BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 310 of 435 < 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 >

HKOwen Hong Kong 19 Jul 23 10.19pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle From all I know they are record highs since records were kept. No one can know precisely what existed in previous ages but they have a pretty good idea of the current trends. The problem I see is this. The world was a very different place in previous ages. Climate changes happened but slowly. People, animals and vegetation would have been able to move to suitable environments relatively easily. In the crowded world of today, facing rapid change, it's much more difficult In summary, what you posted was incorrect, never change. "The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet." Source : NASA Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 19 Jul 23 10.19pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

From all I know they are record highs since records were kept. No one can know precisely what existed in previous ages but they have a pretty good idea of the current trends.

The problem I see is this.

The world was a very different place in previous ages. Climate changes happened but slowly. People, animals and vegetation would have been able to move to suitable environments relatively easily. In the crowded world of today, facing rapid change, it's much more difficult

In summary, what you posted was incorrect, never change.

"The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet."

Source : NASA

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 19 Jul 23 10.20pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It has nothing at all to do with any opinion of mine. It is what is being suggested by analysts much more experienced in these things than me. You can easily find them if you really want to know, rather than just want, as usual, to try to have a pop at me. You really are a very sad man. In summary, not facts, never change Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 19 Jul 23 10.20pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It has nothing at all to do with any opinion of mine. It is what is being suggested by analysts much more experienced in these things than me. You can easily find them if you really want to know, rather than just want, as usual, to try to have a pop at me. You really are a very sad man.

In summary, not facts, never change

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 19 Jul 23 10.23pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Edwards has not said anything himself. Apparently he is in hospital. His wife has though made a statement. Whilst the parents don't appear to have withdrawn anything their son, the one who is actually involved, has. There is your red flag. That the statement was issued via a top solicitor only adds credibility to it. No major firm would risk telling lies. Who might be paying them is a moot point. They may well have funds themselves. It could be Edward's wife, who knows the truth. It could be one of his friends, or they could have worked for the Edwards family in the past and were asked to help, pro bono. Are you serious? Do you really know nothing about the legal system in the UK? I thought this line was satire The rest of your post adds nothing to the question Never change Edited by HKOwen (19 Jul 2023 10.24pm) Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 19 Jul 23 10.23pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Edwards has not said anything himself. Apparently he is in hospital. His wife has though made a statement.

Whilst the parents don't appear to have withdrawn anything their son, the one who is actually involved, has. There is your red flag.

That the statement was issued via a top solicitor only adds credibility to it. No major firm would risk telling lies.

Who might be paying them is a moot point. They may well have funds themselves. It could be Edward's wife, who knows the truth. It could be one of his friends, or they could have worked for the Edwards family in the past and were asked to help, pro bono.

Are you serious? Do you really know nothing about the legal system in the UK? I thought this line was satire

The rest of your post adds nothing to the question

Never change

Edited by HKOwen (19 Jul 2023 10.24pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Jul 23 10.26pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle This whole discussion isn't about the BBC as a corporate entity but the fact that they represent The Establishment and so must be respected, defended and cherished. We've seen this before with the grooming gangs where the police didn't act but must've been right because they are The Police, lockdown was correct because it was recommended by Medical Experts, referendums are wrong because all decisions should be taken by The Government and so we should be duly deferential, know our place and accept their actions without question. The whole discussion hasn't been about anything other that the false idea that the BBC were complicit in covering up the Salive affair. Nothing else. The BBC are as critical of anything you regard as "the Establishment" as anything else, if they think criticism is due. Of course we need to trust the Police and our Medical Experts. Society would quickly breakdown if we did not. That's not to say that when shortcomings are revealed they aren't exposed. They are. Just look at some of the things the Met have been accused of. By the BBC, among others. The last thing we want, or have, is a BBC which needs to be deferential to a government. 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 19 Jul 23 10.26pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

This whole discussion isn't about the BBC as a corporate entity but the fact that they represent The Establishment and so must be respected, defended and cherished. We've seen this before with the grooming gangs where the police didn't act but must've been right because they are The Police, lockdown was correct because it was recommended by Medical Experts, referendums are wrong because all decisions should be taken by The Government and so we should be duly deferential, know our place and accept their actions without question.

