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

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Hm. I think it's pretty clear that Sir David was murdered. I find it difficult to conceive that he slipped and fell repeatedly onto the knife held by a hapless bystander. In fact, we know already that he was attacked by someone carrying a knife.

The perpetrator's actions have been quite clearly described. They don't constitute manslaughter as it was a considered, unprovoked act.

What you can't do is call the suspect a murderer until he's convicted. That's pretty much it.
 
Hm. I think it's pretty clear that Sir David was murdered. I find it difficult to conceive that he slipped and fell repeatedly onto the knife held by a hapless bystander. In fact, we know already that he was attacked by someone carrying a knife.

The perpetrator's actions have been quite clearly described. They don't constitute manslaughter as it was a considered, unprovoked act.

What you can't do is call the suspect a murderer until he's convicted. That's pretty much it.I can of course see
Sorry, but I can't agree although I can of course see your point of view. A suspect may be accused of murder, but the media (and individuals such as us) should NOT call it murder once the case is live without falling foul of contempt of court.

Apart from "Not Guilty" there are other possible verdicts.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Sorry, but I can't agree although I can of course see your point of view. A suspect may be accused of murder, but the media (and individuals such as us) should NOT call it murder once the case is live without falling foul of contempt of court.

Apart from "Not Guilty" there are other possible verdicts.
I did a libel course some years ago. There was a lot of emphasis placed on being careful about the choice of words and how they may be misconstrued. There was nothing said about this.
 
I dislike the BBC's descent into political correctness, wokeism and its blatant left-wing agenda.

But I think the use of "murdered" and "killed" is actually a legal necessity; the killer of Jo Cox was convicted of murder, whilst the death of Sir David Amess is still the subject of an investigation. To describe his death as a "murder" might prejudice any subsequent court case.

Last sentence - how ?
 
I think every man, woman, child, its and the little baby donkeys will call this murder...it isn't anything else and IF this chap gets a light sentence for him having a "mental health" issue then I think we are truly screwed as a country... mind you he will probably get off on the "It's a cultural thing" defence.
 
Only when I went to see "12 Years a Slave" did I understood what exploiting another human being can be at it's worst.

I paid £5.65 for large popcorn.


I watched this crap the other day Enslaved with Samuel L Jackson

Obviously it was all whiteys fault, hardly any blame attached to the fact that the Africans themselves were already slave owners & takers and that the whites had gone to trade for other things first, timber, ivory etc and just realised there was money to be made from slaves. No mention at all of the E. coast trade which had been going on longer and finished later or the fact that we were the first to stop it & use our navy to enforce the ban.
There were attempts to prove that slaves were being brought to Britain by diving on a ship wrecked off Cornwall all they came up with was various trading artefacts like beads & copper bangles, oh and 1 elephants tusk.
Again no mention that slavery was practised everywhere in the ancient world, Egypt, Greece, Rome, & the Vikings who practised it in Britain with Dublin being a significant centre for the trade.
 
I watched this crap the other day Enslaved with Samuel L Jackson

Obviously it was all whiteys fault, hardly any blame attached to the fact that the Africans themselves were already slave owners & takers and that the whites had gone to trade for other things first, timber, ivory etc and just realised there was money to be made from slaves. No mention at all of the E. coast trade which had been going on longer and finished later or the fact that we were the first to stop it & use our navy to enforce the ban.
There were attempts to prove that slaves were being brought to Britain by diving on a ship wrecked off Cornwall all they came up with was various trading artefacts like beads & copper bangles, oh and 1 elephants tusk.
Again no mention that slavery was practised everywhere in the ancient world, Egypt, Greece, Rome, & the Vikings who practised it in Britain with Dublin being a significant centre for the trade.

...and was there any mention of the Barbary pirates taking people from Devon and Cornwall into the 1800's?
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
BBC.png


Biased or not, they're certainly absolute ******* dogshit. MrsBJ who's in Junior 4 knows the difference between a country and continent for **** sake.

 
Last sentence - how ?
I will try to keep this simple.

Without commenting on this particular case, imagine the case of a person accused of murder. He or she enters a plea of not guilty, with a defence that the balance of his/her mind was disturbed, or that the death was in fact manslaughter.

A newspaper reports the ongoing case and states that the defendant is accused of murder. Fine.

Another newspaper reports that the dead person was murdered. Not fine.

The defence lawyer argues that the jury, or jurors, may have been prejudiced if they read the offending article and were potentially swayed to return a guilty verdict.


