BBC

D

Deleted member 35599

Guest
Ok so what you mean is you want to have a dig at the BBC but don’t want to supply any evidence?

Crikey. Grauniad readers will say some silly things when being offended to find that someone doesn't conform to their liberal fascisms. Has your liberal sensitivity been proxy offended on behalf of the BBC? I already explained why. Sure, you can find an argument for that too, but I don't care. We are discussing opinion. And people are entitled to them without having to scientifically prove everything they say. There are PLENTY of examples of where the BBC has got it 100% wrong. I guess selective memories and liberal adoration are in effect. Dreary. Because I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon does not mean I am wrong, but you might think so.

Your replies are nothing to do with fact finding nor are they about trying to have an open mind, you are just looking for any means, however insignificant to dispel/discredit something you disagree with regardless of the balance, the comment about the article is one of a few points, but this has been seized on because you feel you can use it to win the argument should you find it is insubstantial. Either that or you are plain argumentative. There is plenty of evidence out there. Just I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TimShady

Well-known member
Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2023
Messages
1,117
Visit site
Crikey. Grauniad readers will say some silly things when being offended to find that someone doesn't conform to their liberal fascisms. Has your liberal sensitivity been proxy offended on behalf of the BBC? I already explained why. Sure, you can find an argument for that too, but I don't care. We are discussing opinion. And people are entitled to them without having to scientifically prove everything they say. There are PLENTY of examples of where the BBC has got it 100% wrong. I guess selective memories and liberal adoration are in effect. Dreary. Because I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon does not mean I am wrong, but you might think so.

Your replies are nothing to do with fact finding nor are they about trying to have an open mind, you are just looking for any means, however insignificant to dispel/discredit something you disagree with regardless of the balance, the comment about the article is one of a few points, but this has been seized on because you feel you can use it to win the argument should you find it is insubstantial. Either that or you are plain argumentative. There is plenty of evidence out there. Just I chose not to disclose the one point you seize upon.
That’s a lot of words to confirm what I thought.
 

Billysboots

Falling apart at the seams
Moderator
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
7,369
Visit site
Folks. It’s Sunday. That makes it a day of rest. So give it a rest please.

One warning has already been issued for some unnecessarily personal comments which overstep the mark. I’ve also tidied the thread up.

No more please.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
33,282
Visit site
No, it was about medication and I don't want to mention the topic because it will publicly expose some of my health concerns, matters which are private.
Nobody would have known it was of direct relevance to yourself if you hadn’t mentioned it was…there would have been no reason for anyone to suspect there was a personal aspect to it. An assertion made with absolutely no evidence being given is verging on the worthless, in fact any worth it has can be in supporting the opposite of the assertion being made - especially when the evidence claimed is by admission readily available. Beside…when descriptions (or whatever) of health matters are considered ‘biased’…most know the world in which the complainant lives.

But hey. Bash on.
 

rudebhoy

Q-School Graduate
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
4,918
Location
whitley bay
Visit site
I thoroughly enjoyed BBC's Dracula.
Not long after that time, I read a science article on their news site masquerading as fact. I did not think what I was reading stood up to scrutiny, so I looked into their source, it was a school child who had a GCSE in biology that they were quoting as facts about breakthrough science. In fact it was downright insulting.

That combined with R2's tendency to cater and pander to a younger audience that doesn't listen to the radio, whilst ignoring the tastes of their existing audience and the BBC bias and propaganda.... and the lies.

I had enough. I unplugged the aerial, cancelled my license, I don't listen to their radio stations and I don't use the website any more. As sad as I am to say it, I will not be sorry if they cease to be. I will lament the loss of what they once were, but not what they have been in recent years.
Hoping for your sake they don’t make a second series of Dracula. Imagine how conflicted you will be 😀
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
17,882
Location
Liverpool
Visit site
A pal has said he has been signed up by Talk crap. He would fit in well with his inappropriate behaviour on there.
Should anyone in any job be sacked over an allegation.
It might be unfounded.

Until proven guilty it’s wrong.
If they have the proof then show it.

The press only tell us what they want us to know.
Can’t help thinking it’s a two tier system given what Edward’s did.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
12,683
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
Should anyone in any job be sacked over an allegation.
It might be unfounded.

Until proven guilty it’s wrong.
If they have the proof then show it.

The press only tell us what they want us to know.
Can’t help thinking it’s a two tier system given what Edward’s did.
If it's wrong, I'm sure Jenas' lawyers will challenge it, for potentially an easy victory. I'm sure he'll decide how to respond.

If there is a basis for his sacking, might be in his interest to move on.

But, I doubt the allegations are unfounded. It isn't that easy to sack people these days unless you are confident enough there is evidence of wrong doing.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
17,882
Location
Liverpool
Visit site
If it's wrong, I'm sure Jenas' lawyers will challenge it, for potentially an easy victory. I'm sure he'll decide how to respond.

If there is a basis for his sacking, might be in his interest to move on.

But, I doubt the allegations are unfounded. It isn't that easy to sack people these days unless you are confident enough there is evidence of wrong doing.
Yes I get that ,but it’s an allegation nothing more.


It’s to easy to allege something now and the person is cancelled.
I wonder if it’s not proven will he get his job back ?
Not a chance imo.
They just pay the compo.
 

Beezerk

Money List Winner
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
13,539
Location
Gateshead, Tyne & Wear
Visit site
Should anyone in any job be sacked over an allegation.
It might be unfounded.

Until proven guilty it’s wrong.
If they have the proof then show it.

The press only tell us what they want us to know.
Can’t help thinking it’s a two tier system given what Edward’s did.

On the BBC website it mentions something about text messages. I imagine the evidence is pretty rock solid for them to sack him.
 
Top