The whole discussion hasn't been about anything other that the false idea that the BBC were complicit in covering up the Salive affair. Nothing else. The BBC are as critical of anything you regard as "the Establishment" as anything else, if they think criticism is due. Of course we need to trust the Police and our Medical Experts. Society would quickly breakdown if we did not. That's not to say that when shortcomings are revealed they aren't exposed. They are. Just look at some of the things the Met have been accused of. By the BBC, among others.

The last thing we want, or have, is a BBC which needs to be deferential to a government.

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 19 Jul 23 10.32pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC The truth is that the BBC covered up for paedos for decades. They could have looked into it several times but decided their reputation was more important. These days their reputation is in tatters and no one blame anyone for thinking the BBC was/is full of paedos. It would quite literally be an evidence based conclusion. That this is a commonly held opinion here, and places populated by others of a similar ilk, doesn't make this true. In my opinion, it is totally wrong in every particular. Especially concerning evidence. There's innuendo by the bucket, but no actual evidence. If there is evidence, where are the court cases? 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 19 Jul 23 10.32pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

The truth is that the BBC covered up for paedos for decades. They could have looked into it several times but decided their reputation was more important. These days their reputation is in tatters and no one blame anyone for thinking the BBC was/is full of paedos. It would quite literally be an evidence based conclusion.

That this is a commonly held opinion here, and places populated by others of a similar ilk, doesn't make this true.

In my opinion, it is totally wrong in every particular. Especially concerning evidence. There's innuendo by the bucket, but no actual evidence. If there is evidence, where are the court cases?

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

Teddy Eagle 19 Jul 23 10.45pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That this is a commonly held opinion here, and places populated by others of a similar ilk, doesn't make this true. In my opinion, it is totally wrong in every particular. Especially concerning evidence. There's innuendo by the bucket, but no actual evidence. If there is evidence, where are the court cases? The evidence is the internal enquiries conducted by the BBC.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

19 Jul 23 10.45pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That this is a commonly held opinion here, and places populated by others of a similar ilk, doesn't make this true.

In my opinion, it is totally wrong in every particular. Especially concerning evidence. There's innuendo by the bucket, but no actual evidence. If there is evidence, where are the court cases?

The evidence is the internal enquiries conducted by the BBC.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 19 Jul 23 10.49pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The whole discussion hasn't been about anything other that the false idea that the BBC were complicit in covering up the Salive affair. Nothing else. The BBC are as critical of anything you regard as "the Establishment" as anything else, if they think criticism is due. Of course we need to trust the Police and our Medical Experts. Society would quickly breakdown if we did not. That's not to say that when shortcomings are revealed they aren't exposed. They are. Just look at some of the things the Met have been accused of. By the BBC, among others. The last thing we want, or have, is a BBC which needs to be deferential to a government. That's alright then.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

19 Jul 23 10.49pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The last thing we want, or have, is a BBC which needs to be deferential to a government.

That's alright then.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Jul 23 10.53pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Repeating the "no one knew anything" mantra doesn't make it any more true. Who ordered the 1971 internal enquiry into Savile after the News of the World report? You are persistently confusing the fact that some senior employees knew about, or suspected, Savile's activities with the BBC itself. They are not the same thing. If an employee decides not to report something how can an organisation know about it at the top level and then take action? It's accepted that the culture at the time was unhealthy, especially when viewed through a prism of today. But it wasn't today. It was then. Back then I was working in a business which had a small factory and packing plant, alongside the offices I was working in. The girls in the offices had to pass through the factory to get to the labs at the other end of the site. They hated it, because some of the factory workers took advantage of them, trapping them between each other and groping them. Did they complain? Never officially. They moaned and tried to avoid the task, and the men said it was "all harmless fun". We knew but thought nothing of it, other than that's what factory workers do. Skilled workers were difficult to find and you tolerated things. That was the culture then, but it wouldn't be today. Did head office know? There's no way they could have done. I'm not proud of it, but I can accept that we have moved on from then. 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 19 Jul 23 10.53pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Repeating the "no one knew anything" mantra doesn't make it any more true. Who ordered the 1971 internal enquiry into Savile after the News of the World report?

