I do not pick on you, I respond. Yes, sometimes I treat your posts with contempt, but it is usually a reaction.
Lol, disingenuous. Do you know the definition of the word?
It is becoming a bit rhetorical this I’m not here to debate. I can hold my hands up and accept that sometimes I can jump from point to point, I also accept that my views are considered more RW than the majority of this forum.
You responded to a post of mine - not the first time - in which you have insinuated I have said something, which I never did, you then refer to me as a RW sympathiser.
I have asked you to provide quotes to back up your post. Guess what, you haven’t, you then do your usual trick of deflecting, questioning my character in order to avoid backing up your nonsense.
If you don’t want to debate with me then don’t, I am not forcing you to. Just block me and save us both time and energy.
Huh, the statement was only made by the police on Thursday. But I was told numerous times…
You choose to believe the WMP over the Labour’s
Secretary of Culture, Media, Sport. Why because it suits your narrative.
You will see that in my response to Koptician I said it was upto you who to believe, I then provided an alternative source which guess what, you completely ignore.
Do I think there was influence from the local MP’s, yes. I provided sources to support this but guess what, you haven’t provided anything to question my opinion.
Do I think there would have been antisemitism from the locals, yes. Did it happen yes.
Have I said it was the Key Factor…no!!
They are all factors, along with the Hooligan element of the Tel-Aviv supporters. Police resources, etc.
I personally believe it is a sad sign that in a Country that prides itself on the freedom of speech, equality and places pride in their ability to hold big events, had to ban travelling fans. What happens if Israel qualify for the 2028 Euro’s?
Trying to draw a line under our current exchange. I do not condone what is happening in Palestine, the senseless loss of lives, people being forced to leave their homes, starvation, etc. I wish that on no one.
I am sure we will both agree on the hope for continued peace in the Middle East, Ukraine, Africa, etc.
I wish you good health and no ill feeling. All the best
There have been some wrecking ball appointments into the BBC. They need to get the next Director General appointment right. I’m not sure who is available for it. I’m guessing there will be some internal candidates but it needs to be someone that is regarded as an independently minded establishment figure.
I don’t think you can underestimate how important it is to have a credible public service broadcaster.
It’s such a shame that every party leader in the UK left to Labour are naive idiots without a basic understanding of the outside world. The idea that Russia will agree to denuclerise is so utterly ignorant that it is beyond the realms of idiocy, into the realms where one should be branded as an imbecile.
And his comparison with Mandela negotiationg with the Apartheid regime, is…bonkers.
But he had a nice commercial. Such a shame this.
Ps. The source of the video, Fawkes, is irrelevant. The video is not doctored.
Don’t know who Richard here is, but he seems to be on point (and a quick scan of his timeline shows him as sensible):
I think the writing is on the wall mate. Pretty soon we’ll all be receiving our news almost exclusively from social media oligarchs who sponsor populists and authoritarians.
The propaganda and disinformation against Trump, is extremely damaging to credibility. Here you have a , to use your word, wrecking ball, associated with neo fascists and if you just dig a bit, certainly the storming of the Congress. Should be easy with ammo to get any kind of critical story on Trump right.
To doctor a speech, when there is so much to actually report; will logically mean that the BBC will lose trust by those who lean right or those who are just media skeptics, for a very long time.
I don’t even understand how they can have done this. It’s obscene for such an organisation that relies on being taken seriously
It’s a very,very big deal and this is a story that is reported all over the world. This is extraordinary serious.
Neither can I. Some of these were Johnson appointments I believe, which means they’re essentially on that side of political spectrum.
This just feeds the far right narrative that the BBC is a lefty outlet, when it us nothing of the sort. For example, there is not a peep by them on Farage’s partner being involved with a company under investigation of corruption in the EU. Not much on his house purchase either.
The conspiracy part of my mind is whirring into action again. Probably needlessly but this is weird.
The programme that aired the doctored speech was made by an independent TV production company. The BBC are only guilty of not vetting the programme before it went out. A very important distinction which has been lost in the hysteria.
The crisis-hit BBC has been slammed for inviting former S(cum) editor Kelvin Mackenzie to speak as part of a discussion about journalistic standards following the resignation of two senior corporation executives.
