This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
steeleye20 Croydon 14 Mar 23 3.16pm | |
---|---|
The conservative party, and the royal family, clearly had more than just a soft spot for Hitler. Edward VIII was a huge fan and knew all the dinking songs by heart, visited him often and was wisely packed off by Churchill to the Bahamas. The appeasement of course, and the Daily Mail support of fascism are all well documented. We would not be here if the left had not buried their differences with Churchill in 1940 whose tory colleagues did not think we could prevail and later rebuilt the country under Attlee. To me, the BBC at the moment looks very 'Daily Mail'. At least the board does.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 14 Mar 23 3.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Can you tell us more about this remarkable poll? Like who ran it, and how the members of the public were chosen? 94% of 1024 is 962.56 - was one of the voters in two minds? It was Sam Smith.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 14 Mar 23 3.23pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
It was Sam Smith. No wonder he can't brew a decent pint.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 14 Mar 23 3.32pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Can you tell us more about this remarkable poll? Like who ran it, and how the members of the public were chosen? 94% of 1024 is 962.56 - was one of the voters in two minds? I can't find it, I mean we are not talking jackboots but rightwing ideology. (I think).
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 3.42pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by georgenorman
It is that simple. You clearly do not support everyone’s right to be heard. She did not break any order, she was standing silently in a public street that she was not banned from. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” [Orwell] The bakers did not break any law in refusing to refusing to get put the political slogan on the cake. There is no logical reason to have the BBC funded by tax-payers, many of whom don’t use it. I don't want to be rude, but that is really a silly response. Everyone has a right to be heard. Both you and the lady included. What you cannot do is demand to be heard where-ever you choose. You aren't allowed to come inside my home, unless I invite you to. The lady can be heard in almost every street in our country. Just not the very few with restriction orders on them. If all she wanted to do was pray then why choose that one? It was a deliberate act designed to break the law, get arrested, get publicity and wind up the gullible. Clearly the SC ruled that the Ashers didn't break any law, or the guilty verdict would not have been overturned. I am not arguing that. I am arguing it wasn't just and that the law needs to be changed. As we all benefit from the BBC whether we watch it or not, we all ought to pay for it. There are many things paid for via taxation that I never personally use, but still benefit me. We are all part of the same society, so we must pay the costs of that society. Do you need me to explain how we all benefit from the BBC, or is it obvious to you?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
georgenorman 14 Mar 23 3.47pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by steeleye20
The conservative party, and the royal family, clearly had more than just a soft spot for Hitler. Edward VIII was a huge fan and knew all the dinking songs by heart, visited him often and was wisely packed off by Churchill to the Bahamas. The appeasement of course, and the Daily Mail support of fascism are all well documented. We would not be here if the left had not buried their differences with Churchill in 1940 whose tory colleagues did not think we could prevail and later rebuilt the country under Attlee. To me, the BBC at the moment looks very 'Daily Mail'. At least the board does.
You visited Edward VIII often? Churchill showed his usual wisdom getting you out of this country. The support of communists and the left, here and everywhere else, for Hitler, due to Stalin’s non-aggression pact with him, until Barbarossa, is well documented. The likes of Aneurin Bevan did not bury their differences with Churchill, who described Bevan as “a squalid nuisance”. Certainly the likes of Ernest Bevin were true patriots who did help us win the war. Edited by georgenorman (14 Mar 2023 3.48pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 3.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
You know full well that isn’t true, because it returns pushing back against whatever is happening, especially if it was never voted for, ever. That they are now, or soon will be, looks inevitable. That I hope doesn't mean I expect. I don't though expect to see them again myself which ought to mean safety for the BBC in my lifetime.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 14 Mar 23 3.50pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
No wonder he can't brew a decent pint. *they
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
