BBC in an independent Scotland - or why TV aerials in northWales point to England
 

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:17:54 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM
capture.

So the uplinks are FM? Really?

I meant the downlinks, but at 28E there have not been any FM ones for
several years.

The satellite sends back what you send to it, in modulation terms, so
you are just showing up your own ignorance even more.

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:18:44 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Martin wrote:
Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
reason.

If we were black, that would be racist.

He did say "without a legitimate reason". :-)

Considering the circumstances in which it would be "legitimate" to refer
to people in a particular category by a derogatory term and suggest
excluding them, it does seem to depend on what the category is. If the
category is "black" or "homosexual", or "disabled" or "female", to give
a few examples, there are laws that forbid it, but if you're Scottish it
seems to be perfectly OK.


Well, someone has to post this link I suppose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

I was hoping Boris would insist on it being included in the the
Olympics opening ceremony. Bit of a slip-up that.

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
reason.

If we were black, that would be racist.

Well in my view we should do everything we can to keep the Pakistanis
and all the other Stans and Muslims out of the country unless they have
a legitimate reason for coming. Is that racist?

Bill

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

Martin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:37:37 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
reason.
If we were black, that would be racist.

He did say "without a legitimate reason". :-)
That doesn't make any difference. You can't say anything about black
people. Anything you do say will be by definition racist, because you
identified a racial group without simultaneously identifying all other
racial groups, so that's racial discrimination. After all, you could go
on to say anything. Since no-one can know what you might be going on to
say the risk can't be taken and you must be silenced immediately.

Bill

BBC in an independent Scotland - or why TV aerials in north Walespoint to England
 

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

PS Anyone want a Strong 1500MkII analog receiver?

Bugger off. I've already built a retaining wall with analogue receivers.

Bill

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Martin wrote:
Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
reason.
If we were black, that would be racist.
He did say "without a legitimate reason". :-)

Considering the circumstances in which it would be "legitimate" to refer
to people in a particular category by a derogatory term and suggest
excluding them, it does seem to depend on what the category is. If the
category is "black" or "homosexual", or "disabled" or "female", to give
a few examples, there are laws that forbid it, but if you're Scottish it
seems to be perfectly OK.

It's OK if you're old.
TV comics will make racist jokes about the Irish and the Welsh and the
French, but never about Africans.

Bill

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Roll on putting the wall back
up, and checkpoints on all the cross
border routes to keep the Jocks
out of England without a legitimate
reason.
If we were black, that would be racist.
He did say "without a legitimate reason". :-)

Considering the circumstances in which it would be "legitimate" to refer
to people in a particular category by a derogatory term and suggest
excluding them, it does seem to depend on what the category is. If the
category is "black" or "homosexual", or "disabled" or "female", to give
a few examples, there are laws that forbid it, but if you're Scottish it
seems to be perfectly OK.

It's OK if you're old.
TV comics will make racist jokes about the Irish and the Welsh and the
French, but never about Africans.

I wonder if the fact that some some types of people are in "protected
categories" about which it is considered offensive to joke, and some aren't
should be regarded as another form of inequality itself? Shouldn't we all be
equal? Why are there no horrified Daily Mail comments about
whitemiddleclassmaleism for example?

Rod.
--

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I wonder if the fact that some some types of people are in "protected
categories" about which it is considered offensive to joke, and some aren't
should be regarded as another form of inequality itself?

It's because the PC nutters have decided on certain things to harp on about.

Bill

BBC in an independent Scotland
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
I wonder if the fact that some some types of people are in "protected
categories" about which it is considered offensive to joke, and some aren't
should be regarded as another form of inequality itself?

It's because the PC nutters have decided on certain things to harp on about.

It's not just the PC nutters. Some categories of people are *legally* protected
against certain types of criticism or humorous treatment, and some aren't.
People actually end up in court because of things that they've said about other
people in one of these protected categories, when they could have got away with
saying what they like about anybody else. So we might blame it on the legal
nutters, assuming of course that we're allowed to call them nutters.

Rod.
--

BBC in an independent Scotland - or why TV aerials in north Wales point to England
 

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:17:54 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite
at
28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM
capture.

So the uplinks are FM? Really?

I meant the downlinks, but at 28E there have not been any FM ones for
several years.

The satellite sends back what you send to it, in modulation terms, so
you are just showing up your own ignorance even more.

Well most broadcast ones do, but nothing in the rules says the Scottish one
must - it could just send a test card, or just occasional spikes to create
errors in the received signal from Astra.