Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

BBC news last night Lisa Mandy nobody challenging her on the statement she made that she hasn't been this angry with a Government since the 1980's.
She was born in 1979 how angry can a baby be.
Did she launch a dirty protest in her happy at Thatcher winning power?
Smashed her toys over the miners strike?
Refused to watch rainbow as a peaceful protest over the sinking of the Belgrano

Come on BBC ask her how annoyed a toddler can be over Government policys

I missed that bit I was too busy looking at her tits
 
I plan to watch the Boris press conference at 1800 today. If LK is the BBC's representative, it will be interested to see if the words "Will you now admit/apologise" are used, and how far her mouth will twist in anger......
 
BBC news last night Lisa Mandy nobody challenging her on the statement she made that she hasn't been this angry with a Government since the 1980's.
She was born in 1979 how angry can a baby be.
Did she launch a dirty protest in her happy at Thatcher winning power?
Smashed her toys over the miners strike?
Refused to watch rainbow as a peaceful protest over the sinking of the Belgrano

Come on BBC ask her how annoyed a toddler can be over Government policys
FYI it’s Lisa Nandy.
 
Can't help but agree, I'm afraid...
He's a bit of an attention seeker isn't he?

 
He's a bit of an attention seeker isn't he?


To be honest if I was Greene i would be stamping my feet and shouting

He interviewed Starkey - Starkeys comment was offensive we wont disagree on that

However

1) Its being portrayed as a controversal opinion- in otherwords Refuting emotive claims that the Slave trade was genocide thus using the logical argument that neither they nor there culture was exterminated is to be seen as akin to holocaust denial.

2) Whilst offensive it was in no way stirring up racial hatred or violence - ( That does correctly elicite criminal proceedings)

3) Far worse things including deliberate incitements to violence by prominent politicians have been directed at Tories, the right, Brexiters, White people and gone unremarked

As such and particuarly as I myself said nothing offensive - I would be being extremely vocal and attracting a lot of atention so its clear to everyone how free speech is being increasingly infringed upon by poor legislation driven by emotive populism.

As Starkey I would apologise for the comment - but i dont blame him responding to interviews to try and repair the damage - since its cost him his career.

A bit galling as repeated racial slurs by a certain prominent Labour MP have gone unpunished and even the apology wa evasive forced and insincere

This is a case of silencing an individual because you dont like his opinion, by creating faux outrage.

I would equally apply this to the absolute idiocy of putting a man on trial for teaching his dog to do a nazi salute - It was poor taste - it was ofensive to some but it wasnt calling for re enacting the holocaust it was poor taste humour and context is important

Similarly I disagree with face ache banning holocaust denial as well

I completely disagree with all the no platforming type bollox - I firmly believe people should be free to voice their opinions however offensive.

Equally the rest of us should be free to ridicule said views
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
To be honest if I was Greene i would be stamping my feet and shouting

He interviewed Starkey - Starkeys comment was offensive we wont disagree on that

However

1) Its being portrayed as a controversal opinion- in otherwords Refuting emotive claims that the Slave trade was genocide thus using the logical argument that neither they nor there culture was exterminated is to be seen as akin to holocaust denial.

2) Whilst offensive it was in no way stirring up racial hatred or violence - ( That does correctly elicite criminal proceedings)

3) Far worse things including deliberate incitements to violence by prominent politicians have been directed at Tories, the right, Brexiters, White people and gone unremarked

As such and particuarly as I myself said nothing offensive - I would be being extremely vocal and attracting a lot of atention so its clear to everyone how free speech is being increasingly infringed upon by poor legislation driven by emotive populism.

As Starkey I would apologise for the comment - but i dont blame him responding to interviews to try and repair the damage - since its cost him his career.

A bit galling as repeated racial slurs by a certain prominent Labour MP have gone unpunished and even the apology wa evasive forced and insincere

This is a case of silencing an individual because you dont like his opinion, by creating faux outrage.

I would equally apply this to the absolute idiocy of putting a man on trial for teaching his dog to do a nazi salute - It was poor taste - it was ofensive to some but it wasnt calling for re enacting the holocaust it was poor taste humour and context is important

Similarly I disagree with face ache banning holocaust denial as well

I completely disagree with all the no platforming type bollox - I firmly believe people should be free to voice their opinions however offensive.

Equally the rest of us should be free to ridicule said views
This. In spades. You articulate better what I was saying yesterday.

Will we see someone prosecuted for interviewing XR or BLM extremists? Why not (as we already know the answer)?

A reporter’s job... the clue is in the name.

Oh, and one more thing from history: the harder you suppress something, the more vicious the backlash.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
As I understand it, the only thing Starkey said which was offensive was "...Damned Blacks...", which in light of today's sacred cows is a virual death sentence, but even discounting the modern standards of offence is pretty damned insulting, and IMHO he should be censured for it. The worst that can be laid against everything else he said was that it's contrary to the progressive opinions espoused by most media outlets. Whilst insulting, saying "Damned Blacks" is hardly incitement to start stringing brown people up from the nearest lamp post. That Starkey is being investigated by the Police is a travesty; that Grimes is also being investigated is properly frightening.

It appears that you can criticise the government as much as you like, advocate violence and intimidation against MPs with impunity, riot to your heart's content in London, but the moment you utter the words "Damned blacks" or anything deemed offensive to today's sacred cows, your public life is over and the Met is feeling your collar. Even worse, if a journalist (who isn't left wing) interviews a noted historian who says something offensive, reporting that is now judged worthy of a Police investigation.

Why is this not headline news in every newspaper, and the first article on every TV and radio bulletin? Freedom of the press is an essential bulwark of any democracy, and our fourth estate is hardly bashful in protecting its hard worn freedoms. So how can this be happening here?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
As I understand it, the only thing Starkey said which was offensive was "...Damned Blacks...", which in light of today's sacred cows is a virual death sentence, but even discounting the modern standards of offence is pretty damned insulting, and IMHO he should be censured for it. The worst that can be laid against everything else he said was that it's contrary to the progressive opinions espoused by most media outlets. Whilst insulting, saying "Damned Blacks" is hardly incitement to start stringing brown people up from the nearest lamp post. That Starkey is being investigated by the Police is a travesty; that Grimes is also being investigated is properly frightening.

It appears that you can criticise the government as much as you like, advocate violence and intimidation against MPs with impunity, riot to your heart's content in London, but the moment you utter the words "Damned blacks" or anything deemed offensive to today's sacred cows, your public life is over and the Met is feeling your collar. Even worse, if a journalist (who isn't left wing) interviews a noted historian who says something offensive, reporting that is now judged worthy of a Police investigation.

Why is this not headline news in every newspaper, and the first article on every TV and radio bulletin? Freedom of the press is an essential bulwark of any democracy, and our fourth estate is hardly bashful in protecting its hard worn freedoms. So how can this be happening here?
Bar his turn of phrase, Starkey is a credible historian.

My point?

We’ve already seen the Far Right banished from MSM in the way that the Far Left hasn’t been. I say that only because of balance, not because of any sympathy on my part.

What’s concerning is that the Centre Right, Centre and even the Centre Left are all increasingly being labelled Far Right and treated in the same way as the real Rightist extremists. They’re facing the same levels of censure.

Pandemic and Brexit aside, what’s truly concerning is that it’s happening under an ostensibly Tory government.
 
This. In spades. You articulate better what I was saying yesterday.

Will we see someone prosecuted for interviewing XR or BLM extremists? Why not (as we already know the answer)?

A reporter’s job... the clue is in the name.

Oh, and one more thing from history: the harder you suppress something, the more vicious the backlash.

History, you say?



A long time ago, apparently.
 

Latest Threads

Top