You are persistently confusing the fact that some senior employees knew about, or suspected, Savile's activities with the BBC itself. They are not the same thing. If an employee decides not to report something how can an organisation know about it at the top level and then take action?

It's accepted that the culture at the time was unhealthy, especially when viewed through a prism of today. But it wasn't today. It was then.

Back then I was working in a business which had a small factory and packing plant, alongside the offices I was working in. The girls in the offices had to pass through the factory to get to the labs at the other end of the site. They hated it, because some of the factory workers took advantage of them, trapping them between each other and groping them. Did they complain? Never officially. They moaned and tried to avoid the task, and the men said it was "all harmless fun". We knew but thought nothing of it, other than that's what factory workers do. Skilled workers were difficult to find and you tolerated things. That was the culture then, but it wouldn't be today. Did head office know? There's no way they could have done. I'm not proud of it, but I can accept that we have moved on from then.

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 19 Jul 23 10.58pm
Originally posted by HKOwen In summary, what you posted was incorrect, never change. "The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet." Source : NASA As that seems to confirm, rather than deny, what I suggested, it appears you are being deliberately pedantic. Which isn't unusual. 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 19 Jul 23 10.58pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

In summary, what you posted was incorrect, never change.

Source : NASA

As that seems to confirm, rather than deny, what I suggested, it appears you are being deliberately pedantic. Which isn't unusual.

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

Teddy Eagle 19 Jul 23 11.00pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You are persistently confusing the fact that some senior employees knew about, or suspected, Savile's activities with the BBC itself. They are not the same thing. If an employee decides not to report something how can an organisation know about it at the top level and then take action? It's accepted that the culture at the time was unhealthy, especially when viewed through a prism of today. But it wasn't today. It was then. Back then I was working in a business which had a small factory and packing plant, alongside the offices I was working in. The girls in the offices had to pass through the factory to get to the labs at the other end of the site. They hated it, because some of the factory workers took advantage of them, trapping them between each other and groping them. Did they complain? Never officially. They moaned and tried to avoid the task, and the men said it was "all harmless fun". We knew but thought nothing of it, other than that's what factory workers do. Skilled workers were difficult to find and you tolerated things. That was the culture then, but it wouldn't be today. Did head office know? There's no way they could have done. I'm not proud of it, but I can accept that we have moved on from then. So the contention is that although senior staff at the BBC knew the BBC itself didn't.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

19 Jul 23 11.00pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's accepted that the culture at the time was unhealthy, especially when viewed through a prism of today. But it wasn't today. It was then.

So the contention is that although senior staff at the BBC knew the BBC itself didn't.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Jul 23 11.11pm
Originally posted by HKOwen Are you serious? Do you really know nothing about the legal system in the UK? I thought this line was satire The rest of your post adds nothing to the question Never change Edited by HKOwen (19 Jul 2023 10.24pm) I have had much more experience with the legal system in the UK than ever I wanted to. In fact I had a meeting with a solicitor this morning. I was the MD of a business, and owned two of my own. It's impossible to avoid having to aquire some legal knowledge in those circumstances. So yes, I do and of course I am being serious. No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it. That will involve what to emphasise and what to ignore, so that the overall picture is seen in the most postive way for their client. In this case there was a simple, straightforward denial. That must be true. 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 19 Jul 23 11.11pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

Are you serious? Do you really know nothing about the legal system in the UK? I thought this line was satire

The rest of your post adds nothing to the question

Never change

Edited by HKOwen (19 Jul 2023 10.24pm)

I have had much more experience with the legal system in the UK than ever I wanted to. In fact I had a meeting with a solicitor
this morning. I was the MD of a business, and owned two of my own. It's impossible to avoid having to aquire some legal knowledge in those circumstances. So yes, I do and of course I am being serious. No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it. That will involve what to emphasise and what to ignore, so that the overall picture is seen in the most postive way for their client.

In this case there was a simple, straightforward denial. That must be true.

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 19 Jul 23 11.14pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle The evidence is the internal enquiries conducted by the BBC. Which showed evidence of a weak system but not that the top management knew. 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 19 Jul 23 11.14pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The evidence is the internal enquiries conducted by the BBC.

Which showed evidence of a weak system but not that the top management knew.

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

Page 310 of 435 < 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors