TOT (BBC bias) compare and contrast

On 26/02/2014 20:41, Bill Wright wrote:
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.

Without your careful editing, there is nothing in what I wrote to imply
that the sex referred to is homosexual in nature. I think you also
misunderstand what mutually under age means.

And I'm sure that genuinely bisexual people are more
likely to find happiness with a hetero lifestyle.

Having shared a flat with a lesbian and her bisexual partner, I think
you are quite wrong.

Colin Bignell

Adrian wrote:
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.

For crying out loud. I don't want programmes with bias! I want
programmes that are balanced, or at least a balance of programmes. Just
one leetle programme every now and then expressing a view contrary to
the BBC agenda would be so refreshing.

But incidentally, why shouldn't I want programmes that agree with my own
opinions? I am after all a subscriber.

I have no view at all on the Middle East, incidentally. It's just that
I've noticed that the BBC reports seem to be pro-Palestine/anti Israeli.
Or anti Judaism/pro Muslim, maybe.

Bill

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:46:11 +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.

For crying out loud. I don't want programmes with bias! I want
programmes that are balanced, or at least a balance of programmes.

Which is what there is now.

Just one leetle programme every now and then expressing a view contrary
to the BBC agenda would be so refreshing.

So, yes, you want programmes that agree with your bias.

Here y'go :- http://watch.foxnews.com - but careful, you might find it a
tad "lefty-bias" in some of the output.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:40:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


Well she would wouldn't she?

Somebody I know used to know HH quite well. She has little doubt that HH
is telling the truth.

I've only met HH briefly. She was - frankly - loathsome, rude and self-
obsessed. But I'm in no doubt that this is all an utterly ridiculous
witch-hunt over nothing.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Unfortunately there are people who believe that, so it doesn't make life
any easier to be known as gay. That applies both to those who are gay
and those who 'once were'.

You've found a 'cure' have you? Must have been in The Mail. The paper who
was pleased when 'they' thought a 'gay gene' had been found as it would
allow the mother to abort the child.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/02/2014 22:43, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:40:41 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


Well she would wouldn't she?

Somebody I know used to know HH quite well. She has little doubt that HH
is telling the truth.

I've only met HH briefly. She was - frankly - loathsome, rude and self-
obsessed.But I'm in no doubt that this is all an utterly ridiculous
witch-hunt over nothing.

I didn't say my friend liked her :-)

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:

And I'm sure that genuinely bisexual people are more
likely to find happiness with a hetero lifestyle.

Having shared a flat with a lesbian and her bisexual partner, I think
you are quite wrong.

I said, 'more likely'. I was generalising. Your single instance goes
against my assertion, but does not overturn it.

Bill

On 26/02/2014 20:41, in article , "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.

And what of a 16 year old seduced into a hetty life only to realize, after a
marriage and kids, that he was fooling himself the whole time, was gay & had
made the worst mistake of his life - affecting not only him but his family?

Do you want to ban that as well?

And I'm sure that genuinely bisexual people are more
likely to find happiness with a hetero lifestyle.

Genuinely bisexual people are more likely to find happiness with someone
they love, regardless of the partner's sex.

You really are pretty clueless abou this, Bill.

Anyone reading this
who is in an entirely satisfactory gay relationship please don't take
that the wrong way. It's a generalisation only.

Do you seriously expect that to absolve you from criticism??

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.

That is a very sensible approach, although one might quibble with the
numbers.

--
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use surname & forename;

Adrian wrote:

No, we have to do what the hell we want to do, rather than what we think
anybody else wants us to do - and anybody who thinks any the less of us
for doing it can quite frankly go and shove their heads up their own
arses.

In the sense that people sometimes 'live a lie', not coming out when
they should, I absolutely agree. But I'm talking specifically about boys
in their mid-teens here, who could be misled by the apparently liberal
attitudes currently prevailing to imagine that there is no downside to
coming out. I do know one person who greatly regretted this, and another
who sort of half came out but now will say how fortunate it was that he
met the girl of his dreams just at the right moment. Sometimes starting
at a sixth form college and meeting new people can turn out real well!

