By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Personally I’d rather not have a state broadcaster, especially one you are forced to pay for.
I do agree your point that it’s insane BBC won’t show the documentary.
Not having a state broadcaster would be an absolute disaster for culture in this country
The BBC has it's faults, but because they don't have to worry about their private paymasters they can at least take some risks and promote new music, political debate, the arts etc.
If we ended up with a Reform Govt say goodbye to anything remotely cutting edge on terrestrial TV and hello to 24hr rolling coverage of love island and celebs in jungles
1
Consider the BBC owned. on 12:32 - Jun 29 with 737 views
Consider the BBC owned. on 11:51 - Jun 29 by leitrimblue
Get them out how? Killing children and then writing of their deaths as collateral damage perhaps? How about dealing with people who report their terrorist activities or stand up to them by doing to them by "Knee-capping" them.
[Post edited 29 Jun 12:37]
1
Consider the BBC owned. on 12:35 - Jun 29 with 721 views
Consider the BBC owned. on 11:05 - Jun 29 by GeoffSentence
I dunno putting former Tory director of communications and director of the Jewish chronicle, Robbie Gibb, in charge of overseeing 'bias' at the BBC has been very successful
Consider the BBC owned. on 12:32 - Jun 29 by Mercian
Get them out how? Killing children and then writing of their deaths as collateral damage perhaps? How about dealing with people who report their terrorist activities or stand up to them by doing to them by "Knee-capping" them.
[Post edited 29 Jun 12:37]
Yer gonna have to attempt to explain yerself better mate. Go on take a deep breath, you can do it
0
Consider the BBC owned. on 12:40 - Jun 29 with 691 views
Consider the BBC owned. (n/t) on 09:55 - Jun 29 by StokieBlue
I removed it because I was referencing Vylans set which was the wrong one. That's the sensible thing to do.
As for you having a pop, it's a bit rich coming from someone who frequently has threads deleted by Phil. Another one of yours gone yesterday I see, one that was clearly posted to start an argument.
People in glass houses and all that....
SB
[Post edited 29 Jun 10:01]
The police are investigating Bob Vylan as well by all accounts.
Don’t know why that got deleted, someone must’ve started something on it, I missed whatever it was. Shame.
Consider the BBC owned. on 12:51 - Jun 29 by leitrimblue
You understand what charged means do you?
Do you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty?
So what you are saying is you have no evidence for them being 'pro terrorist scumbags' and just made it up.
Knew we would get there in the end
Is calling for the death of the PM at a world famous music venue because he had the nerve to uphold British law and call them out for their activities evidence? Is the "charity" worker in Boston who asks for a $ to "Kill a British soldier in Ireland supporting terrorism. Not according the MA police in 1994 where the two people arrested where two off duty British soldiers and the others were free to collect to buy bullets intended for them and their mates.
1
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:06 - Jun 29 with 531 views
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:05 - Jun 29 by Mercian
Is calling for the death of the PM at a world famous music venue because he had the nerve to uphold British law and call them out for their activities evidence? Is the "charity" worker in Boston who asks for a $ to "Kill a British soldier in Ireland supporting terrorism. Not according the MA police in 1994 where the two people arrested where two off duty British soldiers and the others were free to collect to buy bullets intended for them and their mates.
Sorry, I missed the bit where they called for 'the death of a pm at a music event' you wanna show me the proof of that?
I've no idea what the feck the rest of your post is about or referring to.
Are you trying to get into a discussion about support for or collusion with terrorism in Northern Ireland?
0
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:16 - Jun 29 with 470 views
They waved the flag of a proscribed terrorist group, I can see how that would be taken as a sign of supporting a terrorist group.
My understanding is the charges don’t relate to the anti Starmer chanting.
[Post edited 29 Jun 13:07]
I believe they commented on a flag that was thrown onto the stage Though if it helps to highlight the hypocrisy of it being a terrorist offence to wave a Hamas flag while its currently complete acceptable to march down the street waving a flag of a country currently engaging in genocide then it could be worse
0
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:31 - Jun 29 with 431 views
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:16 - Jun 29 by leitrimblue
I believe they commented on a flag that was thrown onto the stage Though if it helps to highlight the hypocrisy of it being a terrorist offence to wave a Hamas flag while its currently complete acceptable to march down the street waving a flag of a country currently engaging in genocide then it could be worse
But one is the flag of a country where not everyone agrees with the actions of its government military (similarly not all Russian’s support their crimes in Ukraine). The other is a terrorist paramilitary group where everyone chooses to be a member (albeit they have been known to use child combatants). Seems it’s a non story anyway if it was thrown to them and not waved around on stage.
[Post edited 29 Jun 13:32]
1
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:39 - Jun 29 with 411 views
Throughout the war in Gaza, the dead cat strategy has been played to perfection by those in media and elsewhere in this country supporting the Israeli government.
It was apparently the brainchild of Lynton Crosby, and Boris Johnson described it thus.
"Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as "throwing a dead cat on the table, mate".
That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don't mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout "Jeez, mate, there's a dead cat on the table!"; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief."
[Post edited 29 Jun 14:12]
1
Consider the BBC owned. on 13:42 - Jun 29 with 389 views
Throughout the war in Gaza, the dead cat strategy has been played to perfection by those in media and elsewhere in this country supporting the Israeli government.
It was apparently the brainchild of Lynton Crosby, and Boris Johnson described it thus.
"Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as "throwing a dead cat on the table, mate".
That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don't mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout "Jeez, mate, there's a dead cat on the table!"; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief."
[Post edited 29 Jun 14:12]
Similar to the "red herring fallacy" which is also used extensively.
It's transparent and annoying but unfortunately quite effective in many circles.
SB
0
Consider the BBC owned. on 14:10 - Jun 29 with 326 views
Consider the BBC owned. on 09:54 - Jun 29 by lowhouseblue
"How does one reach that level of stupidity?"
which is spot on. these people, and the other band, are attention seeking idiots with a nasty shouty adolescent mind set. i wish they didn't get so much media attention - it is what they're after. i also think the law is being over-used and the bar for legal action has been set too low. the law is getting involved in people expressing stupid views, which is a waste of everyone's time. but once you've started down the route of using incitement laws to intervene in music performance or online nonsense it's very hard to stop - and the call of inconsistency if you treat one instance as incitement and then ignore something equally pathetic is unavoidable.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
2
Consider the BBC owned. on 19:33 - Jun 29 with 63 views
Consider the BBC owned. on 11:10 - Jun 29 by Jrm_72
Can I just ask for clarity - what is meant by "Consider the BBC owned"?
Owned by who?
I'm not here to start a row - I come in good faith that it's not meant how it sounds like it's meant. But it is dangerously close to sounding like that, so thought I should seek reassurance it isn't.
What Mr Sentence said in the comment before yours.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
