BBC bias again?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Hundreds not thousands, according to the BBC...

I drove past that on friday night actually (was wondering what it was all about) - always very hard to say, but if it was hundreds id say it was the very high hundreds.

[blackpoolhibs]

I suspect that most folk under a certain age get most of their news from the Internet, whether it’s Facebook, Twitter or elsewhere.

Yes you could be right, a sign of the times i suppose.

[ronaldo7]

I think most people could not care less about these things. The biggest selling 'News' papers in Scotland are the Sun and the Dailly Record which I imagine have very little actual news content.

Not bias, just telling the harsh reality.

People are more interested in what Meghan Markle is wearing than where their food is labelled.

I couldn't let this one pass without a chuckle.


Hundreds not thousands, according to the BBC...

Good old BBC. Where's the dot counter when you need him.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/978327577730453509

[johnbc70]

I couldn't let this one pass without a chuckle.



Good old BBC. Where's the dot counter when you need him.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/978327577730453509

Even if there was say 800 or 2000 it's still not particularly huge is it. There are regularly more people in attendance at Scottish Championships games.

[RyeSloan]

Even if there was say 800 or 2000 it's still not particularly huge is it. There are regularly more people in attendance at Scottish Championships games.

And all just a little bit pointless?

[ronaldo7]

And all just a little bit pointless?

I suppose they could have just chucked fish into the Thames and got full national coverage for 24 hours.

[Geo_1875]

I suppose they could have just chucked fish into the Thames and got full national coverage for 24 hours.

Or rubbed sugar on their balls. That's getting lots of coverage on the BBC.

[RyeSloan]

I suppose they could have just chucked fish into the Thames and got full national coverage for 24 hours.

Ha ha very true!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I suppose they could have just chucked fish into the Thames and got full national coverage for 24 hours.

But its not comparable, there is no story. 2,000 hardcore independence supporters gather to wave flags and reaffirm their support for independence. There is no news there, no new announcements, no new angles.

Obviously people will think tue media is biased if they expect the media to cover every aspect of their own particular interest or hobby horse. Thats not how the media works im afraid.

At very best its a 'news in brief' 10 or 20 seconds of reporting.

[JeMeSouviens]

But its not comparable, there is no story. 2,000 hardcore independence supporters gather to wave flags and reaffirm their support for independence. There is no news there, no new announcements, no new angles.

Obviously people will think tue media is biased if they expect the media to cover every aspect of their own particular interest or hobby horse. Thats not how the media works im afraid.

At very best its a 'news in brief' 10 or 20 seconds of reporting.

Well, it's not quite that. They were protesting the Brexit "power grab", so at least a wee bit topical. Certainly more relevant than the Reporting Scotland Brexit feature this week which last night consisted mainly of some pointless vox pop in Moray and Morningside. Although having said that I was mildly flabbergasted by the woman who wanted to make Britain "the country it was in the 40s". Yay, warfare and rationing! :agree::rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

But its not comparable, there is no story. 2,000 hardcore independence supporters gather to wave flags and reaffirm their support for independence. There is no news there, no new announcements, no new angles.

Obviously people will think tue media is biased if they expect the media to cover every aspect of their own particular interest or hobby horse. Thats not how the media works im afraid.

At very best its a 'news in brief' 10 or 20 seconds of reporting.

Completely comparable, Farage chucking fish into the Thames, whilst a couple of thousand people protest the power grab on fishing, agriculture, fracking etc.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well, it's not quite that. They were protesting the Brexit "power grab", so at least a wee bit topical. Certainly more relevant than the Reporting Scotland Brexit feature this week which last night consisted mainly of some pointless vox pop in Moray and Morningside. Although having said that I was mildly flabbergasted by the woman who wanted to make Britain "the country it was in the 40s". Yay, warfare and rationing! :agree::rolleyes:

I didnt see that, but i think i would agree of your take on her view!

Well maybe, but as i understand it, its a 'power grab' that hasnt happened yet, and is a fairly diffuse argument at the moment? Also, the problem with being in constant 'campaign' mode and using any excuse to gather the faithful and wave scottish flags, is that it ceases to be news - familiarity breeds contempt perhaps?

[ronaldo7]

I didnt see that, but i think i would agree of your take on her view!

Well maybe, but as i understand it, its a 'power grab' that hasnt happened yet, and is a fairly diffuse argument at the moment? Also, the problem with being in constant 'campaign' mode and using any excuse to gather the faithful and wave scottish flags, is that it ceases to be news - familiarity breeds contempt perhaps?

Constant campaign mode, you mean, getting on with the day job and protecting the devolution settlement.

The only party to try and vote down the EU continuity bill was the Tories.

Who'd a thunk it.

[Moulin Yarns]

I didnt see that, but i think i would agree of your take on her view!

Well maybe, but as i understand it, its a 'power grab' that hasnt happened yet, and is a fairly diffuse argument at the moment? Also, the problem with being in constant 'campaign' mode and using any excuse to gather the faithful and wave scottish flags, is that it ceases to be news - familiarity breeds contempt perhaps?

The power grab hasn't happened yet but it will unless people protest against it.

[RyeSloan]

The power grab hasn't happened yet but it will unless people protest against it.

Really? Any evidence to support such a statement?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The power grab hasn't happened yet but it will unless people protest against it.

Possibly, possibly not - but surely you can see why it isnt exactly headline news?

Anyway, conspiracy over, i saw reporting scotland and it covered a bunch of indy supporters waving scotland fflags on the steps of Buchanan Galleries, standing behind wee Lex from Small Faces. I was waiting on mad malky johnson turning up with the tongs...

[Curried]

My apologies if this video link has been posted before, but the section with Nick Robinson (BBC Political Editor) at 5:10 mins is comedy gold :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGzqJf8yQI

[Betty Boop]

Why are the BBC failing to report on the latest violence from the Gaza border ? Surely with seventeen dead and more than a thousand injured, from live ammunition, you would think that would warrant a mention ?

[johnbc70]

Why are the BBC failing to report on the latest violence from the Gaza border ? Surely with seventeen dead and more than a thousand injured, from live ammunition, you would think that would warrant a mention ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43593594

[snooky]

WWIII abouty to kick off however, the BBC decided tonight to headline with the news that it has been accused by Sir Clifford De Richard of being a very naughty boy.
Bless them for the distraction. :smug:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

WWIII abouty to kick off however, the BBC decided tonight to headline with the news that it has been accused by Sir Clifford De Richard of being a very naughty boy.
Bless them for the distraction. :smug:

The first item on 10 oclock news was all about syria, a report, live chat with correspondents in both washington and moscow?

[Beefster]

Remember the pre-internet age when we bumbled on in the optimistic hope that the world wasn’t full of conspiracy theorists beyond reason? Good times.

[Fife-Hibee]

Remember the pre-internet age when we bumbled on in the optimistic hope that the world wasn’t full of conspiracy theorists beyond reason? Good times.

"Conspiracy theorist" is a very convenient term used by those who want to ignore what's staring them right in the face. A useful term for those who are too lazy to open their eyes.

[Beefster]

"Conspiracy theorist" is a very convenient term used by those who want to ignore what's staring them right in the face. A useful term for those who are too lazy to open their eyes.

I knew a conspiracy theorist would say that.

See ‘Asleep’.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/45/a-glossary-of-conspiracy-theorist-words-and-phrases/

[ACLeith]

Conspiracy theorist = someone who espouses views contrary to mainstream thinking and who you disagree with

Courageous seeker of truth = someone who espouses views contrary to mainstream thinking and who you agree with

[snooky]

Conspiracy theorist = someone who espouses views contrary to mainstream thinking and who you disagree with

Courageous seeker of truth = someone who espouses views contrary to mainstream thinking and who you agree with

I don't like conspiracy theorists one bit mainly because on the odd occasion they may be right. :wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The problem is, with the explosion of ' journalism ' that not all internet sources are the same.

All professional journalists, newspapers and broadcasters, whether you like them or not, have professional codes, ethics, standards and legal frameworks. Where these organisations err from these (phpne hacking for example) it is a big deal, and there will rightly be major ramifications.

Random blogs, youtube channels do not have the same constraints. They do not have training, an obligation to provide balance, a legal framework of slander, defamation and libel to work within, no professionals with professional integrity to keep them right.

So while the pluarity of sources has many good aspects, the parity of esteem that too many give them is problematic imo.

None of this is to say that the traditional media is perfect, very far from it and many of their problems are self-inflicted.

But a random blog, just because it pedals 'an alternative view' often has no more weight than a guy down the pub having a conversation with his mate.

[snooky]

The problem is, with the explosion of ' journalism ' that not all internet sources are the same.

All professional journalists, newspapers and broadcasters, whether you like them or not, have professional codes, ethics, standards and legal frameworks. Where these organisations err from these (phpne hacking for example) it is a big deal, and there will rightly be major ramifications.

Random blogs, youtube channels do not have the same constraints. They do not have training, an obligation to provide balance, a legal framework of slander, defamation and libel to work within, no professionals with professional integrity to keep them right.

So while the pluarity of sources has many good aspects, the parity of esteem that too many give them is problematic imo.

None of this is to say that the traditional media is perfect, very far from it and many of their problems are self-inflicted.

But a random blog, just because it pedals 'an alternative view' often has no more weight than a guy down the pub having a conversation with his mate.

A very good and valid point.
However, I raise you The Daily Mail.

[Beefster]

A very good and valid point.
However, I raise you The Daily Mail.

That’s not a reason to dismiss proper journalists any more than Fifty Shades of Grey is a reason to stop reading.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

A very good and valid point.
However, I raise you The Daily Mail.

Very true... but the daily mail still cant peddle lies - it will still have sources, amd lawyers. Plus, their political slant is well known, so it is not claiming to be anything that it is not.

Im not defending the mail by tge way, which is the worst kind of rag. But we know that. There are lots of internet rags and 'experts' who are peddling bull crap but pretending to be authoritative, truthful or balanced.

[JimBHibees]

Very true... but the daily mail still cant peddle lies - it will still have sources, amd lawyers. Plus, their political slant is well known, so it is not claiming to be anything that it is not.

Im not defending the mail by tge way, which is the worst kind of rag. But we know that. There are lots of internet rags and 'experts' who are peddling bull crap but pretending to be authoritative, truthful or balanced.

Of course they peddle lies mostly about immigrants and if a complaint is upheld it is hidden away in a tiny paragraph on an inside page. it is the worst type of rag as it is totally xenophobic and peddles hate.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Of course they peddle lies mostly about immigrants and if a complaint is upheld it is hidden away in a tiny paragraph on an inside page. it is the worst type of rag as it is totally xenophobic and peddles hate.

