TOT (BBC bias) compare and contrast

Nightjar wrote:
On 26/02/2014 06:48, Bill Wright wrote:
Compare the alacrity with which the BBC carried this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26333729
(Tory might possibly have hidden assets of mum-in-law to reduce care
costs) compared with their tardiness in covering the NCCL/PIE story
(Senior Labour Party people have made serious errors of judgement).

ITYM compare the news value of an MP who might be guilty of fraud with
that of a storm in a teacup, stirred up by the Daily Mail.

Storm ion a teacup? They were allegedly complicit in attempts to bring
paedophilia into the same category as homosexuality. Have you actually
read the letters from the NCCL, and seen who signed them?

Bill

On 26/02/2014 16:53, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/02/2014 06:48, Bill Wright wrote:
Compare the alacrity with which the BBC carried this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26333729
(Tory might possibly have hidden assets of mum-in-law to reduce care
costs) compared with their tardiness in covering the NCCL/PIE story
(Senior Labour Party people have made serious errors of judgement).

ITYM compare the news value of an MP who might be guilty of fraud with
that of a storm in a teacup, stirred up by the Daily Mail.

Storm ion a teacup? They were allegedly complicit in attempts to bring
paedophilia into the same category as homosexuality.

There is a link between the two. The Act of Parliament that made acts of
'gross indecency' between two men was the same Act that raised the age
of consent for girls from 13 to 16. The justification for the latter was
to protect the children of the poor from forced prostitution. That was
probably as irrelevant by the late 1960s as the reasons for banning
homosexual acts between men. Even today, some civil rights activists
argue that criminalising sex between consenting, but mutually under age,
teenagers is an infringement of their human rights.

Have you actually
read the letters from the NCCL, and seen who signed them?

Have you, or have you only seen such edited highlights as the DM decided
to share with its readers?

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

On 26/02/2014 16:53, Bill Wright wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/02/2014 06:48, Bill Wright wrote:
Have you actually
read the letters from the NCCL, and seen who signed them?

Have you, or have you only seen such edited highlights as the DM decided
to share with its readers?

And have you (Bill) bothered listening *at all* to what HH has said on
the subject? Or do you prefer just to get The Truth from the Daily
Mail, and use that as your touchstone for all other news media?[1]

Best wishes, old chap
John


[1] Or rather: the touchstone for the BBC, for which you seem to have a
completely inexplicable hatred. I'd love to know what you would put in
place of the BBC -- perhaps you'd start by making Paul Dacre Chairman of
the Board, dismantle it all piece by piece (there are thousands of
pieces of course[2]), and sell those pieces off to wonderful fine
upstanding human beings like Rupert Murdoch and his prodigy (I speak of
his successors and his imitators, not simply of his children).

[2] I pay £145.50 for my licence (and that, by the way, hasn't gone up
since 2010). I'd love to know where you think there is better value in
the world -- for anything, let alone one of the world's, one of
history's, jewels of civilization.[3]

[3] That all sounds like I'm an adoring, uncritical fan of the BBC. I am
not: there are aspects that I dislike, if not hate, as much as (er) the
next man. However I'm prepared to accept (say) Radio 1 because I also
get Radio 3; and Radio 4; and Radio 2. To mention but three of the
*thousands* of pieces referred to above.

Pah!

Nightjar wrote:

No. I am saying that PIE (and I would be surprised if they used their
full title very often) targeted many civil rights groups in an attempt
to gain some legitimacy for their organisation. The fact that somebody
who is now a senior politician supported civil liberties and was a
member of one of those organisations is not in the least relevant.

Colin Bignell

The letter from the NCCL protoming PIE was signed by a senior NCCL
official. Can you guess who it was?

Bill

fred wrote:

You do not have a very persuasive manner.

You are beyond reasoning with so sometimes you just have to say, "stop
being a ****."

I am not beyond reasoning if you put forward a half-decent argument. But
I can't really take seriously the hypocritical reactions of those here
who pretend to deny the BBC leftist bias whilst secretly being glad of it.

I am perfectly honest about right wing media. I agree that the Mail is
biased to the right. Why can't you just be truthful about your attitude
to the BBC?

Bill

Nightjar wrote:

homosexual acts between men. Even today, some civil rights activists
argue that criminalising sex between consenting, but mutually under age,
teenagers is an infringement of their human rights.

