This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 9.29pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
What, like someone silently praying in the street? That lady knew full well that what she was doing contravened the order in place. She deliberately did so for the publicity, refused to comply with repeated requests to move by the police and had her sponsors there to video everything. It was a publicity stunt, and had nothing to do with any wish to “pray silently” which she could have done very easily a couple of streets away with no issues whatsoever. Defending someone who deliberately flouts the law and provokes the police is, of itself, indefensible.
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 26 Apr 24 9.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That lady knew full well that what she was doing contravened the order in place. She deliberately did so for the publicity, refused to comply with repeated requests to move by the police and had her sponsors there to video everything. It was a publicity stunt, and had nothing to do with any wish to “pray silently” which she could have done very easily a couple of streets away with no issues whatsoever. Defending someone who deliberately flouts the law and provokes the police is, of itself, indefensible. She did not break the law or provoke the police - your authoritarian view of it is indefensible. She was arrested for silently praying. In a video of the arrest the arresting officer is heard saying "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.” The police dropped the charges and apologized to her. A previous case against her in similar circumstances was thrown out by the court.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Apr 24 9.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
And an organisation which employs a raft of investigative journalists didn't think to enquire why a high profile employee was banned from a charity event involving children. If you read the story you linked to it clearly says that the BBC management weren’t informed as all that existed were suspicions. So not made public and hardly a real ban. More a decision not to use him. There would have been nothing to raise the interest of investigative journalists that they wouldn’t have already have.
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  26 Apr 24 9.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If you read the story you linked to it clearly says that the BBC management weren’t informed as all that existed were suspicions. So not made public and hardly a real ban. More a decision not to use him. There would have been nothing to raise the interest of investigative journalists that they wouldn’t have already have. An employee about whom there are decades of gossip is then banned by an outside organisation and no one thinks to find out the reason.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 26 Apr 24 9.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If you read the story you linked to it clearly says that the BBC management weren’t informed as all that existed were suspicions. So not made public and hardly a real ban. More a decision not to use him. There would have been nothing to raise the interest of investigative journalists that they wouldn’t have already have. And where did the item involved appear?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Apr 24 8.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
She did not break the law or provoke the police - your authoritarian view of it is indefensible. She was arrested for silently praying. In a video of the arrest the arresting officer is heard saying "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.” The police dropped the charges and apologized to her. A previous case against her in similar circumstances was thrown out by the court. I am not going around these circles again. Whether the arresting officer made a mistake causing the police a need to apologise is irrelevant. Her presence where she was intended to provoke, be videoed and publicised. It had zilch to do with praying. Everything to do with promoting the religion based anti abortion stance of an American agitator moving their tactics into the UK. Tactics which confuse courts because they are clever and can require the law to be clarified or amended. Those are the facts. I’ll leave it there. If others want to promote this kind of behaviour that’s their choice.
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 27 Apr 24 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
And where did the item involved appear? That rather proves the BBC strive for neutrality and allow the reader to make their own determinations.
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 27 Apr 24 8.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
An employee about whom there are decades of gossip is then banned by an outside organisation and no one thinks to find out the reason. It looks like an internal decision was taken not to use him for their event, based on the rumours they had heard. The BBC weren’t consulted or informed so didn’t even notice. There were plenty of suitable presenters available. If an independent organisation contracts them and not another what’s the deal? I cannot see why this would add anything to the undercurrent that already existed, but had no way of surfacing.
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 27 Apr 24 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That rather proves the BBC strive for neutrality and allow the reader to make their own determinations. Or that the item was written in such a way as to show the BBC in the best light.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 27 Apr 24 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It looks like an internal decision was taken not to use him for their event, based on the rumours they had heard. The BBC weren’t consulted or informed so didn’t even notice. There were plenty of suitable presenters available. If an independent organisation contracts them and not another what’s the deal? I cannot see why this would add anything to the undercurrent that already existed, but had no way of surfacing. The deal is that for many years he'd been a high profile employee on a programme involving children and was banned from being in a studio at an event concerning children.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 27 Apr 24 8.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
BBC question time audience 'lost for words' as top tory Chris Philp asks if the Congo and Rwanda are different countries.
What Phipps actually said was " Rwanda is a different country from Congo " in answering a somewhat unclear point about Rwandans not being returned to Rwanda. Not great but he did know the difference. He was not asking a question he was stating a fact. Not surprisingly you are wrong, Did you watch the program or just do your usual of quoting what's in the papers. If you watched it then you might want to brush up you English skills
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 |
|
The groover  Danbury 27 Apr 24 9.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
So basically the BBC miss reporting something............Unheard of!!!!!! And we fund them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.