Im not sure thats true... although im loathe to defend it. It still has to operate within the law, and while there is no law against being distasteful or offensive (for the most part) there are laws against willfullu printing lies.

[snooky]

Not exactly bias but Sarah Smith asking SNP conference attendees if they want England to win the World Cup. Couple of points here...

1) Was that the most important question she could come up with at the conference?
2) Was she just putting her finger in the Indy pie with the hope of pulling out a plum?

She did temper her interviews by reiterating that an Indy Scotland wants to keep very close ties to England. To offset that of course, she asked one interviewee if it was because he didn't like "the English" which came over as very clumsy, shall we say.
Good responses from nearly all the folk she spoke to. Unfortunately for Sarah no plums to be had today.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Not exactly bias but Sarah Smith asking SNP conference attendees if they want England to win the World Cup. Couple of points here...

1) Was that the most important question she could come up with at the conference?
2) Was she just putting her finger in the Indy pie with the hope of pulling out a plum?

She did temper her interviews by reiterating that an Indy Scotland wants to keep very close ties to England. To offset that of course, she asked one interviewee if it was because he didn't like "the English" which came over as very clumsy, shall we say.
Good responses from nearly all the folk she spoke to. Unfortunately for Sarah no plums to be had today.


watched that earlier, pathetic interview, i was annoyed at first that anyone actually replied

[ronaldo7]

watched that earlier, pathetic interview, i was annoyed at first that anyone actually replied

They can't help themselves. I wonder how they're going to spin the pay rise, that the FM has just announced for NHS Staff. 😃

[johnbc70]

They can't help themselves. I wonder how they're going to spin the pay rise, that the FM has just announced for NHS Staff. 😃

How about. "NHS staff to get immediate 3% pay rise in bid to attract back the 4,000+ nurses that quit last year."

[ronaldo7]

How about. "NHS staff to get immediate 3% pay rise in bid to attract back the 4,000+ nurses that quit last year."

You forgot this bit at the end, "after returning home due to Brexit, and the, toxic Tory hostile environment policy.

You'll feel better now eh. 😷

[johnbc70]

You forgot this bit at the end, "after returning home due to Brexit, and the, toxic Tory hostile environment policy.

You'll feel better now eh. 😷

Yep, always someone else's fault.

[Glory Lurker]

Not exactly bias but Sarah Smith

You are being too kind. Sarah Smith having the Scottish politics gig is exactly bias!

[Glory Lurker]

Yep, always someone else's fault.

It does seem to be a UK-wide problem so it would appear that there’s an external factor at play?

[RyeSloan]

It does seem to be a UK-wide problem so it would appear that there’s an external factor at play?

Impossible to know without any statistical breakdown of who has left and why.

Just as easy to say it’s pressure of work, lack of pay, poor working conditions, lack of promotion or performance related rewards or Brexit or the SNP’s health policies or the Scottish weather...all would be a complete guess based just on a number.

[Glory Lurker]

Impossible to know without any statistical breakdown of who has left and why.

Just as easy to say it’s pressure of work, lack of pay, poor working conditions, lack of promotion or performance related rewards or Brexit or the SNP’s health policies or the Scottish weather...all would be a complete guess based just on a number.

Very much agree. I did a quick google to fact-check jbc’s comments, but the references were in papers that no self-respecting SNP type would click on (please google and copy and paste :greengrin). It was interesting that the results brought up media talking about a similar problem down south, though.

[johnbc70]

4,000 nurses leaving NHS Scotland all down the Brexit and the Tories? Yea OK.

[xyz23jc]

Yep, always someone else's fault.

As long as we still have to take it up the a*** from Westminster, yeah, pretty much! :greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

4,000 nurses leaving NHS Scotland all down the Brexit and the Tories? Yea OK.

That’s not what I am saying at all (yet!). From the limited references I have consulted it appears that there is a similar problem in England. I have not researched properly though, so am ignorant on the real reasons - reference me up, please and make me agree with you!

[cabbageandribs1875]

They can't help themselves. I wonder how they're going to spin the pay rise, that the FM has just announced for NHS Staff. 😃



i bet the interviewers father must be turning in his grave at the new Labour-Conservative alliance party, why on earth they don't just share the benches at Holyrood is baffling, they won't fool all the people all of the time

[RyeSloan]

Very much agree. I did a quick google to fact-check jbc’s comments, but the references were in papers that no self-respecting SNP type would click on (please google and copy and paste :greengrin). It was interesting that the results brought up media talking about a similar problem down south, though.

Ha yeah I did the same...lots of headline numbers then the usual blame game comments from the politicos and record investment rebuttals but strangely enough zero evidence that there had been any serious assessment of why the numbers leaving had risen. Or if there was it certainly wasn’t being reported or had made it into the politicians (all sides) comments.

[Stranraer]

the only BBC bias I've ever seen is pro-union stuff from BBC Scotland and Sarah Smith giving Labour politicians an easy time in England.

[Mibbes Aye]

Ha yeah I did the same...lots of headline numbers then the usual blame game comments from the politicos and record investment rebuttals but strangely enough zero evidence that there had been any serious assessment of why the numbers leaving had risen. Or if there was it certainly wasn’t being reported or had made it into the politicians (all sides) comments.

There's a shortage of nurses for a number of reasons. For example, community learning disability nurses were recruited to in big numbers at the time of LD hospital closures and 'care in the community'. A significant chunk of them have reached or are reaching an age where they are looking at retirement or are unable to continue due to the higher impact of musculo-skeletal conditions from doing a physically demanding job for decades. The infill of new graduates has never been enough.

In some parts of the country the shortage is self-perpetuating. Nursing homes are very reliant on agency nurses - they need a certain proportion of nurses to meet their registration requirements - and Health Boards are similarly increasingly dependent. The agencies can therefore charge an extremely high rate and offer far better rates to the agency staff, along with flexibility of working hours, meaning you have staff leaving health boards and nursing homes just to end up going back there as agency nurses but at a greater cost. It's somewhat of a vicious circle.

[johnbc70]

That’s not what I am saying at all (yet!). From the limited references I have consulted it appears that there is a similar problem in England. I have not researched properly though, so am ignorant on the real reasons - reference me up, please and make me agree with you!

Apologies, was not meaning your post.

Although I can make a wild assumption that all 4,000 nurses never stated Brexit and the Tories if they had an exit interview.

[Glory Lurker]

Apologies, was not meaning your post.

Although I can make a wild assumption that all 4,000 nurses never stated Brexit and the Tories if they had an exit interview.

:aok:

[RyeSloan]

There's a shortage of nurses for a number of reasons. For example, community learning disability nurses were recruited to in big numbers at the time of LD hospital closures and 'care in the community'. A significant chunk of them have reached or are reaching an age where they are looking at retirement or are unable to continue due to the higher impact of musculo-skeletal conditions from doing a physically demanding job for decades. The infill of new graduates has never been enough.

In some parts of the country the shortage is self-perpetuating. Nursing homes are very reliant on agency nurses - they need a certain proportion of nurses to meet their registration requirements - and Health Boards are similarly increasingly dependent. The agencies can therefore charge an extremely high rate and offer far better rates to the agency staff, along with flexibility of working hours, meaning you have staff leaving health boards and nursing homes just to end up going back there as agency nurses but at a greater cost. It's somewhat of a vicious circle.

Thanks, good to get some insight into why. [emoji736]

[heretoday]

the only BBC bias I've ever seen is pro-union stuff from BBC Scotland and Sarah Smith giving Labour politicians an easy time in England.

Her dad would have been a great PM. Sad loss. Life might have been different. Who can say?

[ronaldo7]

Yep, always someone else's fault.

When are you and your Tory pals ever going to own your policies, or is it always someone else's fault. 😂

[johnbc70]

When are you and your Tory pals ever going to own your policies, or is it always someone else's fault. 😂

So you believe all 4,000+ nurses that left NHS Scotland last year was down to solely Brexit and the Tories? Despite Health being devolved to the Scottish Government their stellar management of everything health related was undone by these 2 things?

That seems to be what you are suggesting unless I am mistaken? A Yes or No would be great, no deflection tactics.

[Just Alf]

So you believe all 4,000+ nurses that left NHS Scotland last year was down to solely Brexit and the Tories? Despite Health being devolved to the Scottish Government their stellar management of everything health related was undone by these 2 things?

That seems to be what you are suggesting unless I am mistaken? A Yes or No would be great, no deflection tactics.

I think he's trying to point out that those 4000 are not leaving solely down to the SNP which seems to be the point your arguing?

The reality is, like it or not, Brexit is clearly having an impact, the SNP simply can't be held responsible for the very similar losses elsewhere across the UK. That's not to say that the SNP policies couldn't be driving some losses here as well just as the Tories are doing similar elsewhere, we simply don't know by how much as opposed to the Brexit effect.

The question is, from a Scottish perspective, under the financial constraints of the current UK wide set up what do you feel that the Labour leadership in Scotland could do differently to stop the losses and in turn entice me back to vote for them? ..... OR the Tory leadership! I got mixed up what thread I was on lol

[snooky]

How about. "NHS staff to get immediate 3% pay rise in bid to attract back the 4,000+ nurses that quit last year."

Well I suppose that's Ronaldo's spin question kinda answered. :wink: :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

So you believe all 4,000+ nurses that left NHS Scotland last year was down to solely Brexit and the Tories? Despite Health being devolved to the Scottish Government their stellar management of everything health related was undone by these 2 things?

That seems to be what you are suggesting unless I am mistaken? A Yes or No would be great, no deflection tactics.

Now you're being silly. Imagine thinking that I wouldn't know that some nurses had passed away, moved jobs, retired, started a family or any manor of other things.

Brexit is one of those things just making it worse, Oh and your immigration policy of course.

A long winded way of saying No :aok:

[johnbc70]

Now you're being silly. Imagine thinking that I wouldn't know that some nurses had passed away, moved jobs, retired, started a family or any manor of other things.

Brexit is one of those things just making it worse, Oh and your immigration policy of course.

A long winded way of saying No :aok:

Great, just when you said 'after returning home' seemed to suggest they were from not here. Thanks for clearing up though.

I don't have an immigration policy, unless I wrote one and published it without me remembering it.

