BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 georgenorman  09 May 24 10.34am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Just noticed this. Well done, you have found one testimony, which reads as if it is authentic, even if no source is given. One down. Where are the others? That account would doubtless be denied and without witnesses would be impossible to prove, which is probably why it hasn’t received any attention. We know though that Clinton had this propensity because of the Lewinsky affair, although this time nothing physical actually happened. Nevertheless the shock and embarrassment must have been difficult. It is from the New York Times. Here is one of the many 'others', Juanita Broddick: Edited by georgenorman (09 May 2024 10.35am)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Badger11 Beckenham 09 May 24 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
It is from the New York Times. Here is one of the many 'others', Juanita Broddick: Edited by georgenorman (09 May 2024 10.35am) He'd believe it if it was Trummp.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 09 May 24 11.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
He'd believe it if it was Trummp. I know, his denial of reality is truly laughable.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 15 May 24 7.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Nice to see the BBC displaying another balanced and unbiased report on their front page. Perhaps it didn't occur to the journalist to ask the following questions. 1. okay so your father was mistreated by the Home Office and rightly got compensation. Why do you think you should also get it? 2. Why are you so upset that the government has asked you to confirm your identity when claiming money? I think this is a joke and the BBC should just have ignored this guy. Bad things happen to good people and his father was compensated. These bad things did not happen to him but he wants compo. If you follow his logic then anytime a citizens is badly treated by the government then all that citizen's relatives should be entitled to claim up. Edited by Badger11 (15 May 2024 7.24am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 May 24 8.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Nice to see the BBC displaying another balanced and unbiased report on their front page. Perhaps it didn't occur to the journalist to ask the following questions. 1. okay so your father was mistreated by the Home Office and rightly got compensation. Why do you think you should also get it? 2. Why are you so upset that the government has asked you to confirm your identity when claiming money? I think this is a joke and the BBC should just have ignored this guy. Bad things happen to good people and his father was compensated. These bad things did not happen to him but he wants compo. If you follow his logic then anytime a citizens is badly treated by the government then all that citizen's relatives should be entitled to claim up. Edited by Badger11 (15 May 2024 7.24am) So the BBC cover a story you wouldn’t in a way you don’t like! What’s the big deal? Ignore it! Just as I ignore many stories in the Mail or Express and others do in the Guardian. The BBC is obliged to cover this kind of story. It’s part of their remit. By the way, I think direct family members are potentially entitled to compensation and doubtless are being encouraged to do so by lawyers. Proving your identity is standard practice. Requiring a DNA test to do so isn’t.
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 |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 15 May 24 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
So the BBC cover a story you wouldn’t in a way you don’t like! What’s the big deal? Ignore it! Just as I ignore many stories in the Mail or Express and others do in the Guardian. The BBC is obliged to cover this kind of story. It’s part of their remit. 1 By the way, I think direct family members are potentially entitled to compensation and doubtless are being encouraged to do so by lawyers. Proving your identity is standard practice. Requiring a DNA test to do so isn’t. 2 1 Actually the BBC are not obliged. This is somebody trying it on the victim has already been compensated. I expect on a daily basis the BBC is deluged with people's stories most of which are not newsworthy and they choose not to report e.g. my neighbour parks his car in my drive. 2. If you read the standard response from the Home Office they asked for various forms of id to be provided. If he couldn't provide those DNA was also suggested as an alternative. Bearing in mind that this whole scandal was about people not being able to provide identity documents I assume they added DNA as an alternative. This is a nothing story but if the BBC was going to do it they should at least have tried to be impartial. Edited by Badger11 (15 May 2024 8.29am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 15 May 24 9.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
So the BBC cover a story you wouldn’t in a way you don’t like! What’s the big deal? Ignore it! Just as I ignore many stories in the Mail or Express and others do in the Guardian. The BBC is obliged to cover this kind of story. It’s part of their remit. By the way, I think direct family members are potentially entitled to compensation and doubtless are being encouraged to do so by lawyers. Proving your identity is standard practice. Requiring a DNA test to do so isn’t. I am a white male and will claim that I am the son and want compensation. When the Home Office asks me for a DNA test to prove that I am I will get a lawyer involved and report the incident to the BBC…
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 May 24 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
1 Actually the BBC are not obliged. This is somebody trying it on the victim has already been compensated. I expect on a daily basis the BBC is deluged with people's stories most of which are not newsworthy and they choose not to report e.g. my neighbour parks his car in my drive. 2. If you read the standard response from the Home Office they asked for various forms of id to be provided. If he couldn't provide those DNA was also suggested as an alternative. Bearing in mind that this whole scandal was about people not being able to provide identity documents I assume they added DNA as an alternative. This is a nothing story but if the BBC was going to do it they should at least have tried to be impartial.
The BBC are bound by its Charter to cover all sections of British society in an unjudgemental way. The article seems to indicate that it’s not only those who themselves were immigrants who are entitled to compensation. Their children could be as well if they were adversely affected by the scandal. I agree it’s not a big story. For me anyway but to others it might be. That’s why the BBC has to strive to be inclusive. That some don’t agree is inevitable.
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 15 May 24 2.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
I am a white male and will claim that I am the son and want compensation. When the Home Office asks me for a DNA test to prove that I am I will get a lawyer involved and report the incident to the BBC… Who would check the facts to verify their accuracy before deciding whether to publish.
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  15 May 24 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Who would check the facts to verify their accuracy before deciding whether to publish. Provided it's not Martin Bashir responsible.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 May 24 7.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Provided it's not Martin Bashir responsible. They were conned along with everyone else. I don’t doubt that the programme was examined alongside the supporting documents but without there being any reason to suspect they weren’t genuine and with a willing interviewee wanting to tell her story the trickery passed through the net.
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 15 May 24 7.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They were conned along with everyone else. I don’t doubt that the programme was examined alongside the supporting documents but without there being any reason to suspect they weren’t genuine and with a willing interviewee wanting to tell her story the trickery passed through the net. Doesn't speak well of their checking facts and verifying accuracy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.