The BBC has been covering the story of its departing senior executives today and the debate around bias and journalistic standards currently engulfing the corporation.
And one of the guests booked to speak to BBC News and discuss these issues was Kelvin Mackenzie, the former editor of The S(cum) newspaper.
Mackenzie, who edited The S(cum) from 1981 until the early 1990s, was in charge of the newspaper when it published lies about Liverpool fans in the wake of the 1989 disaster, in which 97 Reds supporters were unlawfully killed.
The decision to bring Mackenzie in to talk about journalistic standards amid the ongoing crisis at the BBC has been met with derision by many, including Liverpool fans.
James Pearce, who covers Liverpool for The Athletic, took to X to state: “BBC Breakfast inviting on Kelvin MacKenzie to talk about integrity and standards in journalism” followed by a head exploding emoji
…This post was shared by Spirit of Shankly, the official supporter’s union for Liverpool FC, who added: “Unbelievable - surely not.”
Jay McKenna, regional secretary for the TUC and a prominent Liverpool fan added: “When talking about a story covering journalistic and news standards, integrity and honesty, why have BBC Breakfast used Kelvin MacKenzie?”
Former deputy editor of The Guardian Paul Johnson agreed, sharing a picture of The S(cum)'s infamous Hillsborough front page and adding: “And so the editor responsible for this front page is on tv now lecturing BBC on journalistic ethics. Weird.”
Still very serious, since Panorama is one of the Big investigative documentary series and THE one on the BBC. “Everyone” who watches Panorama thinks it’s very serious and well researched.
I think this will have devastating long term damage for the BBC, which makes me very sad. The BBC, despite getting worse in recent years, is THE most important broadcaster with a high journalistic standard of size in the world and it’s critical to protect it’s integrity.
The BBC has always been the standard, that other networks elsewhere in Europe, used as a benchmark. This is very bad.
Also, this aids Trump, which in the short term, is also very bad in my opinion.
Yep , they are going to be reputationally damaged by it to such an extent that it will be hard for them to recover from. And that , after all , was the entire gameplan , cooked up by the likes of Trump / Johnson / Farage and their sock puppets. The BBC made it far too easy for them.
I completely agree.I personally find the BBC generally impartial, even if I do not agree with some of their reports.
The problem is that finding someone independently minded will be almost impossible and even if they are they will still be judged by the Right/Left.
I actually don’t think their views matter, it is about having a good team/structure that takes ownership of its faults and is proactive in addressing them.
Reading into things, it appears the BBC has ignored issues in the hope they go away, are slow to act and indecisive in making decisions.
When you have people making content for you, you need to ensure they are following your policies/values.
Panorama is a documentary based show, which is supposed to investigate stories and expose the lies. It is probably one of the BBC’s most important programmes, that reflects everything the BBC proclaims to stand for. Every part of investigative programmes should be fact checked and its sources credibility assessed.
Further more, why source external assessors if you are just going to sweep their assessment under the carpet or ignore it? It should be reviewed and its decision documented.
Some further reading if anyone is interested. It is the BBC charter.
Trump is a very controversial figure rightly or wrongly. Even more so to the majority of the European public.
If the Producers/Editors/BBC actually intentionally aimed to provide a bias on the Capitol Riots, they had enough footage to favour their bias. By splicing the speeches, they have destroyed their reputation massively.
The Documentary was about a Former US President, a week before the US election where he was one of the two main candidates. To air it at this time, so close to the election it needed to be 100% on the money factually.
I am confident that it will recover from this, but with the rise of Fake News and the hiding behind this as a defence, the BBC really needs to get its house in order.
I completely understand the point you make, however, I feel it is far more serious than just an over sight on vetting and irrelevant of any alleged hysteria it should not be down played.
Throughout my time engaging on this thread, if I was given a pound for the number of times I have seen someone (rightly or wrongly) use the “RW Media” in support of their defence, I would be a rich man.
As addressed in my previous posts, this is not just a bad vetting process, it is much more than that. I took your comment “that fat fuck is threatening to sue” as jovial. But, the BBC if only guilty of bad vetting have really destroyed their reputation and provided an easy get out of jail clause for any other future subjects.