[Ryan69]

Conspiracy theorist = someone who espouses views contrary to mainstream thinking and who you disagree with

Courageous seeker of truth = someone who espouses views contrary to mainstream thinking and who you agree with

The mainstream media is just there to tell you what they want...not necesseraly the truth.
Look up Operation Mockingbird.
The CIA infiltrated the mainstream media years ago.

[ronaldo7]

Great, just when you said 'after returning home' seemed to suggest they were from not here. Thanks for clearing up though.

I don't have an immigration policy, unless I wrote one and published it without me remembering it.

Straw clutching much.:greengrin

Returning home is a normal saying amongst people who've made their new lives in other countries, just like our Aussie/New Zealand hibbies on this board. Just take a look on the Scottish cup threads to see how many of them were returning home for the cup final.

You'll really need to up your game bud.

I thought you were a Tory supporter/party member, and were fully up to speed with Theresa and her hostile environment policy?

You support and vote for the Tories, don't you?

Maybe someone else did it and ran away, you seem rather happy quoting that in your posts.

[JimBHibees]

'
So you believe all 4,000+ nurses that left NHS Scotland last year was down to solely Brexit and the Tories? Despite Health being devolved to the Scottish Government their stellar management of everything health related was undone by these 2 things?

That seems to be what you are suggesting unless I am mistaken? A Yes or No would be great, no deflection tactics.

pretty much

[snooky]

I see an MP is calling for social media to be regulated because of fake news. Perhaps he should look at the BBC first. Not so much for what they report, more for what they don't.

[johnbc70]

I see an MP is calling for social media to be regulated because of fake news. Perhaps he should look at the BBC first. Not so much for what they report, more for what they don't.

Any examples of what you feel should have been reported but was not?

[Chic Murray]

Any examples of what you feel should have been reported but was not?

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but a good exercise is to watch reports of a massacre, such as the Bataclan, and see how they differ between RT and the BBC.

Both sides report some aspects of the story that the other side are keen to ignore.

More recently the BBC reported on the imminent arrest (which never happened) of a 70 year old man, that didn't actually happen, even though they'd spent a fortune on a helicopter to cover the event.

[HelmutSchlong]

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but a good exercise is to watch reports of a massacre, such as the Bataclan, and see how they differ between RT and the BBC.

Both sides report some aspects of the story that the other side are keen to ignore.

More recently the BBC reported on the imminent arrest (which never happened) of a 70 year old man, that didn't actually happen, even though they'd spent a fortune on a helicopter to cover the event.

Also their news programs are so one sided in relation to Brexit and the independence referendum it’s beyond parody. As the national main broadcaster they are supposed to impartial

[johnbc70]

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but a good exercise is to watch reports of a massacre, such as the Bataclan, and see how they differ between RT and the BBC.

Both sides report some aspects of the story that the other side are keen to ignore.

More recently the BBC reported on the imminent arrest (which never happened) of a 70 year old man, that didn't actually happen, even though they'd spent a fortune on a helicopter to cover the event.

I thought the point was news worthy items they don't report on, not what they do report on?

[Moulin Yarns]

Will be interested to see the figures attending the all under one banner march today. Huge convoy headed up the A9 this morning.

[Moulin Yarns]

Seeing tweets that the BBC have managed to get at least 2 Pro indy YouTube channels suspended.

No bias there then.

[speedy_gonzales]

Seeing tweets that the BBC have managed to get at least 2 Pro indy YouTube channels suspended.

No bias there then.

Excuse my ignorance, but how does the BBC manage to get a YouTube channel shut down? What's their vested interest?

[marinello59]

Excuse my ignorance, but how does the BBC manage to get a YouTube channel shut down? What's their vested interest?

I was wondering that. Copyright issues maybe? It's on twitter though so it must be true.

[Moulin Yarns]

I was wondering that. Copyright issues maybe? It's on twitter though so it must be true.

Copyright issues, but to take the whole channel down rather than the offending video is ott imho

Also only indy supporting channels affected.

[Moulin Yarns]

Will be interested to see the figures attending the all under one banner march today. Huge convoy headed up the A9 this morning.

10s of thousands being reported in various sites.

[snooky]

Any examples of what you feel should have been reported but was not?

One obvious one was the protest outside their offices re. Nick Robinson's news editing efforts.
The Beeb use Nelson's eye whenever it suits them and the government.

[ronaldo7]

Copyright issues, but to take the whole channel down rather than the offending video is ott imho

Also only indy supporting channels affected.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-state-flexes-its-muscles/

Make your own mind up. The other site has been run for years without interference from the BBC. Now shut down.

In other news, political sites which contain BBC material from a Unionist perspective are still up and running.

[johnbc70]

So will the SNP listen to their grassroots supports and announce IndyRef2? Or will they ignore them?

[marinello59]

10s of thousands being reported in various sites.

All talking to themselves instead of the people we need to win over.

[marinello59]

10s of thousands being reported in various sites.

One of the top stories on the BBC news app.

[lord bunberry]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-state-flexes-its-muscles/

Make your own mind up. The other site has been run for years without interference from the BBC. Now shut down.

In other news, political sites which contain BBC material from a Unionist perspective are still up and running.
It seems they’re shutting down the sites that are critical of the BBC, but allowing other to stay up. That’s nothing to do with copyright imo.

[marinello59]

It seems they’re shutting down the sites that are critical of the BBC, but allowing other to stay up. That’s nothing to do with copyright imo.

If that is what is happening then our politicians should be asking questions as to who decides which sites are complained about and why.

[ronaldo7]

It seems they’re shutting down the sites that are critical of the BBC, but allowing other to stay up. That’s nothing to do with copyright imo.

The other site had nine years of stuff on it. Not all of it against the BBC, as someone else has said, maybe they could have asked for the offending video's to be removed, rather than the whole site to be shutdown.

[snooky]

The other site had nine years of stuff on it. Not all of it against the BBC, as someone else has said, maybe they could have asked for the offending video's to be removed, rather than the whole site to be shutdown.

There's been a subversive campaign (or propaganda war, if you like) going on ever since it became evident that the number of residents of Scotland who support independence was approaching the 50% mark. Oddly enough I feel this tactic will only hasten independence whereas, a more congenial and welcoming policy could well have saved the union. Just my opinion though. I know there are some on here will disagree, and that's okay.

[lord bunberry]

If that is what is happening then our politicians should be asking questions as to who decides which sites are complained about and why.
I agree. I can’t see any other reason as to why they’d pick the wings site to report for copyright when so many others are doing the same thing. Maybe the BBC coming out and giving an explanation would clear things up.

[HelmutSchlong]

I agree. I can’t see any other reason as to why they’d pick the wings site to report for copyright when so many others are doing the same thing. Maybe the BBC coming out and giving an explanation would clear things up.

Or it could just be a case of got to start somewhere? Wings would be as good a place to start as any

[RyeSloan]

Also their news programs are so one sided in relation to Brexit and the independence referendum it’s beyond parody. As the national main broadcaster they are supposed to impartial

Which side are they on re Brexit?

[HelmutSchlong]

Which side are they on re Brexit?

You really need to ask? Sky and BBC are the most anti Brexit media outlets out there

[CropleyWasGod]

Which side are they on re Brexit?That depends on which side you're on [emoji3]

My point being; QED the above post.... every shade of political opinion thinks they're unfairly treated by the media.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Glory Lurker]

I've not dug in to this story to the bottom, but the impression i've got is that something questionable has happened here. Anyone care to disabuse?

[johnbc70]

That depends on which side you're on [emoji3]

My point being; QED the above post.... every shade of political opinion thinks they're unfairly treated by the media.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Yes, the BBC will be on the opposite side of the individual watching.

[stoneyburn hibs]

You really need to ask? Sky and BBC are the most anti Brexit media outlets out there

Opinions! I think the complete opposite, especially Sky news.
I actually can't bring myself to watch that channel any more.

[Beefster]

Opinions! I think the complete opposite, especially Sky news.
I actually can't bring myself to watch that channel any more.

That’s the problem with dogma. Balance always seems like it’s heavily against you.

Not a dig at you btw. We’re all dogmatic. It just shows how we all see everything through the prism of our particular worldview.

[Chic Murray]

I thought the point was news worthy items they don't report on, not what they do report on?

Reporting on some aspects, means they don't report on others. So, they spin the story to fit their narrative.

Take a subject like health, which seems to feature in every bulletin, you sometimes wonder why they bang on about some aspects more than others.

[Chic Murray]

All talking to themselves instead of the people we need to win over.

As a floating voter at the last referendum, I've been dismayed at how my vote has been taken for granted in future ballots.

[Colr]

The BBC is run by government appointees so they are the establishment. Anti indyref, anti brexit, pro Rangers.

[stoneyburn hibs]

That’s the problem with dogma. Balance always seems like it’s heavily against you.

Not a dig at you btw. We’re all dogmatic. It just shows how we all see everything through the prism of our particular worldview.

That's fair enough.

[marinello59]

That depends on which side you're on [emoji3]

My point being; QED the above post.... every shade of political opinion thinks they're unfairly treated by the media.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The fact that every single political party and cause thinks that the BBC is biased against them suggests they might be doing an OK job

[Moulin Yarns]

Seems like freedom of speech is no longer available in the UK.

The BBC published the information so it is in the public domain. But nobody has the right to use it.

[danhibees1875]

The fact that every single political party and cause thinks that the BBC is biased against them suggests they might be doing an OK job

Does that logic apply to referees? :hmmm:

[Chic Murray]

Seems like freedom of speech is no longer available in the UK.

The BBC published the information so it is in the public domain. But nobody has the right to use it.

I look forward to some explanation as to what they are playing at.

[johnbc70]

Seems like freedom of speech is no longer available in the UK.

The BBC published the information so it is in the public domain. But nobody has the right to use it.
It's copyright material though, perfectly within their rights to ask people using it without permission to stop doing so.

[RyeSloan]

It's copyright material though, perfectly within their rights to ask people using it without permission to stop doing so.

I suppose it depends what the clips were and what it was deemed to getting used for.

It would maybe be at least useful if the ‘offending’ site owners were maybe given an explanation and confirmation of the offending material.

Without that it leaves room for plenty of conspiracy theories...

[ronaldo7]

It's copyright material though, perfectly within their rights to ask people using it without permission to stop doing so.

I believe the publicly funded, Bbc have a fair use policy which both sites have said they've not abused. One site hasn't even been warned on their alleged content misuse.

As we sit, this evening, Bbc content is alive and kicking on other political blogs, and official party sites.

Someone at the beeb with be along to tell us all about it...

Not holding my breath though.

[johnbc70]

I suppose it depends what the clips were and what it was deemed to getting used for.

