BBC Impartiality

ThehatchetMan said:
What's the context? I'm not saying we should tolerate whichever injustice you're referring to.

I said people shouldn't reduce themselves to pety insults and the best way to find compromise and to settle difference is through dialogue.

Without dialogue nothing will get sorted and your poster seems to push division by grouping people into tolerant or intolerant and basically saying you shouldn't tolerate the side you disagree with? What does that achieve? In Russia and Ukraines case, war.

It's quite fitting we are discussing this in this topic given it is related to freedom of speech. And whether we agree with it or not, everyone's voice is equal.

So no I disagree. While I don't agree with mic fins opinions, I will not tell him to feck off are refuse to tolerate him for having opposing views. Id rather debate with him and hope that I could somehow influence him to see a different perspective or at least get him to consider alternative views. At least that way something positive could be achieved.
Click to expand...
He's thread banned, just move on.
 
ThehatchetMan said:
We can move on when you apologise for speaking shite.

You can say whatever the feck you like about me on the general forums, don't give a feck. But I take politics very seriously and I won't have you bad mouthing me and painting a false narrative just to try and prevent yourself from looking like a trolling plonker looking for an argument.

Which ironically makes this paragraph rather funny

"Now I'm sure that makes you feel good about yourself and all that, really must be great fun for you,"
Click to expand...

:lol:

Something here is certainly ironic.


Norman Brownbutter said:
They can't be serious. Look at any group of cnuts from history and they all do the same thing. They use dehumanising language to get the mob on side. Before the genocide in Rawanda, the Hutu used to refer to the Tutsi as cockroaches in broadcasts all the time. The Nazis did the same thing with the jews. They were often refereed to as being diseased animals that needed to be put down. And then going further to liken them to parasites that presented a threat to German bloodlines. Anywhere you look, the first tool used by oppressors is language. Thats what the Tories did here, and theres no escaping it.

But why use this language when it's so obvious what they are saying? Well, because they are going to lose the next election. They can't say "vote for us, look how great the country is!" because its all shit. Theres strikes everywhere, theres cops raping women, theres a cost of living crisis, the place is a fecking mess. But what the can do is create an enemy, and present themselves as the Britains hero fighting on the front lines against "the swarms" trying to "break in". They have been doing this for years. Even Cameron got called out on it during his time of trying to side step questions of their shit governance. They did the same to the disabled people, claiming it was for them because of all the benefit cheats out there stealing. And what did they do? The went after the disabled, and changed what it meant to be disabled in order get the help disabled people needed and then trotted out bullshit language about "scroungers" and "thieves" to get the public on side. Meanwhile, the DWP was ignoring that their new WCA had caused 600 suicides inside 3 years. And over 2300 deaths of people they had found fit for work inside 5 years.

Torys have always read from the nazi playbook, utterly fecking bizarre how it's taken this long for people to notice. Who knew Gary Lineker, of all people, would be the guy to open up people eyes to it finally.
Click to expand...

There are a depressing number of people who are agreeing with them too. They might even stay in power on the back of this.

We really do not learn from history.
 
Pexbo said:
She said Stanley’s friends said it happened once.

The victim already said it happened multiple times over a long time frame.

She chose to undermine the female victim of domestic abuse and instead give the excuse of the abuser.

Tell me how that aligns with the role of a domestic abuse charity ambassador?
Click to expand...
Her role in that moment was a BBC journalist trying to explain both sides, not an advocate or charity rep. There was no endorsement of Stanley Johnson. Let's not blow her comments out of proportion.
 
nickm said:
Her role in that moment was a BBC journalist trying to explain both sides, not an advocate or charity rep. There was no endorsement of Stanley Johnson.
Click to expand...
Do you think there’s a both sides argument? Boris Johnson’s mother went on record saying that the abuse went on for years. Where is the BBC’s guidelines does it say that the BBC presenter should minimise domestic violence to protect the reputation of the abuser? Since when is the distortion of facts a proponent of impartiality?
 
