AndyinLiverpool Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 45 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Really? I've only ever heard people talking about what they voted for, not another 17.4m people. Just so we we are clear then, you thought the Prime Ministers address on the biggest political event of a generation was not important enough to report on, but the colour of people in a crowd supporting that event was? Wow. Your memory is either very selective or playing tricks on you. A great many people have told me by way of articles, TV reports, posts on forums etc what Brexiteers voted for. Have a look back over the politics threads over the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 3, 2020 Author Share Posted February 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Just to be clear, no, I don't. Strange, because that's what you have said. Do you think it would be 'noteworthy' of the BBC to start pointing out that the 86% white population appear to be very under represented in terrorist, grooming gang and stabbing stories? Or should it only be reported when they are over represented in a story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 3, 2020 Author Share Posted February 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Your memory is either very selective or playing tricks on you. A great many people have told me by way of articles, TV reports, posts on forums etc what Brexiteers voted for. Have a look back over the politics threads over the last 3 years. No, my memory is fine thank you. I've stated many times that I think I know what I was voting for. And it's often been to rebuke lies about things that were supposedly not mentioned in the lead up to the Referendum. I've also commented sometimes on what I know friends and family votes were based on. I've probably said what I believe were the main issues people voted Brexit. I've never claimed to know why all 17.4m people voted the way they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: No, my memory is fine thank you. I've stated many times that I think I know what I was voting for. And it's often been to rebuke lies about things that were supposedly not mentioned in the lead up to the Referendum. I've also commented sometimes on what I know friends and family votes were based on. I've probably said what I believe were the main issues people voted Brexit. I've never claimed to know why all 17.4m people voted the way they did. Not sure why you think my comments about Brexiteers voting were aimed at you. Homogeneity is a trait for us remainers, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Strange, because that's what you have said. Do you think it would be 'noteworthy' of the BBC to start pointing out that the 86% white population appear to be very under represented in terrorist, grooming gang and stabbing stories? Or should it only be reported when they are over represented in a story? It really isn't what I said. Read back my replies to Maxjam. Have you done anything about the BBC's omission? There's the BBC's own complains procedure or OfCom. https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints https://www.ofcom.org.uk/home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 3, 2020 Author Share Posted February 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Not sure why you think my comments about Brexiteers voting were aimed at you. Homogeneity is a trait for us remainers, no? Because you know I am a Leave voter and your response was directly to my quote? 6 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: It really isn't what I said. Read back my replies to Maxjam. Have you done anything about the BBC's omission? There's the BBC's own complains procedure or OfCom. https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints https://www.ofcom.org.uk/home Apologies if I misrepresented you. Any answer to my question? Would be interested to know when you think ethnicity should and should not be brought into a story which has nothing to do with race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 21 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Because you know I am a Leave voter and your response was directly to my quote? Apologies if I misrepresented you. Any answer to my question? Would be interested to know when you think ethnicity should and should not be brought into a story which has nothing to do with race. Sorry, it wasn't intended as a snap at you. My experience (of reading the BBC website mostly) is that the ethnicity of terrorists and their victims, grooming gangs and their victims, and the perpetrators and victims of knife attacks is made pretty clear (even when the identity of victims remains anonymous). When the pictures of grooming gangs are displayed, does it need to be said that they are not white? It's a redundant statement in a situation still governed by word count. And no journalist with any knowledge of the world is going to say something like, 'White people don't do this'. On the other hand, somebody reporting from a location where there is a large crowd could remark on the ethnicity of that crowd on the grounds that the viewer can only see a small part of the crowd. If the crowd is there to celebrate a great national event, it could be considered newsworthy that one section or other of society is under-represented. If the crowd were predominantly male (such as the members of the House of Commons) that might also be worthy of note. That something that purports to be representative seemingly falls short in some way is worthy of discussion. Now, I don't know whether the remark about the whiteness of the crowd led to anything like a discussion in the studio (I didn't watch it - I was watching 'Picard' - I only have Julia Hartley Brewer's twitter feed for reference) but it seems worth a discussion to me - whether it was accurate, if so, why is it the case? If not, why would the reporter say it? And so on. Part of the problem with reporting in this country (and not just the BBC) is that standards have fallen so far that journalists don't seem able to challenge on the spot, so something which may or may not be true is let through without scrutiny. People like me and you are left to vent at perceived incompetence or inaccuracies. Obviously, I don't agree that it has nothing to do with race. It was supposed to be an inclusive event. The reporter obviously didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 14 hours ago, maxjam said: A lot of people were unhappy with that particular episode of Horrible Histories Oh I'm laughing - I can guess who "a lot of people" were made up of. Do you think they are "a lot fewer" or "a lot more" than the people who aren't fussed in the slightest? Just remember though that Sargon of whatever is having strong opinions in a video for which he earns money every time an oppressed white bloke in his mum's back bedroom clicks on it and nods along furiously. I bet even he wouldn't be fussed if it wasn't an opportunity for him to drive some $$ out of his channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 17 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: Oh I'm laughing - I can guess who "a lot of people" were made up of. Do you think they are "a lot fewer" or "a lot more" than the people who aren't fussed in the slightest? Just remember though that Sargon of whatever is having strong opinions in a video for which he earns money every time an oppressed white bloke in his mum's back bedroom clicks on it and nods along furiously. I bet even he wouldn't be fussed if it wasn't an opportunity for him to drive some $$ out of his channel. The Horrible Histories programme was just the latest in the BBCs display of disdain for both Britain and Brexit. It was both factually wrong and designed to downplay Britains achievements. Along with their pitiful coverage in the news, as a public broadcaster they should be held to account. Not everyone is on social media and therefore might not have seen it on youtube or wherever. Furthermore, even though 48% didn't want Brexit a good percentage of those will have either no accepted the fact that we have left and/or want to know the plan going forwards, to not show the PMs address to the nation on the night we left was imo scandalous. Regarding Carl Benjamin/Sargon, I presented his video as evidence regarding the Horrible Histories controversy. I explained how and why I chose the video. I did think twice about posting it but felt that it dissected the program pretty well and made sense to my albeit limited knowledge of history, there was information in the video I could fact check. It is amazing however that the creator of the video keeps being ridiculed rather than the content of his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 1 minute ago, maxjam said: The Horrible Histories programme was just the latest in the BBCs display of disdain for both Britain and Brexit. It was both factually wrong and designed to downplay Britains achievements. Along with their pitiful coverage in the news, as a public broadcaster they should be held to account. Not everyone is on social media and therefore might not have seen it on youtube or wherever. Furthermore, even though 48% didn't want Brexit a good percentage of those will have either no accepted the fact that we have left and/or want to know the plan going forwards, to not show the PMs address to the nation on the night we left was imo scandalous. Regarding Carl Benjamin/Sargon, I presented his video as evidence regarding the Horrible Histories controversy. I explained how and why I chose the video. I did think twice about posting it but felt that it dissected the program pretty well and made sense to my albeit limited knowledge of history, there was information in the video I could fact check. It is amazing however that the creator of the video keeps being ridiculed rather than the content of his argument. Honestly. The clips from Horrible Histories were prefaced with a Python-esque 'What have the Europeans ever done to us?' question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Honestly. The clips from Horrible Histories were prefaced with a Python-esque 'What have the Europeans ever done to us?' question. It really is ridiculous how badly some people are taking a kids program. Especially given how much time they take berating "SJWs" and "political correctness" - yet they still can't see themselves in the mirror when they are losing their mess over a song on CBBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ram for All Seasons Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 43 minutes ago, maxjam said: The Horrible Histories programme was just the latest in the BBCs display of disdain for both Britain and Brexit. Good excuse for selling it off to Rupert Murdoch then. They were probably going to sell it to him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 3, 2020 Author Share Posted February 3, 2020 1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Sorry, it wasn't intended as a snap at you. My experience (of reading the BBC website mostly) is that the ethnicity of terrorists and their victims, grooming gangs and their victims, and the perpetrators and victims of knife attacks is made pretty clear (even when the identity of victims remains anonymous). When the pictures of grooming gangs are displayed, does it need to be said that they are not white? It's a redundant statement in a situation still governed by word count. And no journalist with any knowledge of the world is going to say something like, 'White people don't do this'. On the other hand, somebody reporting from a location where there is a large crowd could remark on the