It would maybe be at least useful if the ‘offending’ site owners were maybe given an explanation and confirmation of the offending material.

Without that it leaves room for plenty of conspiracy theories...

The explanation was they were using copyrighted material without the permission, nothing more than that. That's the explanation but people seem to want to read more into it than that cause it suits the agenda they have.

[snooky]

The explanation was they were using copyrighted material without the permission, nothing more than that. That's the explanation but people seem to want to read more into it than that cause it suits the agenda they have.

Honestly, I really wish I had your faith.

[Mibbes Aye]

Who would have thunk.

Dissatisfied Nats blaming the Beeb for being biased.

Sometimes you just have to lose a vote and deal with it like adults, rather than blaming anyone you can come up with to conjure up a story about being robbed.

The BBC didn't cost you the referendum, your own approach did. People didn't buy it. Deal with it and move on, please.

[HelmutSchlong]

Who would have thunk.

Dissatisfied Nats blaming the Beeb for being biased.

Sometimes you just have to lose a vote and deal with it like adults, rather than blaming anyone you can come up with to conjure up a story about being robbed.

The BBC didn't cost you the referendum, your own approach did. People didn't buy it. Deal with it and move on, please.

Their own childish approach will lose them the next referendum too

For any voter who is undecided then some of the cyber nats insults to No voters on social media and the like will see them say “know what? F** you’s” and they’ll vote no again. The Yes campaign would have done a hell of a lot better had they spoke to the electorate, not at them

[Chic Murray]

Who would have thunk.

Dissatisfied Nats blaming the Beeb for being biased.

Sometimes you just have to lose a vote and deal with it like adults, rather than blaming anyone you can come up with to conjure up a story about being robbed.

The BBC didn't cost you the referendum, your own approach did. People didn't buy it. Deal with it and move on, please.

Where did that come from? The argument is about whether the BBC has acted properly. I am not a nationalist, but I think it's an issue that should be discussed.

Where do you get the idea this is about the SNP spitting the dummy?



Their own childish approach will lose them the next referendum too

For any voter who is undecided then some of the cyber nats insults to No voters on social media and the like will see them say “know what? F** you’s” and they’ll vote no again. The Yes campaign would have done a hell of a lot better had they spoke to the electorate, not at them

Im an undecided voter, but am capable of taking a much more mature approach than that. Likewise, I was capable of looking at the evidence, and assessing the argument myself the last time.

Sounds more like wishful thinking on your part, if the truth be told. I've said above I'm not impressed with the crazies in the SNP are forcing the issue of Indy 2, but I am yet to hear any semblance of logic from the No side on any issue that is important to Scotland.

I have to say, when the State broadcaster starts to censor free speech, I have to wonder exactly what is going on, and will not follow any politician that says they are justified in what they are doing.

[johnbc70]

Censoring free speech or protecting copyrighted material?

My local councillor (not SNP and a No supporter) had some BBC videos on his blog and got same message that he had to remove them. He never had a YouTube channel but was asked to remove the videos ASAP as he never had permission. Following logic in here why would the BBC ask a No voter to remove videos?

[Chic Murray]

Censoring free speech or protecting copyrighted material?

My local councillor (not SNP and a No supporter) had some BBC videos on his blog and got same message that he had to remove them. He never had a YouTube channel but was asked to remove the videos ASAP as he never had permission. Following logic in here why would the BBC ask a No voter to remove videos?

If they were worried about breach of copyright, they'd be going after everybody. In fact, they would have to. You can't pick and chose which breaches of copyright you pursue.

Why did they ask Wings to remove the videos though? The videos were used in accordance with fair use exemptions. The irony in all of this being, that the clip they objected to was of an interview with Stuart Campbell, who runs the Wings website.

So, in fact, they have complained about him posting a video of himself. It's a complete farce, and somebody, somewhere at Atlantic Quay, is now regretting going for lunch with whatever weasel suggested they complain.

[snooky]

Who would have thunk.

Dissatisfied Nats blaming the Beeb for being biased.

Sometimes you just have to lose a vote and deal with it like adults, rather than blaming anyone you can come up with to conjure up a story about being robbed.

The BBC didn't cost you the referendum, your own approach did. People didn't buy it. Deal with it and move on, please.
Deal with it like adults? :hmmm:

[JeMeSouviens]

Just to counter the "everyone thinks all media is biased against them" narrative: as a Yes/Remain voter, I was pretty sure the Beeb was against me on the former but agreed with me on the latter.

[johnbc70]

If they were worried about breach of copyright, they'd be going after everybody. In fact, they would have to. You can't pick and chose which breaches of copyright you pursue.

Why did they ask Wings to remove the videos though? The videos were used in accordance with fair use exemptions. The irony in all of this being, that the clip they objected to was of an interview with Stuart Campbell, who runs the Wings website.

So, in fact, they have complained about him posting a video of himself. It's a complete farce, and somebody, somewhere at Atlantic Quay, is now regretting going for lunch with whatever weasel suggested they complain.

I imagine it would be a full time job going after every single copyright infringement, so maybe pick the high profile ones then the message gets across. We all know now you can't use BBC material without the right permission, bet thousands never knew this before.

[Chic Murray]

I imagine it would be a full time job going after every single copyright infringement, so maybe pick the high profile ones then the message gets across. We all know now you can't use BBC material without the right permission, bet thousands never knew this before.

It's the very fact that they are being selective that leads to accusations of bias. Maybe they could have tread more carefully, and complained about the likes of Ruth Davidson using their material, at the same time?

Would seem a much more diplomatic way to go about it.

[snooky]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45030773

:hmmm:

:confused:

:faint:
.

[lord bunberry]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45030773

:hmmm:

:confused:

:faint:
.
It really is worrying that this sort of thing is happening. The Scottish Conservative party YouTube channel has many bbc videos on it. It’s hard to believe that this action is not politically motivated. If anything though it will only help the independence cause.

[johnbc70]

Should the anger not be directed at YouTube as they took the channels down, not the BBC.

"The statement added: "This action is normally limited to asking for individual videos to be removed and the BBC did not ask or demand for these whole channels to be taken down. That was a decision for YouTube alone."

[Moulin Yarns]

Should the anger not be directed at YouTube as they took the channels down, not the BBC.

"The statement added: "This action is normally limited to asking for individual videos to be removed and the BBC did not ask or demand for these whole channels to be taken down. That was a decision for YouTube alone."

The suggestion is that the BBC knew the '3 strikes' rule that YouTube has and the BBC cited 13 videos in the knowledge that this would trigger the 3' strikes' leading to the closure of the channels. Meanwhile The Scottish Conservative YouTube channel has videos from Sunday Politics (BBC), Scotland Tonight (STV) FMQ (BBC), and that is just the Scottish Branch. here are a selection where the broadcaster is clearly visible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5eWeMK4pW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsa5J0R_NZw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULWwsR-uRK8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3TQkQGsT-g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7T-ow3mX1s





(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3TQkQGsT-g)

[snooky]

Should the anger not be directed at YouTube as they took the channels down, not the BBC.

"The statement added: "This action is normally limited to asking for individual videos to be removed and the BBC did not ask or demand for these whole channels to be taken down. That was a decision for YouTube alone."
If YouTube get more than 3 complaints then their policy is to close the site. The BBC issued a dozen or so complaints. I'd reckon they knew exactly what they were doing and the result it would achieve. Ironically, I feel this action will prove to be counter-productive as it shows them up to be the political puppet that they (the BBC) really are.

[Hibrandenburg]

If YouTube get more than 3 complaints then their policy is to close the site. The BBC issued a dozen or so complaints. I'd reckon they knew exactly what they were doing and the result it would achieve. Ironically, I feel this action will prove to be counter-productive as it shows them up to be the political puppet that they (the BBC) really are.

Anyone who believes the BBC to be impartial is naive to say the least. They're funded by the UK taxpayer and if the British government wanted to pull the plug on them then they could. The BBC would be cutting their own throats if they were anything else but pro union and pro state.

[speedy_gonzales]

Reading between the lines, the BBC acted on a complaint,,,, perhaps the complainant need to be held to account.

[johnbc70]

Anyone who believes the BBC to be impartial is naive to say the least. They're funded by the UK taxpayer and if the British government wanted to pull the plug on them then they could. The BBC would be cutting their own throats if they were anything else but pro union and pro state.

So if we got independence and Scotland was run by the SNP government of the day we would have a pro indy BBC and that would be OK?

[CropleyWasGod]

So if we got independence and Scotland was run by the SNP government of the day we would have a pro indy BBC and that would be OK?

For one thing, it's unlikely that there would be an SNP Government, post-indy.

However, the point is (I think) that the BBC would be pro-Government, in general, not necessarily pro-Government policies and specifics.

FTR, I am not defending that, and would prefer that they were impartial.

[lord bunberry]

Reading between the lines, the BBC acted on a complaint,,,, perhaps the complainant need to be held to account.
I think the complaint came from within the bbc.

[JeMeSouviens]

So if we got independence and Scotland was run by the SNP government of the day we would have a pro indy BBC and that would be OK?

A state broadcaster that wasn't pro-the state would be a tad unusual, no?

[snooky]

So if we got independence and Scotland was run by the SNP government of the day we would have a pro indy BBC and that would be OK?

Ahem, if Scotland was/is independent there would be no need for the SNP and (IMO) we would/will have a predominantly Labour government. i.e. A government that the peoples of Scotland have chosen as opposed to one that they haven't.

[Moulin Yarns]

Hearing the BBC back peddle on the Wings YouTube ban, the channel is apparently back up, the 13 videos are still to be reinstated, but it was a 'whataboutery' complaint by a Labour Councillor that caused this. (John Beattie has discussed it on the radio)

more here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45046265

[Chic Murray]

Hearing the BBC back peddle on the Wings YouTube ban, the channel is apparently back up, the 13 videos are still to be reinstated, but it was a 'whataboutery' complaint by a Labour Councillor that caused this. (John Beattie has discussed it on the radio)

more here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45046265

Scottish politics is descending back into Stoneybridge Town Council with all this pettiness. It sums up Labour who are bereft of any idea what to do to reverse their decline.

[johnbc70]

The Labour councillor, who happens to be my local councillor, says he never made any such complaint to the BBC. So someone telling lies.

[Curried]

What an utter embarrassment for the BBC!

[cabbageandribs1875]

big welcome back wings :)

[Hibrandenburg]

So if we got independence and Scotland was run by the SNP government of the day we would have a pro indy BBC and that would be OK?

