts. The actions were enough. I have never said the Ashers were finally cleared of lawbreaking. Only that the law needs revising. If I was in Belfast I would boycott the Ashers bakery on principle. We all benefit from the BBC via the reputation it brings to this country abroad. It's the most trusted broadcaster in the world. I have been in places where the local news is so distrusted that the people tune into the BBC to know what is really happening. The BBC is our greatest advocate and one of our greatest achievements. That is of huge benefit to each of us. Perhaps you should extend your persecution of this woman to her being liable to arrest for standing silently anywhere – queues in the supermarket, standing for the National Anthem, standing when the coffin is brought in at a funeral, standing when Palace score (I accept that the latter doesn’t happen very often, but she probably would be silent when is does as she would no doubt be rendered speechless). On a serious note, it is appalling that you say just being there was intimidating and that you can perceive a thought crime without any evidence whatsoever, it is the stuff of totalitarian regimes – but it is no surprise, as that is the direction the left is trying to take us. In your previous post you said “Clearly the SC ruled that the Ashers didn't break any law”. Now you say “I have never said the Ashers were finally cleared of lawbreaking”. Are you suffering from short-term memory loss, can you name the King or the Prime Minister? I’m sure Ashers will be relieved that you won’t be turning up in their shop demanding that various mad slogans be put on the cakes they make. How does the alleged attitude of the rest of the world to the BBC benefit us?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 14 Mar 23 5.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You see things from the right and see bias. Those on the left also see bias. For the right! I am in the centre and think they do a pretty fair job of maintaining balance. This idea that we have a left wing media is laughable. It just isn't true. The printed media is heavily right wing in all but a tiny minority. I am unaware of any broadcaster who takes a left wing stance, but there are broadcasters taking an unapologetic right wing stance. I have a friend, now retired, who was a senior sub-editor for the Mail. Many of their biggest stories were his words. He would take the raw journalism and rewrite it so it matched both the Mail's style and political outlook. The editor would decide the angle the report would come from, and he delivered it. His name wasn't on the "by-line" and never appeared anywhere. In his private life he was, and still is, a Labour voter. He was just good at his job. He was a professional writer. Just as are those who work for the BBC professional broadcasters. Wisbech. I don't see left wing bias because I am 'right wing'. Firstly, my attitudes are by no means 'right wing' and I see Leftist bias because there is Leftist bias. The arts and entertainment are notoriously liberal/left and anyone who denies that is quite frankly bonkers. Comedy and drama is regularly tainted with bias. It really isn't even a debate.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 14 Mar 23 8.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
8 Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Wisbech. I don't see left wing bias because I am 'right wing'. Firstly, my attitudes are by no means 'right wing' and I see Leftist bias because there is Leftist bias. The arts and entertainment are notoriously liberal/left and anyone who denies that is quite frankly bonkers. Comedy and drama is regularly tainted with bias. It really isn't even a debate. I know you aren't talking to me but... The newspapers are predominantly left wing..?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 8.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
You are in the centre! Anyone who has read my comments over the years I have been here knows I detest both the far left and far right. I had no time for Corbyn and blame him for Brexit not being avoided. I am a believer in fiscal conservatism and social responsibility, which is what I think most people in the UK also believe in.