I wonder if you are one of those people who are fiercely defensive of
homosexuality, even sometimes seeming to say that it is a superior
state. You certainly don't seem to like the idea that people might veer
between being predominantly gay or straight. Contrary to society's
pretension, sexuality is a continuum and an individual can be anywhere
along it. And although I don't believe that 'core' sexuality changes
much after the early teenage hormones have settled down I do think that
the circumstances of a person's life can influence their 'social
sexuality', so long as that is within the gamut of their core sexuality.
Where you get problems is when due to disastrous life choices
someone's social sexuality is outside the gamut of their core sexuality.
For instance, the man who suppresses his dominant sexual aspect, hetero,
in order to marry a female. Eventually there are likely to be problems.
Likewise, and more to the point, bisexual male teenagers can go down a
gay road when really it would have been better if they hadn't. Here's
how it happens. In the current climate everyone is encouraged to accept
their own sexuality. To be gay and to not accept it is regarded as a
grave mistake. That's fine, except think what happens in the mind of a
boy who finds that as well as his feelings for girls he has feelings for
boys as well. The relaity might be that these feelings are nowhere near
as strong as his hetero feelings, but even so they loom very large in
his head. "I'm gay! Oh well, if I'm gay I'd better get on with it!" He
isn't gay, or at least he's no gayer than a hell of a lot of blokes who
go on to lead absolutely normal heterosexual lives, and scarcely ever
think about their 'gay side'. I know this view is poison to some of
those homosexuals who discovered at puberty that they were absolutely as
gay as gay can be and never wavered from it, but I reckon for every one
of them there's quite a few of the others. Tolerance goes both ways you
know.

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

I don't, no.

Then how the hell do you know what somebody may or may not have done in
the dim and distant past? But, somehow, you think it will negatively
affect their future. In whose eyes?

Not everyone lives a jolly metropolitan life. Some people live in the
same town all their lives. Some of us in our sixties still have a circle
of friends from our teenage years. Some people work in the same factory
or office all their lives.

I know that many people do up sticks and move to another town because of
their social/sexual situation, but doesn't that just prove my point?

Can't you see that what I've written is full of concern for young
people who are discovering their sexuality?

No, Bill, I can't. What I can see is somebody who sees sexuality as a
lifelong either/or thing,

Absolutely not. That's the point. See above.

and "GAY!" as a label that's somehow negative
and tars the bearer as a second class individual.

Not with me. I hate to say this because it's a cliché but my homosexual
friends would laugh at you for saying that. And I suppose I'd better
mention that one of my life heroes, a man for whom I had the greatest
admiration, a man who fought heroically in the war, a man who gave me
massive help when I was a teacher, was totally, utterly, irrevocably,
and I have to say sometimes hilariously gay.

Apart from my admiration for that man, there were two things that made
sure I don't have anti-gay feelings. One was what he told me about his
early life. A childhood and adolescence in a small southern market town.
A father who was totally unapproachable and who therefore never knew. A
mother who surprised him with a man in his bed (the immortal line, "I've
brought you boys some tea and... oh! I see!). The prejudices in the
forces. Being made to resign as a teacher in 1960 having never put a
foot wrong, because some of the governors didn't like queers. Damn them
it was their loss.

The other was what my dad told me about his duties in the war.
Homosexuals were regarded as mental cases and had to be taken under
escort to a place in Scotland to be 'cured'. As a medic my dad sometimes
had to escort them (this was when he worked in a hospital in London). On
the long train journey he sometimes got to know these men, and realised
that they were human and not the monsters he had been told to expect.

No, you're quite wrong.

At a rough guess, I can think of more of my friends who are currently in
gay relationships but have previously been in (usually unhappy) straight
ones than vice versa.

Yes, because social pressures still push bisexuals and even gay men into
(apparently) heterosexual relationships. As I've said above, it can't
work. Not for ever, anyway.

Bill

Nightjar wrote:

Somebody I know used to know HH quite well. She has little doubt that HH
is telling the truth.

Colin Bignell


Someone I know once slept with a double glazing salesman. She always has
an opinion about windows.

Bill