It might reflect more the Scottish slant on things instead of the British one which by all accounts is really the English one. It also wouldn't be the BBC anymore which kind of highlights my point that self interest and survival of the BBC goes hand in hand with the British state and it's status quo.

[danhibees1875]

It might reflect more the Scottish slant on things instead of the British one which by all accounts is really the English one. It also wouldn't be the BBC anymore which kind of highlights my point that self interest and survival of the BBC goes hand in hand with the British state and it's status quo.

Surely the BBC would still operate as the BBC?

We'd just have an SBC instead, or nothing of that ilk.

[Mibbes Aye]

Anyone who believes the BBC to be impartial is naive to say the least. They're funded by the UK taxpayer and if the British government wanted to pull the plug on them then they could. The BBC would be cutting their own throats if they were anything else but pro union and pro state.

Funny, Thatcher thought they were anything but pro state. Neither did Blair and Campbell when we had the Iraq enquiry. David Cameron expanded Leveson to include the BBC, even though it was originally aimed at Murdoch. Harold Wilson and James Callaghan were both very critical of the BBC and its editorial approach and expenditure.

Seems like most of the PMs we've had in the last fifty years have thought it anything but pro state. Naive to think otherwise.

[Mibbes Aye]

Should the anger not be directed at YouTube as they took the channels down, not the BBC.

"The statement added: "This action is normally limited to asking for individual videos to be removed and the BBC did not ask or demand for these whole channels to be taken down. That was a decision for YouTube alone."

'...First they came for the YouTube clips and I did not speak out. Because I was not a YouTube clip.......'

[Curried]

I see comments were locked on the main page about Butchers Aprons in Peloponnese .....Perhaps the BBC/establishment are grinding the organ on this site also :wink:

[marinello59]

I see comments were locked on the main page about Butchers Aprons in Peloponnese .....Perhaps the BBC/establishment are grinding the organ on this site also :wink:

Nope. Another pointless flag debate. We’ve had more than a few of then over the years. It had run its course.

[snooky]

Problem - who to believe.
Cllr Scott Arthur or Auntie :dunno:

Maybe I'll just :ostrich:

[ronaldo7]

Just catching up with this story after my jaunt to Greece.

Wings has played a blinder.

Bbc, not so much. 👎

[Bristolhibby]

Surely the BBC would still operate as the BBC?

We'd just have an SBC instead, or nothing of that ilk.

This. Just like the peeps in Northern Ireland get access to RTE and the Beeb.

J

[Fife-Hibee]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/itv-censured-over-inaccuracies-in-interview-with-nicola-sturgeon-1-4818204/amp?fbclid=IwAR1mb-fAIWbE0gziIZgFMV9BLJgVVQPvFz2g4kKF8fDuaYBLHfs_0lPI apM

[ronaldo7]

BBC showing their lack of class again last night.

Newsnight having a Brexit discussion with 5 MP's and no representation from the 3rd biggest party at Westminster.

Their continual omission of the Scottish, Welsh, or Irish voices in Brexit is astounding.

[Saturday Boy]

BBC showing their lack of class again last night.

Newsnight having a Brexit discussion with 5 MP's and no representation from the 3rd biggest party at Westminster.

Their continual omission of the Scottish, Welsh, or Irish voices in Brexit is astounding.

Today’s Radio Times (I know 😱) has an interesting article about Question Time. Union Leaders under represented and good old Nigel Farage over represented. Funny, that.

I watched yesterday’s shambles unfolding on TV. Only one party asking serious questions: it wasn’t Scottish Labour.

Pity I can’t do the flag thing on my phone 😄

[ronaldo7]

Today’s Radio Times (I know 😱) has an interesting article about Question Time. Union Leaders under represented and good old Nigel Farage over represented. Funny, that.

I watched yesterday’s shambles unfolding on TV. Only one party asking serious questions: it wasn’t Scottish Labour.

Pity I can’t do the flag thing on my phone 😄



:saltireflag:saltireflag:saltireflag:saltireflag:s altireflag:saltireflag

There you go.:wink:

[Saturday Boy]

:saltireflag:saltireflag:saltireflag:saltireflag:s altireflag:saltireflag

There you go.:wink:

Looking good 👍

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Today’s Radio Times (I know 😱) has an interesting article about Question Time. Union Leaders under represented and good old Nigel Farage over represented. Funny, that.

I watched yesterday’s shambles unfolding on TV. Only one party asking serious questions: it wasn’t Scottish Labour.

Pity I can’t do the flag thing on my phone 😄

Doesnt the trade unions own political party get a seat on the panel every week?

[JeMeSouviens]

Doesnt the trade unions own political party get a seat on the panel every week?

Yes, but so does the dodgy right wing think tanks' and they manage to get on most weeks.

[Slavers]

Yes, but so does the dodgy right wing think tanks' and they manage to get on most weeks.

C'mon now there are far more dodgy left wingers allowed to spout their far left Marxist crap on the BBC.

If anyone dares to speak against the left wing bias throughout the media and especially the BBC they are simply branded racist and their views ignored.

[CropleyWasGod]

C'mon now there are far more dodgy left wingers allowed to spout their far left Marxist crap on the BBC.

If anyone dares to speak against the left wing bias throughout the media and especially the BBC they are simply branded racist and their views ignored.The right thinks the BBC is left wing.

The left thinks it's the tool of the establishment

Somewhere in there, I suggest that it must be doing its job properly if it's pissing everyone off.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

The right thinks the BBC is left wing.

The left thinks it's the tool of the establishment

Somewhere in there, I suggest that it must be doing its job properly if it's pissing everyone off.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Or it's just doing an awful job representing anyone?

[CropleyWasGod]

Or it's just doing an awful job representing anyone?It's not its job to "represent" anyone.
I am not its biggest fan, but I like the fact that both extremes think that it's the enemy. It can't win, and I doubt that will ever change.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

It's not its job to "represent" anyone.
I am not its biggest fan, but I like the fact that both extremes think that it's the enemy. It can't win, and I doubt that will ever change.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I don't believe it's a stretch to say that the "British Broadcasting Corporation" has a clear agenda to maintain political unity between Scotland/England/N.Ireland/Wales. The BBC may not lie, but they pick and choose their facts very carefully and the narrative they use to describe those facts to ensure that it's their own take on the facts that gets across to people.

Did you watch the CNN report? You would never ever see something like that from the BBC, not even "BBC Scotland".

[ronaldo7]

It's not its job to "represent" anyone.
I am not its biggest fan, but I like the fact that both extremes think that it's the enemy. It can't win, and I doubt that will ever change.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

It might be nice to start with a balanced panel on Question time. They've got two tories on it this evening.:rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

Nicola pulls up the BBC again. It's like it's not even trying these days.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17294132.bbc-forced-to-replace-picture-after-first-minister-corrects-them/?ref=mr&lp=7

[Fife-Hibee]

Question Time tonight. Jeezo! :rolleyes:

[Fife-Hibee]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51527972_300289660844266_4880539164291891200_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=107&_nc_eui2=AeFMn7Ibo3zUnJq8TxrfqflCmYcfEnFtFqVW2Nohp UKkGbbyJiEiIq1cUxN8kRYOBedjTC631b2taODDTXEi2nv5I-8qwUwWkC6Ot7LswpEDag&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=f53b9236420e8a763233e52f72192144&oe=5CEBC83F

[cabbageandribs1875]

watching it on iplayer, my goodness the north lanarkshire unionist membership is out in force




i feel a bit sorry for fiona hyslop getting it tight yet the labour spokeswoman gets of scotfree.

[cabbageandribs1875]

21672


the durty **** getting his lines

[Fife-Hibee]

watching it on iplayer, my goodness the north lanarkshire unionist membership is out in force

i feel a bit sorry for fiona hyslop getting it tight yet the labour spokeswoman gets of scotfree.

That crowd makes you totally forget that Motherwell voted YES and strongly rejected Brexit. There also seems to be several people in that crowd who live in several different cities across Scotland, seeing as they keep getting on time and time again. :rolleyes:

Amazing how they manage to fill a crowd with hard-right, orange order member, flute band creating, UKIP candidates who make up such a tiny minority of Scotlands views. :rolleyes:

[cabbageandribs1875]

That crowd makes you totally forget that Motherwell voted YES and strongly rejected Brexit. There also seems to be several people in that crowd who live in several different cities across Scotland, seeing as they keep getting on time and time again. :rolleyes:

Amazing how they manage to fill a crowd with hard-right, orange order member, flute band creating, UKIP candidates who make up such a tiny minority of Scotlands views. :rolleyes:



i was indeed more baffled than i usually am, quite bizarre i've only heard one woman saying she would prefer to be part of an i-scotland/europe, unless all the polls are badly wrong

[Fife-Hibee]

i was indeed more baffled than i usually am, quite bizarre i've only heard one woman saying she would prefer to be part of an i-scotland/europe, unless all the polls are badly wrong

Wish I could say I was baffled. But i'm not in the least bit to be honest. The BBC are reaching the North Korean levels of propaganda again, as it did during the Iraqi invasion.

They know brexit isn't going to be pleasant at all for Scotland, but rather than being honest about it. They're hell bent on convincing us that this is the only viable option forward for Scotland, when it isn't in anyway viable.

I'll never understand why a single person in this country would pay the BBC tax. I stopped paying it as soon as I was old enough to pay it.

[Future17]

I'll never understand why a single person in this country would pay the BBC tax. I stopped paying it as soon as I was old enough to pay it.

So you were paying it before you were old enough to pay it?

[Smartie]

Ok, trying to be devil's advocate here.

Could it just be that that particular part of our society are more vocal, noisy and more likely to be interested in going on TV to get their views aired?

Scotland DID vote No, but I'd imagine the vast majority of those who did so, did so quietly. Many older folk, many folk who don't really want to discuss their politics but they were asked a question and answered accordingly.

How representative should the audience be of the area the show is filmed in?

My favourite Question Time moments (I didn't see it last night) have often been when SNP politicians have made excellent points in places like Bognor Regis only to be greeted by a quite delicious silence.

[The Pointer]

Nicola pulls up the BBC again. It's like it's not even trying these days.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17294132.bbc-forced-to-replace-picture-after-first-minister-corrects-them/?ref=mr&lp=7

The Porridge Pravda. Very balanced indeed.

[CropleyWasGod]

Wish I could say I was baffled. But i'm not in the least bit to be honest. The BBC are reaching the North Korean levels of propaganda again, as it did during the Iraqi invasion.