georgenorman 14 Mar 23 3.58pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don't want to be rude, but that is really a silly response. Everyone has a right to be heard. Both you and the lady included. What you cannot do is demand to be heard where-ever you choose. You aren't allowed to come inside my home, unless I invite you to. The lady can be heard in almost every street in our country. Just not the very few with restriction orders on them. If all she wanted to do was pray then why choose that one? It was a deliberate act designed to break the law, get arrested, get publicity and wind up the gullible. Clearly the SC ruled that the Ashers didn't break any law, or the guilty verdict would not have been overturned. I am not arguing that. I am arguing it wasn't just and that the law needs to be changed. As we all benefit from the BBC whether we watch it or not, we all ought to pay for it. There are many things paid for via taxation that I never personally use, but still benefit me. We are all part of the same society, so we must pay the costs of that society. Do you need me to explain how we all benefit from the BBC, or is it obvious to you? I couldn’t care less what you want or do not want to do. The woman was not in anyone’s house or in any private place. She was in a public street from which she was not banned. She didn’t attempt to be ‘heard’, that’s the point, she was standing silently. You want to arrest people that you think might be praying in some way that you object to, I bet you can’t wait until there is technology that could read thoughts. At last you admit that the Ashers did not break any law. Perhaps you could commission a cake that has slogans on it that advocate your dictatorial ideas. Yes, please do explain how we all benefit from the BBC.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 4.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I have no doubt that the intention of the BBC is to be unbiased. In fact, I would suggest that the commercial channels are far more biased. Unfortunately, there has been increasing evidence that there are those within the BBC who are anything but unbiased. They cannot be allowed to distort reality with clearly biased hyperbole or party political bias when the public are forced to fund their employers by law. What really bother me is the double standards around how the media and the Left (often the same thing) uphold the right to free speech. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (14 Mar 2023 2.17pm) You see things from the right and see bias. Those on the left also see bias. For the right! I am in the centre and think they do a pretty fair job of maintaining balance. This idea that we have a left wing media is laughable. It just isn't true. The printed media is heavily right wing in all but a tiny minority. I am unaware of any broadcaster who takes a left wing stance, but there are broadcasters taking an unapologetic right wing stance. I have a friend, now retired, who was a senior sub-editor for the Mail. Many of their biggest stories were his words. He would take the raw journalism and rewrite it so it matched both the Mail's style and political outlook. The editor would decide the angle the report would come from, and he delivered it. His name wasn't on the "by-line" and never appeared anywhere. In his private life he was, and still is, a Labour voter. He was just good at his job. He was a professional writer. Just as are those who work for the BBC professional broadcasters.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Mar 23 4.19pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by georgenorman
I couldn’t care less what you want or do not want to do. The woman was not in anyone’s house or in any private place. She was in a public street from which she was not banned. She didn’t attempt to be ‘heard’, that’s the point, she was standing silently. You want to arrest people that you think might be praying in some way that you object to, I bet you can’t wait until there is technology that could read thoughts. At last you admit that the Ashers did not break any law. Perhaps you could commission a cake that has slogans on it that advocate your dictatorial ideas. Yes, please do explain how we all benefit from the BBC. As I have patiently explained she had previous, been warned and arrested before. But she continued to stand there. You don't have to say anything to be heard. Just being there communicated a message that was considered intimidating. You might disagree, but were neither there nor responsible for deciding. She wanted to be arrested. It was the point of her being there. You don't need to read anyone's thoughts. The actions were enough. I have never said the Ashers were finally cleared of lawbreaking. Only that the law needs revising. If I was in Belfast I would boycott the Ashers bakery on principle. We all benefit from the BBC via the reputation it brings to this country abroad. It's the most trusted broadcaster in the world. I have been in places where the local news is so distrusted that the people tune into the BBC to know what is really happening. The BBC is our greatest advocate and one of our greatest achievements. That is of huge benefit to each of us.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
georgenorman 14 Mar 23 4.20pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You see things from the right and see bias. Those on the left also see bias. For the right! I am in the centre and think they do a pretty fair job of maintaining balance. This idea that we have a left wing media is laughable. It just isn't true. The printed media is heavily right wing in all but a tiny minority. I am unaware of any broadcaster who takes a left wing stance, but there are broadcasters taking an unapologetic right wing stance. I have a friend, now retired, who was a senior sub-editor for the Mail. Many of their biggest stories were his words. He would take the raw journalism and rewrite it so it matched both the Mail's style and political outlook. The editor would decide the angle the report would come from, and he delivered it. His name wasn't on the "by-line" and never appeared anywhere. In his private life he was, and still is, a Labour voter. He was just good at his job. He was a professional writer. Just as are those who work for the BBC professional broadcasters. You are in the centre!
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.