ethnicity of that crowd on the grounds that the viewer can only see a small part of the crowd. If the crowd is there to celebrate a great national event, it could be considered newsworthy that one section or other of society is under-represented. If the crowd were predominantly male (such as the members of the House of Commons) that might also be worthy of note. That something that purports to be representative seemingly falls short in some way is worthy of discussion. Now, I don't know whether the remark about the whiteness of the crowd led to anything like a discussion in the studio (I didn't watch it - I was watching 'Picard' - I only have Julia Hartley Brewer's twitter feed for reference) but it seems worth a discussion to me - whether it was accurate, if so, why is it the case? If not, why would the reporter say it? And so on. Part of the problem with reporting in this country (and not just the BBC) is that standards have fallen so far that journalists don't seem able to challenge on the spot, so something which may or may not be true is let through without scrutiny. People like me and you are left to vent at perceived incompetence or inaccuracies. Obviously, I don't agree that it has nothing to do with race. It was supposed to be an inclusive event. The reporter obviously didn't think so. No worries, wasnt taken as a snap at me. And thank you for taking the time to explain your logic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said: Good excuse for selling it off to Rupert Murdoch then. They were probably going to sell it to him anyway. If the BBC aren't even going to pretend to be impartial then it needs selling off. Sky did something very similar, on their website the showed just a 40s snippet of the PMs address in an article about their own farewell message beemed onto the White Cliffs of Dover ? The key difference however is that if I don't like Sky's bias I don't have to pay for it. The BBC however is expected to be an impartial broadcaster that everyone has to pay for, if it can't remain true to those standards it should be sold off. Murdoch or anyone can have it as far as I'm concerned, then we make individual choices as to what we watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1of4 Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 As we have now officially handed in our membership of the EU. When do we get to do the thing our politicians have been telling us, over the past three years, that we will be able to do and that's take back control. It appears that until we get a trade deal with the EU or the end of the year, which ever comes first, we are still following EU regulations on trade, movement of goods, immigration, agriculture, fishing, pharmaceuticals, well pretty much everything, so it would seem. Oh wait we can immediately take back control of the colour of our passport. Yes we can change it back to blue. That glorious colour also used on the Croatian passport, a country that is a member of the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, maxjam said: If the BBC aren't even going to pretend to be impartial then it needs selling off. Sky did something very similar, on their website the showed just a 40s snippet of the PMs address in an article about their own farewell message beemed onto the White Cliffs of Dover ? The key difference however is that if I don't like Sky's bias I don't have to pay for it. The BBC however is expected to be an impartial broadcaster that everyone has to pay for, if it can't remain true to those standards it should be sold off. Murdoch or anyone can have it as far as I'm concerned, then we make individual choices as to what we watch. Impartial or reflecting your own views on (eg) what is or isn't anti-British? Balanced or uncritical of the conservative (small c) patriotic view of the history of these islands? For all the right's castigation of the 'echo chambers' of the left, are you not simply trying to create your own out of the BBC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, maxjam said: If the BBC aren't even going to pretend to be impartial then it needs selling off. Sky did something very similar, on their website the showed just a 40s snippet of the PMs address in an article about their own farewell message beemed onto the White Cliffs of Dover ? The key difference however is that if I don't like Sky's bias I don't have to pay for it. The BBC however is expected to be an impartial broadcaster that everyone has to pay for, if it can't remain true to those standards it should be sold off. Murdoch or anyone can have it as far as I'm concerned, then we make individual choices as to what we watch. I thought the coverage of Friday night was odd all round. How many do you think there were at the Leave do in the square? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Ram for All Seasons Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, 1of4 said: Yes we can change it back to blue. That glorious colour also used on the Croatian passport, a country that is a member of the EU. I had a message from the Passport Office saying that my new passport had been printed on 31 January. I wonder what I am going to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 Did we sign those trade deals, Liam? https://www.businessinsider.com/liam-fox-promises-to-sign-40-free-trade-deals-the-second-after-brexit-2017-10?r=US&IR=T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted February 3, 2020 Share Posted February 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said: I had a message from the Passport Office saying that my new passport had been printed on 31 January. I wonder what I am going to get. Red & presumably still an EU one if it begins on 31st Jan. I saw over the weekend that the Blue passports aren't going to be sent out until June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.