They know brexit isn't going to be pleasant at all for Scotland, but rather than being honest about it. They're hell bent on convincing us that this is the only viable option forward for Scotland, when it isn't in anyway viable.

I'll never understand why a single person in this country would pay the BBC tax. I stopped paying it as soon as I was old enough to pay it.

Really? :cb

[Fife-Hibee]

Ok, trying to be devil's advocate here.

Could it just be that that particular part of our society are more vocal, noisy and more likely to be interested in going on TV to get their views aired?

Scotland DID vote No, but I'd imagine the vast majority of those who did so, did so quietly. Many older folk, many folk who don't really want to discuss their politics but they were asked a question and answered accordingly.

How representative should the audience be of the area the show is filmed in?

My favourite Question Time moments (I didn't see it last night) have often been when SNP politicians have made excellent points in places like Bognor Regis only to be greeted by a quite delicious silence.

Well here's an idea. How about when they do a show in a particular city, they only invite people from that city to sit in the audience? Instead of "randomly" picking the same faces over and over again, who just so happen to share the exact same views with one another and generally have links to the far-right?

The "poor" English nurse one still pisses me off as well. :grr:

[Fife-Hibee]

I always find it amusing how quickly people are to dismiss nazi levels of propaganda as long as it's pushing their own views without the threat of it being challenged.

[stokesmessiah]

I have just watched last night's question time.....shameful.

[Moulin Yarns]

I have just watched last night's question time.....shameful.

Is it recommended that I remove all heavy objects from my immediate vicinity if I watch it later?

[Fife-Hibee]

https://i.ibb.co/7QZ1Lb5/BILLYBLUENOSEONBBCQT.png

[Fife-Hibee]

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/31404192_10155866411030376_5846590911047270400_n.j pg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=4c43afad24dba51489475037ed19b2bb&oe=5CE23160

[Fife-Hibee]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/aunties-favourite/

[Geo_1875]

Ok, trying to be devil's advocate here.

Could it just be that that particular part of our society are more vocal, noisy and more likely to be interested in going on TV to get their views aired?

Scotland DID vote No, but I'd imagine the vast majority of those who did so, did so quietly. Many older folk, many folk who don't really want to discuss their politics but they were asked a question and answered accordingly.

How representative should the audience be of the area the show is filmed in?

My favourite Question Time moments (I didn't see it last night) have often been when SNP politicians have made excellent points in places like Bognor Regis only to be greeted by a quite delicious silence.

No. When you apply the send a questionnaire asking whether you are a member of a political organisation and how you voted in the referendums. You can refuse to answer but good luck with that.

[stokesmessiah]

Is it recommended that I remove all heavy objects from my immediate vicinity if I watch it later?

Honestly, it is not even vaguely covered up now. It is blatant propaganda. Nothing impartial about it in the slightest.

[Curried]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/aunties-favourite/


Superb.....Even Blind Freddy will be asking the question - Why do we contribute to this propaganda?

[Fife-Hibee]

Superb.....Even Blind Freddy will be asking the question - Why do we contribute to this propaganda?

If only. I certainly believe there is enough people being duped who could really make the difference. But the vast majority of them know it's propaganda and are quite happy with it, as it fits into their totalitarian ideology.

[Curried]

If only. I certainly believe there is enough people being duped who could really make the difference. But the vast majority of them know it's propaganda and are quite happy with it, as it fits into their totalitarian ideology.


:agree: Comfort blanket.

[degenerated]

21673

[Fife-Hibee]

Interesting that he has worn a white shirt and a red shirt on the show and supports England wherever they're playing (even in Russia).

Also interesting that he wears an orange shirt on the show and just so happens to be a member of a flute band he started.

I just can't piece it all together. :hmmm:

[James310]

Interesting that he has worn a white shirt and a red shirt on the show and supports England wherever they're playing (even in Russia).

Also interesting that he wears an orange shirt on the show and just so happens to be a member of a flute band he started.

I just can't piece it all together. :hmmm:

What do you think about what he said?

[ronaldo7]

The Porridge Pravda. Very balanced indeed.

Jeez, I posted that two months ago. Have you just come out of hibernation?

How about the article itself, do you agree with what the FM did, and if not, why?

[ronaldo7]

Interesting that he has worn a white shirt and a red shirt on the show and supports England wherever they're playing (even in Russia).

Also interesting that he wears an orange shirt on the show and just so happens to be a member of a flute band he started.

I just can't piece it all together. :hmmm:

He's a dyed in the wool, unionist. Up to his knees in it every week.

I'm surprised some on here are supporting him, and his politics, but hey ho, each to there own.

The orange order tentacles reach far and wide.

[tonywilliams]

He's a dyed in the wool, unionist. Up to his knees in it every week.

I'm surprised some on here are supporting him, and his politics, but hey ho, each to there own.

The orange order tentacles reach far and wide.

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.

[bigwheel]

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.


what is actually wrong with that opinion - on an informal football chat forum?

[hibsbollah]

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.

:confused:
No, its just very accurate.

[Slavers]

:confused:
No, its just very accurate.

I'm sure if that was directed at any other religious group there would be uproar on here but seeing at its a protestant unionist then they are fair game to be slated?

[bigwheel]

I'm sure if that was directed at any other religious group there would be uproar on here but seeing at its a protestant unionist then they are fair game to be slated?


it is about the narrow minded bigoted views on display for this character and associates, not the religion...

[Slavers]

it is about the narrow minded bigoted views on display for this character and associates, not the religion...

Why make reference to his religion then?

[bigwheel]

Why make reference to his religion then?


not sure what you mean - the post didn't mention religion - it mentioned unionist and orange order...

[weecounty hibby]

I'm sure if that was directed at any other religious group there would be uproar on here but seeing at its a protestant unionist then they are fair game to be slated?

That's just utter pish. I abhor racism and bigotry in all its forms. He is a member of at least one of the most public, outwardly bigoted organisations in Scotland. Do you think that is acceptable, and also do you think it's right that the BBC keep on giving him a platform to express his views? I'm also pretty sure judging by what I have seen of him the OO won't be his only group that most would find distasteful at least

[Slavers]

That's just utter pish. I abhor racism and bigotry in all its forms. He is a member of at least one of the most public, outwardly bigoted organisations in Scotland. Do you think that is acceptable, and also do you think it's right that the BBC keep on giving him a platform to express his views? I'm also pretty sure judging by what I have seen of him the OO won't be his only group that most would find distasteful at least

You may not agree with his views but he has a right to them as anyone else has a right to theirs.

I think might be deemed to be Orangephobia.

[weecounty hibby]

You may not agree with his views but he has a right to them as anyone else has a right to theirs.

I think might be deemed to be Orangephobia.
No one is disputing he has a right to those views but he has been accepted into a show that is meant to be a balloted effort 4 times now. Also no one has even questioned his political stance nor his alliegiance to a sectarian organisation. And there is NO WAY the BBC don't know all this. Why don't they invite him onto the panel so that he can be questioned? He is clearly some sort of spokesman for the OO//far right/unionists he also stood as a UKIP candidate so he is clearly political. Is it because it's easier to allow him to spout rhetoric than allow questions to be asked of him. I would love to see him on stage, I would bet he would be ripped to bits and make a total James Hunt of himself.

[Just Alf]

You may not agree with his views but he has a right to them as anyone else has a right to theirs.

I think might be deemed to be Orangephobia.You're right in a way, he does have a right to express his views, so surely that means others do as well ... So the piece about where, on question time he ranted on about the SNP for over a minute and the SNP mp reply was cut off after 7 seconds of their response.... You seem to be saying that's balanced and both are being given the same rights?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

21674



although i notice the show mentioned on here from time to time last night was the first i've watched 'nearly' all of it, not a very balanced audience, interesting if this knut is allowed on in future shows,

[wpj]

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.

Why?

[cabbageandribs1875]

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.


ta ta tony, your new username didn't last very long :( see you again soon, no doubt :wink:

[RyeSloan]

No one is disputing he has a right to those views but he has been accepted into a show that is meant to be a balloted effort 4 times now. Also no one has even questioned his political stance nor his alliegiance to a sectarian organisation. And there is NO WAY the BBC don't know all this. Why don't they invite him onto the panel so that he can be questioned? He is clearly some sort of spokesman for the OO//far right/unionists he also stood as a UKIP candidate so he is clearly political. Is it because it's easier to allow him to spout rhetoric than allow questions to be asked of him. I would love to see him on stage, I would bet he would be ripped to bits and make a total James Hunt of himself.

Good post.

This dude appearing 4 times is just ridiculous, as are some of his views and antics by the sound of it.

I think the BBC gets a hard time from both ‘sides’ sometimes but this would appear to be indefensible really.

QT should be a opportunity for members of the public to ask some serious questions to the panel. Doesn’t seem too hard to do so in a balanced and appropriate manner, which will of course throw up a few random roasters along the way. This seems anything but balanced or appropriate.

[ronaldo7]

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.

Oh dear,

Next, he'd have been asking what school I went to. It's a pity he's left, as I was looking for a good flag debate after my football training.

[Future17]

Interesting that he has worn a white shirt and a red shirt on the show and supports England wherever they're playing (even in Russia).

Also interesting that he wears an orange shirt on the show and just so happens to be a member of a flute band he started.

I just can't piece it all together. :hmmm:

You've posted on this thread seven times since I asked you a question, but you haven't answered it. Why is that?

[Colr]

Good post.

This dude appearing 4 times is just ridiculous, as are some of his views and antics by the sound of it.

I think the BBC gets a hard time from both ‘sides’ sometimes but this would appear to be indefensible really.

QT should be a opportunity for members of the public to ask some serious questions to the panel. Doesn’t seem too hard to do so in a balanced and appropriate manner, which will of course throw up a few random roasters along the way. This seems anything but balanced or appropriate.

QT is made by an independent company. The owner is a know right winger.

I stopped watching this biased ***** some time ago.

[cabbageandribs1875]

That crowd makes you totally forget that Motherwell voted YES and strongly rejected Brexit. There also seems to be several people in that crowd who live in several different cities across Scotland, seeing as they keep getting on time and time again. :rolleyes:

Amazing how they manage to fill a crowd with hard-right, orange order member, flute band creating, UKIP candidates who make up such a tiny minority of Scotlands views. :rolleyes:


the OO goat from last night would love this wee clip, indeed i'm sure he would carry out the same threats to anyone opposing his cretinous views, wonder if it's poster tony from above in his car :greengrin


https://www.facebook.com/PigGate2/videos/1980959028834017/

[The Modfather]

ta ta tony, your new username didn't last very long :( see you again soon, no doubt :wink:

Who was the former banned poster?