Compton22 said:
Am I alone in thinking there is no "other side" to domestic abuse and there should be no context provided? Especially when the context is totally wrong in the first place
Click to expand...
Maybe but her job in that moment as a journalist, was to report the allegation and the response, as best as she could. She wasnt endorsing it or expressing an opinion. Maybe she could have done it better but people are being far too eager to misrepresent or misunderstand what she was attempting to do. It is a minor slip that should not be turned into something it is not.
 
nickm said:
Her role in that moment was a BBC journalist trying to explain both sides, not an advocate or charity rep. There was no endorsement of Stanley Johnson. Let's not blow her comments out of proportion.
Click to expand...

thats true its just the phrasing was a bit untactful. Friends saying its a “one off” bit. In addition to how it was said as if it was pre written / rehearsed makes it a worse look (for whoever wrote it for fiona bruce to say)

also if it was both sides/context should have mentioned that his first wife explicitly said it wasnt a one off.
 
Pexbo said:
Do you think there’s a both sides argument? Boris Johnson’s mother went on record saying that the abuse went on for years. Where is the BBC’s guidelines does it say that the BBC presenter should minimise domestic violence to protect the reputation of the abuser? Since when is the distortion of facts a proponent of impartiality?
Click to expand...

Look, feel free to wind yourself up into a frenzy about what is at worst a small error.
 
nickm said:
Her role in that moment was a BBC journalist trying to explain both sides, not an advocate or charity rep. There was no endorsement of Stanley Johnson. Let's not blow her comments out of proportion.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that the BBC needs to stop “both siding” this crap. In an extreme example - if we had Hitler debated on question time, we don’t need someone who is an actual Nazi to refute the idea Hitler was evil.

He battered his wife! The rebuttal is “it’s only once” - that is not needed!

The BBC had to apologise yesterday for allowing Nadine Dorries to present actual lies for everyone without “both siding” the argument. The whole point is Bruce is complicit in framing the debate in a right wing way.
 
Wolverine said:
thats true its just the phrasing was a bit untactful. Friends saying its a “one off” bit. In addition to how it was said as if it was pre written / rehearsed makes it a worse look (for whoever wrote it for fiona bruce to say)

also if it was both sides/context should have mentioned that his first wife explicitly said it wasnt a one off.
Click to expand...
That’s what sticks in the throat about Bruce’s “right to reply” argument. If Stanley Johnson uses his right to reply and goes on record to say he strongly denies the allegations - that’s one thing. What happened was Bruce read out a carefully worded line:

“Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

So Stanley Johnson has clearly decided not to use his right to reply, however Bruce is more than happy to include the hearsay from “friends of his”.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
No, she was playing it down.

With emphasis on"friends" saying it only happened once in a Tory newspaper. When the woman herself had said it happened more regularly.
Click to expand...
The only quote available on the Johnson side, was that quote. "Only broke her nose the once" is pretty fecking damning enough IMO. Isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Pexbo said:
That’s what sticks in the throat about Bruce’s “right to reply” argument. If Stanley Johnson uses his right to reply and goes on record to say he strongly denies the allegations - that’s one thing. What happened was Bruce read out a carefully worded line:

“Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that. Friends of his have said it did happen but it was a one-off.”

So Stanley Johnson has clearly decided not to use his right to reply, however Bruce is more than happy to include the hearsay from “friends of his”.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point but it's not a denial is it? And they aren't Bruce's words.
 
nickm said:
The only quote available on the Johnson side, was that quote. "Only broke her nose the once" is pretty fecking damning enough IMO.
Click to expand...
Do you think she needed to have a prepared statement ready to minimise it? Is it important that you give a domestic abuser the opportunity to give their side of the argument? Especially when their side of the argument isn’t a denial but a dismissal?
 
Wumminator said:
The whole point is that the BBC needs to stop “both siding” this crap. In an extreme example - if we had Hitler debated on question time, we don’t need someone who is an actual Nazi to refute the idea Hitler was evil.

He battered his wife! The rebuttal is “it’s only once” - that is not needed!