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 |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 14 Mar 23 8.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Fiscal Conservatism and DNA responsibility. Your offspring are your financial burden, not mine. And the working man must have a better life than the lazy git.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 9.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Perhaps you should extend your persecution of this woman to her being liable to arrest for standing silently anywhere – queues in the supermarket, standing for the National Anthem, standing when the coffin is brought in at a funeral, standing when Palace score (I accept that the latter doesn’t happen very often, but she probably would be silent when is does as she would no doubt be rendered speechless). On a serious note, it is appalling that you say just being there was intimidating and that you can perceive a thought crime without any evidence whatsoever, it is the stuff of totalitarian regimes – but it is no surprise, as that is the direction the left is trying to take us. In your previous post you said “Clearly the SC ruled that the Ashers didn't break any law”. Now you say “I have never said the Ashers were finally cleared of lawbreaking”. Are you suffering from short-term memory loss, can you name the King or the Prime Minister? I’m sure Ashers will be relieved that you won’t be turning up in their shop demanding that various mad slogans be put on the cakes they make. How does the alleged attitude of the rest of the world to the BBC benefit us? You are either being ridiculous, or deliberately perverse. She can stand silently anywhere you mention. Most others could It was who she was and where she stood that was the issue. Not the silence. Having previous automatically means you draw attention to yourself. If you are let out of prison on licence and you step out of line you do back in again. It has nothing to do with what anyone is thinking. You and I could be there, think all sorts of devious thoughts and nothing would happen. It's her and her previous that created the problem and not totalitarianism of any kind. My position on the cake bakers is, and always has been, that whilst their convictions by the lower courts was overturned by the SC on a point of law that, in my opinion that wasn't just so the law needs revision and what they did ought to be illegal. Not that it was. No "memory loss" on my behalf. Maybe on yours, or possibly some misunderstanding. I am sure the Ashers won't miss me, but I do wonder what impact this all had on their business. No doubt there will be some who approve of their clearance, whilst others feel there has been an injustice. This though is a much bigger principle than just the Ashers and a cake. There was another case down here of a guest house owner who refused a room to a gay couple, was prosecuted, lost the case and had to close the business because they refused to change their stance. Not identical, of course, but separating personal opinions from business actions, are also involved. They claimed it was their home and they could decide whatever they liked. They lost because they offered rooms at a price, so were a business. I don't think you are stupid, so you must understand that us having a reputation for trustworthiness improves many things. Our trade, our tourism and the welcome we get when on holiday. It also means we get listened to when major international decisions are taken. The biggest benefit though is that the BBC gets watched and so we get noticed. Get noticed, be admired and people want want we have and what we do.
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 |
|
| Teddy Eagle 14 Mar 23 9.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You are either being ridiculous, or deliberately perverse. She can stand silently anywhere you mention. Most others could It was who she was and where she stood that was the issue. Not the silence. Having previous automatically means you draw attention to yourself. If you are let out of prison on licence and you step out of line you do back in again. It has nothing to do with what anyone is thinking. You and I could be there, think all sorts of devious thoughts and nothing would happen. It's her and her previous that created the problem and not totalitarianism of any kind. My position on the cake bakers is, and always has been, that whilst their convictions by the lower courts was overturned by the SC on a point of law that, in my opinion that wasn't just so the law needs revision and what they did ought to be illegal. Not that it was. No "memory loss" on my behalf. Maybe on yours, or possibly some misunderstanding. I am sure the Ashers won't miss me, but I do wonder what impact this all had on their business. No doubt there will be some who approve of their clearance, whilst others feel there has been an injustice. This though is a much bigger principle than just the Ashers and a cake. There was another case down here of a guest house owner who refused a room to a gay couple, was prosecuted, lost the case and had to close the business because they refused to change their stance. Not identical, of course, but separating personal opinions from business actions, are also involved. They claimed it was their home and they could decide whatever they liked. They lost because they offered rooms at a price, so were a business. I don't think you are stupid, so you must understand that us having a reputation for trustworthiness improves many things. Our trade, our tourism and the welcome we get when on holiday. It also means we get listened to when major international decisions are taken. The biggest benefit though is that the BBC gets watched and so we get noticed. Get noticed, be admired and people want want we have and what we do. So is your position that a baker should be legally bound to produce a cake endorsing support for Tommy Robinson?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The BBC were also protectors of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall's reputations until the position became untenable. Became clear might be more accurate. With hindsight nobody comes out of those times covered in glory. Savile was regarded as a national treasure, feted even by Thatcher.
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 Online Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 10.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
So is your position that a baker should be legally bound to produce a cake endorsing support for Tommy Robinson? If they invite to bake cakes to order, yes. What goes on the cake has nothing to do with them. If they are asked to do something illegal then they should report it. If not they do it. They have no need to display it, endorse it or even read it. For them it's just flour, water, fat and sugar.
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 Online Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 10.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Wisbech. I don't see left wing bias because I am 'right wing'. Firstly, my attitudes are by no means 'right wing' and I see Leftist bias because there is Leftist bias. The arts and entertainment are notoriously liberal/left and anyone who denies that is quite frankly bonkers. Comedy and drama is regularly tainted with bias. It really isn't even a debate. This ought to be a parody, but I fear it isn't. At least it made me laugh and I suspect it made a few others chuckle too. The only thing that's true there is that it really isn't a debate. Your ideas are complete nonsense
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 |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.