[RyeSloan]

QT is made by an independent company. The owner is a know right winger.

I stopped watching this biased ***** some time ago.

Interesting. I forgot that most BBC output is produced by independents these days.

A quick google suggests the ultimate parent company of the production is Tinopolis who’s chairman is Ron Jones.

Is that who you meant as he seems more into sport than politics accordingly to Wiki?

[ronaldo7]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/aunties-favourite/


Quite an article. Opens up a whole new can of worms. We've not seen the end of the bigoted basket case then.

[Moulin Yarns]

Read this back but under your real name with your picture and employers name attached.

All archived, screenshotted and cloud saved.

Very poor.

Is it wrong that I read your username as Tory Williams?

[steakbake]

Is it really true there’s folk on hibs.net who stick up for the Orange Order and worry about ‘discrimination’ against them? The anti-Catholic, bigotry-is-your-ticket-in, Orange Order? On the basis it is somehow discriminatory towards Protestants?

I’m pretty sure most Protestants would object to their faith being conflated with the Orange Order and what they stand for. I can imagine my old man, member of the kirk’s session and lifelong churchgoer would find that both offensive and astonishing.

This is not something we’d have seen 10 years ago on hibs.net. How have people lost their bearings so much?

[marinello59]

Is it really true there’s folk on hibs.net who stick up for the Orange Order and worry about ‘discrimination’ against them? The anti-Catholic, bigotry-is-your-ticket-in, Orange Order? On the basis it is somehow discriminatory towards Protestants?

I’m pretty sure most Protestants would object to their faith being conflated with the Orange Order and what they stand for. I can imagine my old man, member of the kirk’s session and lifelong churchgoer would find that both offensive and astonishing.

This is not something we’d have seen 10 years ago on hibs.net. How have people lost their bearings so much?

There’s one poster making the case that the OO guy was entitled to have his view heard. That’s a bit different from supporting the repellant views of the OO. In any case he has totally missed the point which is what the guy seems to be getting fast tracked through the system to appear on the programme. I managed to get in to the audience a couple of years back after identifying myself as an unaffiliated Yes voter in the pre-interview process. I didn’t get my brilliantly incisive question selected for inclusion in the programme though. :greengrin Given how it is supposed to work it is extremely hard to believe that this guy isn’t being given special treatment and that is to the detriment of all major parties, not just the SNP. The Orange Order are a lunatic fringe who frequently overstate their own alledged influence.

Where I think we are all going wrong is in judging QT as if it was a current affairs programme. Since being taken over by an independent production company it has become nothing more than light entertainment. Ratings are all that matters and controversial participants like this certainly work in that they get people talking and watching. Allegations of bias? They simply don’t care.

[Curried]

A locals take on the Motherwell QT by Paul Kavenagh:

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/bbc-question-times-definition-of-balance/

[Just Alf]

There’s one poster making the case that the OO guy was entitled to have his view heard. That’s a bit different from supporting the repellant views of the OO. In any case he has totally missed the point which is what the guy seems to be getting fast tracked through the system to appear on the programme. I managed to get in to the audience a couple of years back after identifying myself as an unaffiliated Yes voter in the pre-interview process. I didn’t get my brilliantly incisive question selected for inclusion in the programme though. :greengrin Given how it is supposed to work it is extremely hard to believe that this guy isn’t being given special treatment and that is to the detriment of all major parties, not just the SNP. The Orange Order are a lunatic fringe who frequently overstate their own alledged influence.

Where I think we are all going wrong is in judging QT as if it was a current affairs programme. Since being taken over by an independent production company it has become nothing more than light entertainment. Ratings are all that matters and controversial participants like this certainly work in that they get people talking and watching. Allegations of bias? They simply don’t care.


It's been going on for a while....see pic.


The big issue for me, funnily enough, is when programs are trying too hard to be balanced, take the Brexit situation. Recently Mogg was being interviewed saying that we could have a border like Switzerland, they had a guy from a haulier company giving the detail on how it isn't actually frictionless and there's often delays (and closed for freight at nights/weekends), he got more of a hard time than Mogg. :rolleyes:

Mind you maybe it's deliberate!

[ronaldo7]

It's a wee family day for the Mitchell's. His mum is sitting to the left of him, and his son, who also got time on the programme is sitting behind him. 😳

Check out @JmJohnpj’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/JmJohnpj/status/1094003510537003013?s=09

[degenerated]

It's a wee family day for the Mitchell's. His mum is sitting to the left of him, and his son, who also got time on the programme is sitting behind him. [emoji15]

Check out @JmJohnpj’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/JmJohnpj/status/1094003510537003013?s=09On the new BBC shortbread channel there's a programme called debate night, it appears that on the first episode, yet to be screened, that Billy the bigot is again front and centre with a speaking part.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

You've posted on this thread seven times since I asked you a question, but you haven't answered it. Why is that?

Because your question seemed to stem from a misunderstanding of my post. I jokingly said that I stopped paying it as soon as I was old enough to pay it. So I was basically saying that i've never paid for it and I never will. :aok:

[Fife-Hibee]

This is not something we’d have seen 10 years ago on hibs.net. How have people lost their bearings so much?

Because sadly, a lot of people now see any sort of resentment against the Orange Order as resentment against our precious union.

Certain political branch parties in Scotland have done a great job intertwining the two.

[Hibrandenburg]

You may not agree with his views but he has a right to them as anyone else has a right to theirs.

I think might be deemed to be Orangephobia.

The Orange Order deserves nothing but ridicule and abuse. It's a bigoted supremacist society born out of hate and loathing for a certain group of people within our society whom they blame for everything and much like the Nazis who were also formed on the same principles I find it odious to even accept their existence.

[cabbageandribs1875]

A locals take on the Motherwell QT by Paul Kavenagh:

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/02/08/bbc-question-times-definition-of-balance/




Yet Billy crops up more often on BBC QT in Scotland than a herpes sore at a clap clinic. He’s a bawhair away from getting mentioned in the programme credits


:hilarious good piece though, the more i think about it the more angry this ersewipe is allowed on QT so regularly, and now more information is becoming public regarding his background i would hope this extremely unpleasant individual never gets the opportunity to grace our TV screens again, i can't wait to see Tommy Robinson making an appearance :rolleyes:

[Fife-Hibee]

Yet Billy crops up more often on BBC QT in Scotland than a herpes sore at a clap clinic. He’s a bawhair away from getting mentioned in the programme credits


:hilarious good piece though, the more i think about it the more angry this ersewipe is allowed on QT so regularly, and now more information is becoming public regarding his background i would hope this extremely unpleasant individual never gets the opportunity to grace our TV screens again, i can't wait to see Tommy Robinson making an appearance :rolleyes:

Just how much of the information is becoming public though. Everybody I know who wants Scotland to remain in the UK is perfectly happy with propaganda on this scale.

[Future17]

Because your question seemed to stem from a misunderstanding of my post. I jokingly said that I stopped paying it as soon as I was old enough to pay it. So I was basically saying that i've never paid for it and I never will. :aok:

Ah...right. When it was clear as that, I'm amazed I misunderstood.

[Slavers]

The Orange Order deserves nothing but ridicule and abuse. It's a bigoted supremacist society born out of hate and loathing for a certain group of people within our society whom they blame for everything and much like the Nazis who were also formed on the same principles I find it odious to even accept their existence.

As far as I'm aware the OO is not promoting or saying anything that's illegal?

Therefore they have the right to their own protestant culture.

We live in a multicultural society now and you are showing an intolerance towards their culture and heritage.

People have rightly been called out for intolerance when complaining about certain cultures they do not agree with. Tommy Robinson is one such person and by using the language of Tommy you are in danger of becoming an intolerant like him.

Today's world dictates that we must respect other cultures even if we do find them offensive. The intolerance towards OO culture then you could be seen to be...

A left wing Tommy Robinson!

Something to ponder?

[hibsbollah]

You may not agree with his views but he has a right to them as anyone else has a right to theirs.

I think might be deemed to be Orangephobia.

:faf:

Being against bigotry somehow being the equivalence of being a bigot, is one of the great pieces of anti logic that the new alt right seem to want to chuck around online.

[JeMeSouviens]

As far as I'm aware the OO is not promoting or saying anything that's illegal?

Therefore they have the right to their own protestant culture.

We live in a multicultural society now and you are showing an intolerance towards their culture and heritage.

People have rightly been called out for intolerance when complaining about certain cultures they do not agree with. Tommy Robinson is one such person and by using the language of Tommy you are in danger of becoming an intolerant like him.

Today's world dictates that we must respect other cultures even if we do find them offensive. The intolerance towards OO culture then you could be seen to be...

A left wing Tommy Robinson!

Something to ponder?



Presumably you're fine and dandy with forced marriage, FGM, etc They're only aspects of certain cultures, right? :rolleyes:

[Slavers]

Presumably you're fine and dandy with forced marriage, FGM, etc They're only aspects of certain cultures, right? :rolleyes:

Are those practises not illegal?

[JeMeSouviens]

Are those practises not illegal?

Not everywhere.

So to pick another example, we should have tolerated apartheid in South Africa when it was the law? All part of the culture.

[Hibrandenburg]

As far as I'm aware the OO is not promoting or saying anything that's illegal?

Therefore they have the right to their own protestant culture.

We live in a multicultural society now and you are showing an intolerance towards their culture and heritage.

People have rightly been called out for intolerance when complaining about certain cultures they do not agree with. Tommy Robinson is one such person and by using the language of Tommy you are in danger of becoming an intolerant like him.

Today's world dictates that we must respect other cultures even if we do find them offensive. The intolerance towards OO culture then you could be seen to be...

A left wing Tommy Robinson!

Something to ponder?

:faf:

[norhfc]

Having lived in West Lothian I have witnessed the OO and their marching bands close up. These days they are very careful what they say in public, its another thing what they say in private, a bit like Tommy R. Be in no doubt they are supremists and have an agenda which thankfully most of us reject.
Problem here is the BBC doing what they do best, not giving a balanced outlook, they are not going to change this anytime soon. luckily these days we have alternative news and debate forums, QT is a joke but there are plenty People out there who believe the audience and panel are a fair reflection of society. Motherwell being tory for example.

