Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Should the BBC be renamed "Guardian TV"?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    It has reached the stage where the dysfunctional BBC makes the Guardian seem radically right-wing!

    Last edited by Ollyof39; 08-23-2013 at 09:51 AM.

  2. #22
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,474

    Default

    I presume Northumbrian is of the opinion, with regard the left-wing, that two wrongs will always make a right.

    And really Northumbrian, "what about paper newspapers"?! Perhaps Greenwald could start employing pigeon carriers instead of using the internet? Why on earth would I travel 350 yards to buy a paper that is 40-60% adverts and is basically the exact same content there is online; if not better quality and quantity - with opinions, comments and editorials on the story? It is constantly updated by the minute. So much more can be done with online resources that you can with print. And are you really advocating newspapers over online news? This is why I think your posts are obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

    Would you mind Northumbrian if I started a new topic called Northumbrian's Quote of Week?
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    I want the police to do their jobs, which is why I want the independent reviewer of terrorism to ensure that was what they were doing - instead of misapplying terrorism legislation in order to do things to a 'journalist' they could not so easily do outside a port
    So if your "independent reviewer" finds that the police acted wrong, you would presumably expect these findings to be made public? Even if this reveals confidential material? How about letting the police get on with their job. This guy was only questioned FFS. We don't need a public inquiry every time someone is merely questioned by the police.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    What law!? The man is writting about his exploits in a national newspaper he is hardly being secretive over his actions
    Ronaldo or whatever his name is was not arrested because of what his lover had already written about (which perhaps was not a crime in this country), but perhaps something they were suspected of being about to reveal, which would be a crime. Stop pretending you are all informed about this case, when in reality you know Jack Shit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Eh? No, not supposition ffs, RESEARCH! The reports were not illegal because no one has been arrested for publishing them. No court has issued an injunction against the Guardian. The government were involved as May and Cameron were BOTH told of the detention BEFORE Miranda was detained.
    Errrm ... just because May and Cameron were informed doesn't mean they were running the show. Operational matters for the police are not under political control. Maybe they were told as a courtesy, given the inevitable reaction that would result in the left-wing media and from the Brazilians. There is a whole pile of stuff you don't know about here, so it is you who is making all the suppositions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

    a) You don't know why Ronaldo was arrested or the nature of the crime (if there is a crime) he is suspected of
    b) You don't know what was on his computer or other electronic equipment
    c) You don't know why he was kept for 9 hours
    d) You don't know whether he coooperated with the police - we only have his side to the story
    e) You don't know why he was in the pay cheque of the Guardian

    When you learn some of these things, you can accuse me of being uninformed. Incidently, I don't believe there is any reason why the answers to any these questions should be made public.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    This is the Travyon thread all over again. YOU start a thread and proceed to show a shocking lack of knowledge on the topic you are talking about but you blindly follow the police's take on the case almost without question. You're simply a government stooge and it's really quite sad. There are people out there who support the police in this case, but they know what they are talking about, they have researched the case before pronouncing judgement. You on the other hand merely follow the government's take without asking anything.
    Yes, and I was right on Trayvon too. Again, what does this have to do with the government? If you tripped up on a paving stone, would you think it was a government conspiracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Of course you like it . . . It's a law that's been misused in order to detain your political enemies . .
    Enemies of the whole country I would say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    It's the 21st Century, no one actually buys newspapers
    Refer to my response to Eatmy below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Reread your post. You accuse them of breaking a law. Were you just making that up?
    You seem to make things up all the time. All I know is that he was not detained for no reason. The police had a reason, which probably involved national security and may have involved a suspicision of a law being about to be broken. Perhaps it turned out that he was completely innocent of any wrong-doing. We don't know and the police are not obliged to tell us. You either trust the police or turn the UK into a terrorist holiday camp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Careful, your facist roots are showing . . . advocating arrest of journalists now eh?
    Journalists are not above the law, and if they threaten national security they need to be put under scrutiny. Are you suggesting that Lord Haw Haw was "just a radio presenter" during WWII "speaking his mind" and didn't deserve to be arrested and tried for treason? The Guardian is today's Lord Haw Haw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    The point is that they do not need to have any suspcisions whatsoever. None. You could be detained. Your laptop and equipment confiscated. Forced to hand over passwords. Without probable cause. None whatsoever. They can ask you any question they want and arrest you if you do not fully comply. None of the questions need be about terrorism or national security.
    Good I'm happy to help the police with their enquiries. I am confident I have never done anything to threaten national security and I'm sure the police would release me without charge. There would be no hard feelings - they are just doing their job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Not public. But elected. Democratic. The home affiars select committee need not be held in public as you well know. I am advocating political OVERSIGHT, not public scrutiny. Why are you struggling with such a basic concept?
    Since when do politicians keep anything secret that they think can harm their opponents? I believe the police and security services should be independent of government and politics, but how can they be if they know every operation will have to be scrutinised by politicians afterwards? Would we need an enquiry after anyone is questioned under section 7? Or is it just when a Brazilian has a tantrum and spits his dummy out?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rook View Post
    Not at all. The police lied and lied again over that case. You know that. I know that. Yet you what to give the police carte blanche to do as it pleases without oversight
    Mistakes were made and learned by the police. That case had nothing to do with this one, and is not related in any way. So why bring it up? As I said ... straw man argument.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    I presume Northumbrian is of the opinion, with regard the left-wing, that two wrongs will always make a right.

