Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. 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 correspondent, retweeted by..... BBC correspondent (of colour)...
‘Folks’? He doesn’t mention the arrivals across the Channel by inflatables is illegal immigration, but instead cobbles it in with all immigration (mainly legal and authorised), to come up with his meaningless statistic. Prick.
 
As a method of debate, denying anything is wrong and then labelling those who do, as outraged and ending with a pejorative, its all rather fruitless.
Making shit up is fairly bollocks - something you do post after post. I've never said that nothing is up with the BBC. Have I?

Are you denying making up shit then sparky? You'll have links to the stuff which you claim I've said aye?

If your arguments are confined to straw men then your much posted "critical thinking" is absent.
 
Last edited:
No, the point is that when you do something like this across a massive group of people there will inevitably be some who benefit and some who lose out. A couple of those who have lost out probably would have done better in exams. They could either a) go via the appeals process, submitting evidence to back up their assertion they would have done better and ask for a regrading or b) whine in the media.



Almost certainly not. He might have been on exam day, who knows? If he thinks that grade is unfair then he should appeal, not try and do sarcasm on twitter.

What system do you think should have been used to award those grades instead that would avoid all of these issues?
It would have been harder but more attention based on the individuals past performance rather than their schools average attainment. More important though would have been a fully functioning appeals system that didn't lead to a big waiting list.

In the end, this is saying to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who will in all probability attend lower attaining schools, that their efforts don't count for much.
 
What amused me about the BBC and migration is two standard rhetorical points:-
1. Refer to the amphibious migrations from a safe country, as 'desperate' and emphasise 'kids and pregnant ladies' all with a final comment from the Kent refugee alliance... Crossing in Mid January, is desperate, but escorted by the french coastguard and then handed off to border force, is not desperation in my book and make no mistake, this is migration and bot all to do with asylum.
2. The numbers game, as mentioned by another poster, where the Beeb focuses on the relatively small number, but then fails to highlight the actual number of migrants is bloody enormous and the Tories failed completely to get a grip. (the beeb doesn't criticise the government, because it agrees with migration)

Conclusion:-
If Priti does start to intercept and turn boats around, our dear BBC will be hiring Helicopters and Boats to catch the drastic moments when they're jump into the sea (on orders from the Kent refugee alliance).
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
What is the legal basis for her to do that?
If that is your view then what is the legal basis for Italy to pass to France who move them up the line then facilitate their movement out of French waters?

You are trying to legalise illegality.
 
Completely agree that us and France need to sort this out, and that the focus should be the criminals who facilitate this.

I'd suggest preventing the French authorities from escorting the illegals into British waters would be a minimum requirement.

As the French demonstrably have manpower and boats enough to spare, they must be instructed to intercept, offload the illegals, return them to the point of departure and destroy their unsafe craft.

Prevention of risk is clearly the humanitarian course of action, so the sooner they are out of the water and returned to French dry land the safer they will be.
 
What amused me about the BBC and migration is two standard rhetorical points:-
1. Refer to the amphibious migrations from a safe country, as 'desperate' and emphasise 'kids and pregnant ladies' all with a final comment from the Kent refugee alliance... Crossing in Mid January, is desperate, but escorted by the french coastguard and then handed off to border force, is not desperation in my book and make no mistake, this is migration and bot all to do with asylum.
2. The numbers game, as mentioned by another poster, where the Beeb focuses on the relatively small number, but then fails to highlight the actual number of migrants is bloody enormous and the Tories failed completely to get a grip. (the beeb doesn't criticise the government, because it agrees with migration)

Conclusion:-
If Priti does start to intercept and turn boats around, our dear BBC will be hiring Helicopters and Boats to catch the drastic moments when they're jump into the sea (on orders from the Kent refugee alliance).
I'll take it you don't have links to me saying what you claim I've said then? Unlike when I was able to link to you saying you had me on ignore eh?

  1. Nice to see someone whose posting history is littered with unsourced rhetoric questioning the BBCs rhetoric...
  2. The numbers game, if it wasn't for immigrants we'd be in population decline. Which may be a good thing, or not but as was, we needed them. Not the fault of the BBC that you don't like one of their reporters ability to do sums on twitter though. Is it?
Conclusion:

You still don't have a Scooby, let Priti help you:​
 
It would have been harder but more attention based on the individuals past performance rather than their schools average attainment.
So you're happy to penalise students that would have done well in their exams because they hadn't done well in previous years? Sounds a lot like the opposite of the argument the rapidly improving schools are making, that they shouldn't be judged on past performance. There's also the issue that I doubt that approach could have been done in a fair way in the timeframe.

More important though would have been a fully functioning appeals system that didn't lead to a big waiting list.
How would you achieve that when all of the results are released to the students at exactly the same time on the same day?

In the end, this is saying to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who will in all probability attend lower attaining schools, that their efforts don't count for much.
No, it's attempting to rein in optimistic predictions from teachers and turn them into something approaching what would realistically have happened. I would also suggest that you swap the two bolded statements around unless you have evidence that the SQA are deliberately targetting disadvantaged students.

As I said before there would be winners and losers no matter what system was used, including normal exams. No matter what is done some people will always be penalised. What was done appears, so far, to be the fairest system that could be implemented at extremely short notice. I still don't see the reasoning for the outrage that appears to have gripped some people in the media.
 
Interesting insights..
1596895114219.png
 
So you're happy to penalise students that would have done well in their exams because they hadn't done well in previous years? Sounds a lot like the opposite of the argument the rapidly improving schools are making, that they shouldn't be judged on past performance. There's also the issue that I doubt that approach could have been done in a fair way in the timeframe.
I did say it was harder, past performance a much better indicator.
How would you achieve that when all of the results are released to the students at exactly the same time on the same day?
How many appeals have gone in? If students had to rely on their school appealing, which they did, it's harder for them to go about it. In England they could appeal directly I believe. They have until 14th Aug to get their appeals in I think.
No, it's attempting to rein in optimistic predictions from teachers and turn them into something approaching what would realistically have happened. I would also suggest that you swap the two bolded statements around unless you have evidence that the SQA are deliberately targetting disadvantaged students.
You're taking a leaf out of others books. At no time did I say that disadvantaged pupils were deliberately targeted. Did I? This is what the reports say though:

There were complaints, too, about the SQA’s decision to cut Higher passes for pupils from the most deprived areas by over 15 points, from the 85.1% pass rate recommended by teachers down to 69.9%. By comparison, grades were cut in only 9.8% of cases for the best off pupils.

SQA under fire after downgrading 124,000 predicted exam results


As I said before there would be winners and losers no matter what system was used, including normal exams. No matter what is done some people will always be penalised. What was done appears, so far, to be the fairest system that could be implemented at extremely short notice. I still don't see the reasoning for the outrage that appears to have gripped some people in the media.
As long as it's those from poorer backgrounds....
 
What is the legal basis for her to do that?
How many safe countries crossed by these ahem, 'refugees' ? and I would say that, if Australia can get away with dumping its economic migrants on an island, then we can turn them back towards French waters from whence they're came on the grounds of safety (because were told how desperate and dangerous those waters are).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
How many safe countries crossed by these ahem, 'refugees' ? and I would say that, if Australia can get away with dumping its economic migrants on an island, then we can turn them back towards French waters from whence they're came on the grounds of safety (because were told how desperate and dangerous those waters are).
Did not a French politician criticise Diane Abbott over her statement that those people coming here are fleeing from war and tyranny? It was pointed out that France is currently a fairly safe place.

This country shouldn't have a refugee problem. It's an island off the edge of a large and relatively politically stable land mass. It does have a problem with economic migrants, though.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top