I hope that helps; are there any Arrser lawyer posters to support or challenge my view?

This thread has become a classic example of social media being used to comment on legal cases. It is dangerous ground; tread carefully.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I watched this crap the other day Enslaved with Samuel L Jackson

Obviously it was all whiteys fault, hardly any blame attached to the fact that the Africans themselves were already slave owners & takers and that the whites had gone to trade for other things first, timber, ivory etc and just realised there was money to be made from slaves. No mention at all of the E. coast trade which had been going on longer and finished later or the fact that we were the first to stop it & use our navy to enforce the ban.
There were attempts to prove that slaves were being brought to Britain by diving on a ship wrecked off Cornwall all they came up with was various trading artefacts like beads & copper bangles, oh and 1 elephants tusk.
Again no mention that slavery was practised everywhere in the ancient world, Egypt, Greece, Rome, & the Vikings who practised it in Britain with Dublin being a significant centre for the trade.
SLJ, although being of a dusky hue, is still a Septic so any programme on slavery must be used to deflect blame from the USA and usually on to Britain. Never mind that French, Spanish, Dutch ships were also involved in the trade and of course, as you point out, no mention of the sterling work done by Britain to stop the slave trade, including attacking US flagged ships carrying black gold.
 
SLJ, although being of a dusky hue, is still a Septic so any programme on slavery must be used to deflect blame from the USA and usually on to Britain. Never mind that French, Spanish, Dutch ships were also involved in the trade and of course, as you point out, no mention of the sterling work done by Britain to stop the slave trade, including attacking US flagged ships carrying black gold.


You've missed out Portugal which was probably the first European country involved starting in the 15th C & shipping over 3 million to Brazil.
 
Jesus Christ.

Well I'm glad they've tackled the key issue facing young people in Britain; you can't move for roving gangs of tooled-up Gammon these days in the suburbs after dark. Far more of a threat to the littluns than parental neglect or paedophile rings, no doubt.
That was excellent, is it a trailer for a new series?
 
Colin Brazier of GB News gives an analysis of how the BBC and other news organisations report 'islamist' atrocities:

 
Last edited:
I will try to keep this simple.

Without commenting on this particular case, imagine the case of a person accused of murder. He or she enters a plea of not guilty, with a defence that the balance of his/her mind was disturbed, or that the death was in fact manslaughter.

A newspaper reports the ongoing case and states that the defendant is accused of murder. Fine.

Another newspaper reports that the dead person was murdered. Not fine.

The defence lawyer argues that the jury, or jurors, may have been prejudiced if they read the offending article and were potentially swayed to return a guilty verdict.


I hope that helps; are there any Arrser lawyer posters to support or challenge my view?

This thread has become a classic example of social media being used to comment on legal cases. It is dangerous ground; tread carefully.


Apologies for commenting on my own posts. However, those who have disagreed or disliked my warnings about the need for care to avoid potential Contempt of Court might be interested in the following. (@BarcelonaAnalPark has already posted this on the "Tory MP Stabbed" thread.)

Please note that the case is considered live.

 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Colin Brazier of GB News gives an analyses how the BBC and other news organisations report 'islamist' atrocities:

People should be able to say, without being attacked. "That is precisely why I am not Muslim"!
 

TamH70

MIA
Apologies for commenting on my own posts. However, those who have disagreed or disliked my warnings about the need for care to avoid potential Contempt of Court might be interested in the following. (@BarcelonaAnalPark has already posted this on the "Tory MP Stabbed" thread.)

Please note that the case is considered live.


I'm up in Weefreeistan.

They want to go the extra mile of extraditing me down South that London like way they're welcome.
 
I will try to keep this simple.

Without commenting on this particular case, imagine the case of a person accused of murder. He or she enters a plea of not guilty, with a defence that the balance of his/her mind was disturbed, or that the death was in fact manslaughter.

A newspaper reports the ongoing case and states that the defendant is accused of murder. Fine.

Another newspaper reports that the dead person was murdered. Not fine.

The defence lawyer argues that the jury, or jurors, may have been prejudiced if they read the offending article and were potentially swayed to return a guilty verdict.


I hope that helps; are there any Arrser lawyer posters to support or challenge my view?

This thread has become a classic example of social media being used to comment on legal cases. It is dangerous ground; tread carefully.

Colin Brazier of GB News gives an analyses of how the BBC and other news organisations report 'islamist' atrocities:

You can't say that , because you will likely get stabbed by one .
 
Top