    And really Northumbrian, "what about paper newspapers"?! Perhaps Greenwald could start employing pigeon carriers instead of using the internet? Why on earth would I travel 350 yards to buy a paper that is 40-60% adverts and is basically the exact same content there is online; if not better quality and quantity - with opinions, comments and editorials on the story? It is constantly updated by the minute. So much more can be done with online resources that you can with print. And are you really advocating newspapers over online news? This is why I think your posts are obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

    Would you mind Northumbrian if I started a new topic called Northumbrian's Quote of Week?
    I probably hit the Guardian website at least once a week, usually following a link from one of your inane posts. Does this mean I have any loyalty to (or respect for) the Guardian? No it doesn't - I wouldn't buy a paper copy of the Guardian in a million years. The number of visits to a FREE website in my opinion does not represent any accolade or measure of loyalty. Putting your hand in your pocket and paying for something is different. If all newspaper websites charged subscription like the Times does, then it might be different. At the end of the day, newspapers still make their money by selling paper newspapers. Maybe that will change in decades to come, but they will have to come up with a new financial model because giving out news for free on the web is not sustainable.

    Note that the Music Charts are based on the number of (paid) downloads of music tracks (as well as radio plays and traditional CD sales). However, it does not include, as far as I know, the number of tracks downloaded free from illegal sites, or the number of times the track is video-streamed for free on sites like YouTube. Its the same thing. The true quality of something is judged by the money it makes ... and on this basis the Guardian is sh*te!

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    IThe true quality of something is judged by the money it makes ... and on this basis the Guardian is sh*te!
    OK perhaps "popularity" would have been a better word to use than "quality" there (thinking about The Sun!). However, for the Guardian it amounts to the same thing.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    So if your "independent reviewer" finds that the police acted wrong, you would presumably expect these findings to be made public? Even if this reveals confidential material?
    Better that than to allow the police to do wrong with impunity. Or are you really advocating that the police should be above the law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Ronaldo or whatever his name is was not arrested because of what his lover had already written about (which perhaps was not a crime in this country), but perhaps something they were suspected of being about to reveal, which would be a crime. Stop pretending you are all informed about this case, when in reality you know Jack Shit.
    Miranda was not arrested. You really should get such basic facts correct before you accuse me of knowing jack shit . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Errrm ... just because May and Cameron were informed doesn't mean they were running the show.
    Pure strawman - I never claimed they ran the show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    a) You don't know why Ronaldo was arrested or the nature of the crime (if there is a crime) he is suspected of
    b) You don't know what was on his computer or other electronic equipment
    c) You don't know why he was kept for 9 hours
    d) You don't know whether he coooperated with the police - we only have his side to the story
    e) You don't know why he was in the pay cheque of the Guardian
    Call me a democrat - an English one at that (not a Russian 'democrat') - but I truely believe that some of those questions SHOULD be known. Protection from unwarrented searches of your person and confiscation of your belongings is a fundamental right. It is telling that the police needed the cover of this bastard of a law in order to detain Miranda. Fact is, they had insufficient suspicion to detain him fairly

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Yes, and I was right on Trayvon too. Again, what does this have to do with the government? If you tripped up on a paving stone, would you think it was a government conspiracy?
    I don't see the relation of that to the part of the my post you quoted . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Enemies of the whole country I would say.
    Guilty until proven innocent eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    You seem to make things up all the time. All I know is that he was not detained for no reason. The police had a reason, which probably involved national security and may have involved a suspicision of a law being about to be broken.
    How you can say that with a straight face is beyond me. The police need no reason whatsoever to detain someone under that act. Yet you believe they had a reason. An uncritical government stooge if ever I saw one