[Fife-Hibee]

Failed UKIP candidate claims he was personally invited on to Question Time
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17425710.failed-ukip-candidate-claims-he-was-personally-invited-on-to-question-time/?fbclid=IwAR2t6fiwBRDqe7hvzog1Zh7aQTf9c8Z1leDJgL7f vzoVYCmnFhRqGIVK3vI

Apparently he's also due to appear on a pilot episode of the new Scottish Question Time on the new Scottish BBC channel..... you know, the channel set up to restore our faith in BBC impartiality. :whistle:

[degenerated]

Failed UKIP candidate claims he was personally invited on to Question Time
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17425710.failed-ukip-candidate-claims-he-was-personally-invited-on-to-question-time/?fbclid=IwAR2t6fiwBRDqe7hvzog1Zh7aQTf9c8Z1leDJgL7f vzoVYCmnFhRqGIVK3vI

Apparently he's also due to appear on a pilot episode of the new Scottish Question Time on the new Scottish BBC channel..... you know, the channel set up to restore our faith in BBC impartiality. :whistle:It now transpires that not only did they invite the redneck on again and give him another free minute to rant about the snp again, they then edited Fiona hyslops full response to him to 7 seconds. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190214/e531c76de337a607b0aebebbdfd371e9.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[stoneyburn hibs]

It now transpires that not only did they invite the redneck on again and give him another free minute to rant about the snp again, they then edited Fiona hyslops full response to him to 7 seconds. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190214/e531c76de337a607b0aebebbdfd371e9.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

They were chatting about last Thursdays episode on radio Scotland this afternoon. When Hyslop attempted to respond to Billy bawsack he shouted over her, having a rant regarding Salmond and his arrest, hence they had to edit.

[Fife-Hibee]

They were chatting about last Thursdays episode on radio Scotland this afternoon. When Hyslop attempted to respond to Billy bawsack he shouted over her, having a rant regarding Salmond and his arrest, hence they had to edit.

So she never really got a proper chance to address his initial points. But the BBC felt right to still include his initial rant anyway, knowing that there was no opportunity given for any of it to be addressed.

[stoneyburn hibs]

So she never really got a proper chance to address his initial points. But the BBC felt right to still include his initial rant anyway, knowing that there was no opportunity given for any of it to be addressed.

Correct. I'm not defending them but the reason for the edit at that time is plausible imo.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Correct. I'm not defending them but the reason for the edit at that time is plausible imo.

The reason for the edit is entirely plausible, in fact its probably fair to say that the BBC had no choice … Mitchell had apparently launched into a rant about Alex Salmond's possible court case during Fiona Hyslop's response and as a result the BBC had to cut out that section for obvious reasons.

The question then becomes, if they had to edit Hyslop's response to Mitchell's original tirade to next to nothing how could they possibly think it was fair or balanced to include his rant at all …. that's one weird editorial policy.

[stoneyburn hibs]

The reason for the edit is entirely plausible, in fact its probably fair to say that the BBC had no choice … Mitchell had apparently launched into a rant about Alex Salmond's possible court case during Fiona Hyslop's response and as a result the BBC had to cut out that section for obvious reasons.

The question then becomes, if they had to edit Hyslop's response to Mitchell's original tirade to next to nothing how could they possibly think it was fair or balanced to include his rant at all …. that's one weird editorial policy.

Yes if they were insistent that we heard his rants then Hislop should have been given an opportunity to reply.

That Motherwell show was a big turn off. I'm all for the panel being cross party but that audience wasn't representative of the local electorate, not by a long shot.
Definitely not if you compare it to last night's audience in Aylesbury. Reese Mogg was the darling of the audience last night.

[Mr Grieves]

Yes if they were insistent that we heard his rants then Hislop should have been given an opportunity to reply.

That Motherwell show was a big turn off. I'm all for the panel being cross party but that audience wasn't representative of the local electorate, not by a long shot.
Definitely not if you compare it to last night's audience in Aylesbury. Reese Mogg was the darling of the audience last night.

I didn't watch last night's episode but I've just heard about Rees Mogg's comments about concentration camps.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47247835/jacob-rees-mogg-comments-on-concentration-camps

Why are the audience applauding this nonsense?

[lapsedhibee]

I didn't watch last night's episode but I've just heard about Rees Mogg's comments about concentration camps.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47247835/jacob-rees-mogg-comments-on-concentration-camps

Why are the audience applauding this nonsense?

The only claim made by Rees-Mogg in that clip is that death rates were no worse than in a British city at that time. What's the outrage about? :dunno:

[hibsbollah]

The only claim made by Rees-Mogg in that clip is that death rates were no worse than in a British city at that time. What's the outrage about? :dunno:

I wish some on the left would stop banging on about Churchill. Of course he said racist things, he was a toff running about the fields of Eton a hundred years ago. Trying to argue about legacy of a man whos been dead for fifty years shouldn't be the priority in twenty first century foodbank Britain.

[lapsedhibee]

I wish some on the left would stop banging on about Churchill. Of course he said racist things, he was a toff running about the fields of Eton a hundred years ago. Trying to argue about legacy of a man whos been dead for fifty years shouldn't be the priority in twenty first century foodbank Britain.

Agree completely, although he would have been 35 and didn't go to Eton.

[hibsbollah]

Agree completely, although he would have been 35 and didn't go to Eton.

I've not long finished his biography as well! I clearly wasn't paying attention! Was it Harrow?

[lapsedhibee]

I've not long finished his biography as well! I clearly wasn't paying attention! Was it Harrow?:agree: Old Harrumphian.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I wish some on the left would stop banging on about Churchill. Of course he said racist things, he was a toff running about the fields of Eton a hundred years ago. Trying to argue about legacy of a man whos been dead for fifty years shouldn't be the priority in twenty first century foodbank Britain.

Totally agree Hibsbollah. During politics live yesterday lunchtime they spent 15 bloody minutes yapping on about this academic exercise. I'm far more interested in discussing the shortcomings of the current Tories, which are legion.

[Mr Grieves]

The only claim made by Rees-Mogg in that clip is that death rates were no worse than in a British city at that time. What's the outrage about? :dunno:

A MP defending the use of concentration camps on national TV - its not that difficult to see why some folk find that outrageous.

[CropleyWasGod]

A current MP defending the use of concentration camps - its not that difficult to see why some folk find that outrageous.

I'm no fan of R-M, but I'm not getting the outrage either. He didn't defend their use; indeed, a couple of times he said that he wasn't in favour of internment.

What he did, though, was to put their use, and their death-rates, in perspective.


His accent and his delivery make me want to slap him, mind......

[James310]

I'm no fan of R-M, but I'm not getting the outrage either. He didn't defend their use; indeed, a couple of times he said that he wasn't in favour of internment.

What he did, though, was to put their use, and their death-rates, in perspective.


His accent and his delivery make me want to slap him, mind......

Surley the people watching the bias and evil BBC are not bias themselves and see what they want to see? Who would have thought.

[hibsbollah]

Totally agree Hibsbollah. During politics live yesterday lunchtime they spent 15 bloody minutes yapping on about this academic exercise. I'm far more interested in discussing the shortcomings of the current Tories, which are legion.

The truth is that Churchill was as well as being a violently pro Empire man, was also a passionate pro European who would be appalled by Brexit. You hear Brexiteers taking his name in vain fairly regularly, which is quite funny really.

[lapsedhibee]

The truth is that Churchill was as well as being a violently pro Empire man, was also a passionate pro European who would be appalled by Brexit. You hear Brexiteers taking his name in vain fairly regularly, which is quite funny really.
That can't be right. The EU being a pure plot by Germans to overrun us because they didn't manage it by legitimate means with guns and bombs and that, Winston would shirley be having none of it?

[Mr Grieves]

I'm no fan of R-M, but I'm not getting the outrage either. He didn't defend their use; indeed, a couple of times he said that he wasn't in favour of internment.

What he did, though, was to put their use, and their death-rates, in perspective.


His accent and his delivery make me want to slap him, mind......

He claims that the internment of thousands of women and children was for their own protection. Seriously?

As for his comparison, this from a contempary debate suggests it's untrue.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1902/mar/04/south-african-war-concentration-camps

"people are still dying 10 times faster than the population in England and 4 times faster than in the most congested and unhealthy slums in Glasgow and Manchester"

[CropleyWasGod]

He claims that the internment of thousands of women and children was for their own protection. Seriously?

As for his comparison, this from a contempary debate suggests it's untrue.


https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1902/mar/04/south-african-war-concentration-camps

And this suggests it is true:-

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13061711.story-of-the-city-told-through-its-public-health/

Glasgow's infant mortality rate in 1900 tells a shocking tale of numbers and attitudes.

Official figures recorded 145 legitimate and 286 illegitimate babies dying for every 1000 births.


I wonder if, if this hadn't been R-M making that claim... had it been, say, a respected historian.... there would have been the same noise about it. In this situation, R-M's "previous" is what has caused the controversy, IMO.

[Mr Grieves]

Surley the people watching the bias and evil BBC are not bias themselves and see what they want to see? Who would have thought.

You have a severe lack of self awareness.

[hibsbollah]

That can't be right. The EU being a pure plot by Germans to overrun us because they didn't manage it by legitimate means with guns and bombs and that, Winston would shirley be having none of it?

:greengrin Indeed. Spitfires, Vera Lynn n that.

[Mr Grieves]

And this suggests it is true:-

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13061711.story-of-the-city-told-through-its-public-health/

Glasgow's infant mortality rate in 1900 tells a shocking tale of numbers and attitudes.

Official figures recorded 145 legitimate and 286 illegitimate babies dying for every 1000 births.


I wonder if, if this hadn't been R-M making that claim... had it been, say, a respected historian.... there would have been the same noise about it. In this situation, R-M's "previous" is what has caused the controversy, IMO.

I would be pretty uncomfortable hearing anyone say that the internment of people into concentration camps was for their own good tbh. Thanks for the link, I'll have a read later.

[Mr Grieves]

Were the camps perhaps safer inside than out, given the Army's scorched-earth policy? Most of that stuff in Hansard makes it clear that they were harsh environments, but that's a way away from their having a similar purpose to concentration camps of the 1940s.

Possibly. A fair comparison would have been death rates inside and outside the camps if that was the case.

[lapsedhibee]

Possibly. A fair comparison would have been death rates inside and outside the camps if that was the case.

Yes, probably. R-M was being told by Grace Blakely on his right that "hundreds of thousands" were "systematically murdered" in South African concentration camps. He was doing well not to slap her. I didn't think I'd ever see R-M outsmugged, but there it was!

[Future17]

Nice live BBC interview of Ian Murray MP today with the interviewer calling him "Brian".