Good grief, you sound like a spokesman for PIE! That particular anomaly
could be very easily dealt with. However I'm not sure that it would be
right to allow a mature 20 year-old, settled in his sexuality, to seduce
an immature 16 year-old who might if left alone decide that his hetero
side was dominant, and might by the age of 18 or 19 be very glad he had
not embarked on a homosexual life. Given the still widespread prejudices
against homosexuality the gay club can be harder to leave, unmarked,
than it is to join. And I'm sure that genuinely bisexual people are more
likely to find happiness with a hetero lifestyle. Anyone reading this
who is in an entirely satisfactory gay relationship please don't take
that the wrong way. It's a generalisation only.

Can you remember being 16, and 20? There's a massive difference.

Possibly the only answer would be to say that the two partners must be
within 24 months of age, until both reach 20. For those aged 14 to 16
I'd say they must be within 12 months of age. Just an idea. It's a very
difficult issue, and individuals vary so much.

Bill

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:41:23 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

However I'm not sure that it would be
right to allow a mature 20 year-old, settled in his sexuality, to seduce
an immature 16 year-old who might if left alone decide that his hetero
side was dominant, and might by the age of 18 or 19 be very glad he had
not embarked on a homosexual life.

Because, of course, "homosexuality" is such a stain on one's immortal
soul that - even if only tried once - it marks somebody forever...

Given the still widespread prejudices against homosexuality

Modelled so beautifully here by Bill...

the gay club can be harder to leave, unmarked, than it is to join.

Are you serious? Honestly? Are you actually serious? Do you demand a
verifiable, full sexual history from all of your acquaintances?

Another John wrote:

And have you (Bill) bothered listening *at all* to what HH has said on
the subject?

Yes. She's not being honest at all.

Or do you prefer just to get The Truth from the Daily
Mail, and use that as your touchstone for all other news media?[1]

I neither read nor like the Mail.


[1] Or rather: the touchstone for the BBC, for which you seem to have a
completely inexplicable hatred.

I love the BBC. That's why I care. I do not want to give up on the BBC.
I do not want to see the BBC provide ammunition for some future
government that wants to dismantle it. Remember that many current
politicians would much prefer the UK to have the USA broadcasting model.

I'd love to know what you would put in
place of the BBC -- perhaps you'd start by making Paul Dacre Chairman of
the Board, dismantle it all piece by piece (there are thousands of
pieces of course[2]), and sell those pieces off to wonderful fine
upstanding human beings like Rupert Murdoch and his prodigy (I speak of
his successors and his imitators, not simply of his children).

You couldn't be more wrong. What you envisage is what I'm afraid of.


[2] I pay £145.50 for my licence (and that, by the way, hasn't gone up
since 2010). I'd love to know where you think there is better value in
the world -- for anything, let alone one of the world's, one of
history's, jewels of civilization.[3]

I agree that the TV licence is excellent value, certainly compared to
Sky. But if the BBC would try to speak to and for all of us rather than
just those of a politically-correct left/liberal mindset it would be
much better. When the BBC manages to broadcast a programme that
genuinely looks at the problems caused by immigration, and something
that considers the problems of the Middle East from the Israeli
perspective, and a documentary that does some serious balanced analysis
of anthropomorphic global warming, and a programme that asks hard
questions about whether we should be spending our money on wind turbines
or global warming amelioration measures, then I'll be so delighted I'll
pay two licence fees. Nay, I'll buy one for every telly I have in the house!

Bill

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:12:07 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

I am not beyond reasoning if you put forward a half-decent argument.

Yes, you are.

Anything - anything at all - that doesn't fit comfortably in with your
world view is instantly dismissed as being...

leftist bias

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:53:33 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

But if the BBC would try to speak to and for all of us rather than
just those of a politically-correct left/liberal mindset it would be
much better. When the BBC manages to broadcast a programme that
genuinely looks at the problems caused by immigration, and something
that considers the problems of the Middle East from the Israeli
perspective, and a documentary that does some serious balanced analysis
of anthropomorphic global warming, and a programme that asks hard
questions about whether we should be spending our money on wind turbines
or global warming amelioration measures

By which, of course, you mean programmes that express bias that you agree
with.