The BBC had to apologise yesterday for allowing Nadine Dorries to present actual lies for everyone without “both siding” the argument. The whole point is Bruce is complicit in framing the debate in a right wing way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm playing my Godwin card on that one.
 
Pexbo said:
Do you think she needed to have a prepared statement ready to minimise it? Is it important that you give a domestic abuser the opportunity to give their side of the argument? Especially when their side of the argument isn’t a denial but a dismissal?
Click to expand...
I can see legal reasons why a prepared statement might be needed, yes. And let's remember, it's question time not a documentary or investigation into the allegations.

I don't think its wrong to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt on this one, I'm not getting the rope out for her on this one, sorry.
 
Alex Scott and other presenters have now pulled out of Football Focus, two hours before it is set to go on air. You couldn't make it up.
 
Pexbo said:
Do you think she needed to have a prepared statement ready to minimise it? Is it important that you give a domestic abuser the opportunity to give their side of the argument? Especially when their side of the argument isn’t a denial but a dismissal?
Click to expand...

Unless the person Bruce is retorting to has said something wrong I don’t see why they felt the need for her to retort or why she should retort in the instance. Bruce retorting has made it look like she’s playing it down, especially due to what she retorts with.
 
Serious miscalculation by the BBC... and I'm loving it :lol:
 
From an Estonian perspective, it's a shitshow by BBC. I wouldn't see anytime ever that someone criticizing our governmental policy would get banned or suspended by our ERR - that shows idiotic management and anti-democracy and free speech. Absolutely appalled by the BBC and some government officials' takes on that.
 
SilentWitness said:
Unless the person Bruce is retorting to has said something wrong I don’t see why they felt the need for her to retort or why she should retort in the instance. Bruce retorting has made it look like she’s playing it down, especially due to what she retorts with.
Click to expand...

This this this.
If this wasn't a comment on Boris Johnsons dad.. the wife beater but on Starmer or a labour member or hell anyone not TORY.

Fiona Bruce wouldn't have budged. Even if it was a false statement.
She 100% downplayed it.
 
Oh feck they're pulling out of football focus now too lol!
 
You’d have thought they learn their lesson with Rashford. You don’t bring your culture war to a working class game and expect it to be anything other than a resounding L.
 
I love when push comes to shove. BBC could have handled this differently and the slow slide into right wing mouth-piece could continue. Instead they overreach and kick off a shitshow :lol:

Beautiful to see the strong opposition to this.
 
Pexbo said:
You’d have thought they learn their lesson with Rashford. You don’t bring your culture war to a working class game and expect it to be anything other than a resounding L.
Click to expand...

Aye, the English people are an absolute pushover for the ruling elite/aristocracy, until that is, you start trying to feck with football :lol:

Rashford, the super league and now Linekar full testament to that. They’ll lose every time, and lose big.
Vote remain’s biggest failure appears to be not finding a “it’ll feck up football” angle.
 
Penna said:
He's permed.
Click to expand...

In a thread about impartiality. Are you going to correct the record on the two false allegations below?

Or do I just have to accept you pedalling @Redlambs false claims (who didn't even contribute to the topic of the thread prior to this) because I simply reminded some posters that they shouldn't be telling people to feck off or personally abusing others in the Current events forum.

Penna said:
@ThehatchetMan, this isn't the place to do the wumming thing, and in any case your friend can't reply now.
Click to expand...
 
It’s like your country took a look around wondering „what cool stuff have do we not have ruined yet?“ and then found the BBC. Jesus. Don’t screw this one up. The BBC is an incredible institution. Losing it would be devastating for the UK and it would be a huge loss for the rest of the world.
 
Pexbo said:
You’d have thought they learn their lesson with Rashford. You don’t bring your culture war to a working class game and expect it to be anything other than a resounding L.
Click to expand...
You're right, they've learned nothing about taking on football in general. Players were the first to be singled out by Hancock as needing to take pay cuts to help with the pandemic and that got pretty serious pushback. They do not learn.

It's no wonder nothing of consequence ever improves in this country, with the Tories spending the last few years fighting their own fires rather than governing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.