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    You either trust the police or turn the UK into a terrorist holiday camp.
    Those are the only two options eh? Jesus weep . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Journalists are not above the law, and if they threaten national security they need to be put under scrutiny. Are you suggesting that Lord Haw Haw was "just a radio presenter" during WWII "speaking his mind" and didn't deserve to be arrested and tried for treason? The Guardian is today's Lord Haw Haw.
    I'm not arguing that journalists should be above the law, I am merely asking that the law not be misapplied in order to do things to them (and us) that would otherwise not be legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Good I'm happy to help the police with their enquiries. I am confident I have never done anything to threaten national security and I'm sure the police would release me without charge. There would be no hard feelings - they are just doing their job.
    Of course you feel that way, you agree with everything they do in the name of "national security"

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Since when do politicians keep anything secret that they think can harm their opponents?
    Since they signed the official secrets act perhaps??

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I believe the police and security services should be independent of government and politics, but how can they be if they know every operation will have to be scrutinised by politicians afterwards? Would we need an enquiry after anyone is questioned under section 7? Or is it just when a Brazilian has a tantrum and spits his dummy out?
    Jesus, that is what we are effectively doing at the moment. Section 7 is being thoroughly reasessed . . why am I not surprised you feel the police need not worry about explaining their use of such powers

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Mistakes were made and learned by the police. That case had nothing to do with this one, and is not related in any way. So why bring it up? As I said ... straw man argument.
    Try to use some brainpower to figure out why it is related, it's really not that complicated. The Police in the Demenezes case did WRONG. They tried to cover it up but were found out. It proves that they CAN NOT BE TRUSTED. Therefore, when they do OTHER things which people percieve to be WRONG, we CAN NOT TRUST THEM to determine if they did do wrong or not. Hence, independent oversight is required

  7. #27
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I probably hit the Guardian website at least once a week, usually following a link from one of your inane posts. Does this mean I have any loyalty to (or respect for) the Guardian? No it doesn't - I wouldn't buy a paper copy of the Guardian in a million years. The number of visits to a FREE website in my opinion does not represent any accolade or measure of loyalty. Putting your hand in your pocket and paying for something is different. If all newspaper websites charged subscription like the Times does, then it might be different. At the end of the day, newspapers still make their money by selling paper newspapers. Maybe that will change in decades to come, but they will have to come up with a new financial model because giving out news for free on the web is not sustainable.

    Note that the Music Charts are based on the number of (paid) downloads of music tracks (as well as radio plays and traditional CD sales). However, it does not include, as far as I know, the number of tracks downloaded free from illegal sites, or the number of times the track is video-streamed for free on sites like YouTube. Its the same thing. The true quality of something is judged by the money it makes ... and on this basis the Guardian is sh*te!
    What on earth are you talking about? Print is extremely expensive to produce. The web merely cuts the tie between print and production. There is no heavy capital expenditure, and much online news organisations can run out of a single office today. So I'd say paid advertising can do more than enough to keep online news content free.

    And of course you would say the quality of something is based on the amount of money it makes. You of course overlook the point about the quality of something based on the amount of money it consumes. And indeed, that would make Health and Education disgustingly poor quality in this country, if that's how you look at things.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Top story on the BBC yesterday was the Labour MP selection scandal in Falkirk. Predictably, the BBC allowed every opportunity for Labour to put their spin on things, and downplay the scandal - including an interview with Harriet Hatemen. NOT A SINGLE TORY INTERVIEWED OR ASKED THEIR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Rook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Top story on the BBC yesterday was the Labour MP selection scandal in Falkirk. Predictably, the BBC allowed every opportunity for Labour to put their spin on things, and downplay the scandal - including an interview with Harriet Hatemen. NOT A SINGLE TORY INTERVIEWED OR ASKED THEIR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
    Link? The main article on Unite being cleared includes a comment from the Tory chairman and the only thing I can see with Harman is about her speech to the Labour conference?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    Top story on the BBC yesterday was the Labour MP selection scandal in Falkirk. Predictably, the BBC allowed every opportunity for Labour to put their spin on things, and downplay the scandal - including an interview with Harriet Hatemen. NOT A SINGLE TORY INTERVIEWED OR ASKED THEIR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.
    In how many bulletins? Miliband's misjudgment and mismanagement of the whole affair (and the resultring fallout after everyone seems to have been cleared) has been commented on by various politicians, unionists, journalists, etc in news and current affairs programmes. But it doesn't seem excessive. Wait for all the conference reports to start then we'll get some temporary overkill...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •