Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[Longcol 598]

1 hour ago, Car Boot said:

YOUR BBC - uncritically pumping out racist rants. 

 

Make sure you pay your Licence fee.

Yep - not satisfied with 10 years of austerity so many more people are in poverty and can't afford the licence fee, the Tories now want the BBC to be a platform for racists.

 

Nice to see a "socialist" aiding and abetting.

[davyboy 18]

The lady in question  asked a question and made a statement.

She has every right to air her views, even though you might not agree with her and find them objectionable.

Why do you expect the BBC to correct (in your  opinion) her  racist view on the subject.

QT is  a discussion forum for goodness sake.

[melthebell 862]

3 minutes ago, davyboy said:

The lady in question  asked a question and made a statement.

She has every right to air her views, even though you might not agree with her and find them objectionable.

Why do you expect the BBC to correct (in your  opinion) her  racist view on the subject.

QT is  a discussion forum for goodness sake.

so youd expect somebody to "correct" her in the discussion?

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, davyboy said:

The lady in question  asked a question and made a statement.

She has every right to air her views, even though you might not agree with her and find them objectionable.

Why do you expect the BBC to correct (in your  opinion) her  racist view on the subject.

QT is  a discussion forum for goodness sake.

She's a member of the public - Yes. Does she live in Dorset, where QT was filmed? No. Is she a national front council candidate? Yes. Twice. Now it turns out she was bussed in and put up in a hotel.

 

So we have a NF member, Tommy Robinson supporter, bussed in to digs paid for by the BBC. Put in, quite literally, front and centre on a discussion show to spout lies - and that's exactly what they were -  that weren't challenged. She's a far right activist paid to be there out of licence fee money.  

 

Now, as she is clearly an activist Joe public should be told as such and maybe put on the actual panel (it would make a change from farage) so her special flavour of horse **** can be taken apart by panelist and public alike.

[L00b 441]

10 hours ago, davyboy said:

The lady in question  asked a question and made a statement.

She has every right to air her views, even though you might not agree with her and find them objectionable.

Why do you expect the BBC to correct (in your  opinion) her  racist view on the subject.

QT is  a discussion forum for goodness sake.

She's only airing her views publicly at the BBC's discretion ('s invitation, actually, if tinfoilhat's info is correct). Otherwise she'd only have social media to air these views.

 

Unlike social media, which is not bound by editorial ethics, the BBC has a duty to fact-check, and consequentially correct if need be, her views.

 

Otherwise the BBC is nothing more than a propaganda platform.

 

And so, after the BBC and broadsheets platformed Farage and the likeminded for years without any fact-checking, we are where we are with the public and majority opinions (as expressed in e.g. the 2016 leave vote) about immigration.

 

They can't be shutting down the BBC soon enough. It is infiltrated by entryist BNPers to its core (I'll let you look up the background of current QT senior staff, as to how and why this woman may have been bussed in and platformed : she's far, very far from the first).

 

You're drunk Britain. Go home.

Edited February 24, 2020 by L00b

[RJRB 688]

5 hours ago, L00b said:

 

 

They can't be shutting down the BBC soon enough. It is infiltrated by entryist BNPers to its core (I'll let you look up the background of current QT senior staff, as to how and why this woman may have been bussed in and platformed : she's far, very far from the first).

 

You're drunk Britain. Go home.

So you have found common ground with Carboot.

The BBC now stands accused of promoting the views of the loony right,whilst the same loony right have plans to gag them for being too far to the left.

The truth is that a wide spectrum of views is on offer and you use your own powers of reasoning to form a considered opinion.

What on earth your final sentence means I have no idea,but sweeping assumptions and generalisations are not helpful.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

So you have found common ground with Carboot.

If that should be so, you can be assured that it would be purely coincidental.

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

The BBC now stands accused of promoting the views of the loony right,whilst the same loony right have plans to gag them for being too far to the left.

The truth is that a wide spectrum of views is on offer and you use your own powers of reasoning to form a considered opinion.

The BBC has proven itself ever more unfit for informational purposes. It has become riddled with politically-compromised decision makers at all levels, that have pushed it to debase its editorial standards and objectivity ever lower. In these days of  Conservative ultra majority in Parliament, it is little more than a supine propaganda outlet.

 

The 2/3rds of Brits that do not stand behind Brexiteers deserve better. They won't get it so long as the BBC remains under the yoke of Johnson & Cummings decisions about its funding and senior appointments.

 

So it might as well be killed off now, rather than continue to disinform on orders whilst debasing itself ever further.

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

What on earth your final sentence means I have no idea,but sweeping assumptions and generalisations are not helpful.

It's an old and well-known online meme, maybe look it up.

 

Beyond that, remember that the world outside the UK is still looking on, and try and imagine how you -the collective- appear to that outside world, which has little to no familiarity with, or insights into, 'Britishness' and the severity of the multiple divides that rift your society.

Edited February 24, 2020 by L00b

[Branyy 10]

On 22/02/2020 at 01:32, Obelix said:

No, she's not. Really she is not entitled to it.

 

I'm sick to death of the trope that "oh thatss my opinion and I'm entitled to it and you are being unreasonable for saying it's wrong so jog on" It's a cowards way out from people who are not willing, who are not able, or who know their argument is indefensible. It's used to shut down debate and it's entirely utterly wrong.

Things like what your favourite colour is, or if you prefer ska over blues, or whats the best place to go on holiday - those are opinions. Everyone has one and it's theirs and that's fine because these things are not amenable to qualification - if you like wearing blue with green polka dots that's your opinion and mine that you look like a hippie is fine to have as well.

 

When you get to matters of science and public policy, though it changes. I have opinions on nuclear power. They are backed up by science. I can prove my position. If you decide, especially without scientific training to go against those opinions and spout ill founded alarmist rubbish I'll call you out. If your opinion is that everyone in Chernobyl died and it's dangerously radioactive that opinion is wrong. I've been there. I can prove otherwise. That means you do not get to have your opinion are wrap it up in "it's mine and you are mean to say I'm not allowed to hold it." Your opinion is wrong.

If you decide that your opinion on vaccination is different to medically trained professionals which 150+ years of experimental science to back them up your opinion is wrong. You can have an opinion on the public debate about how to vaccinate. But you do not get to claim vaccines are wrong or harmful. That is your opinion and your opinion is wrong and indefensible, so go get a new one.

 

Now she stated her opinion. Thats fine. She can have it. But her opinion is racist. IT will get called out. And wrapping it up as she is entitled to her opinion (and so stop being mean to her) doesn't fly.

 

She exhibits racist opinions.

 

She's a racist.

 

You are defending her. You are defending a racist. Do you really want to be doing that?

Of course she is entitled to her opinion. Everyone is.

 

I'm certainly not defending the approach as you've mentioned "oh thatss my opinion and I'm entitled to it and you are being unreasonable for saying it's wrong so jog on". How I see it is more like "that's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, you can say it's wrong - you SHOULD say it's wrong if you're reasonable and I want to hear your reasons".

 

Now, the discussion can be held on anything, even scientific topics (I'd say especially on those). Let's have a look at your example. I also have an opinion on nuclear power. My opinion is backed up by science too. I am aware that many people might not understand the implications of nuclear physics though. I'd welcome questions from those people and I'd do my best to explain my knowledge and understandings. Also, safety of nuclear power is reasonable topic for scientific discussion - I can imagine that research is constantly coming with more detailed information and we should update our knowledge.

 

Surely, you can have your opinion on vaccination. Do you think they are harmful? I can explain why you're wrong. I can even explain it in public debate - by giving you reasons and showing evidence! Not by shutting you down with "you're wrong, go get a new opinion". Btw, everytime new vaccine is developed it undergoes series of trials and assessments, during which doctors are encouraged to voice their concerns and opinions, until enough evidence is gathered. It's perfectly fine to ask for this evidence.

 

She stated her opinion. That's fine. She can have it. You think her opinion is racist. You're wrong, her opinion doesn't even concern any specific race.

You (and others) think she's wrong - well show her why. You think immigrants contribute more than they take? Nothing easier than showing those numbers and studies (if you have it). Shutting her down and simple saying "you're wrong, get a new opinion" doesn't achieve anything at all. Such a response is totally irrelevant and useless.

 

You've said she's racist. With no evidence, no facts, no reasoning. You've just repeated that three times - that doesn't make it true.

[tinfoilhat 11]

9 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Of course she is entitled to her opinion. Everyone is.

 

I'm certainly not defending the approach as you've mentioned "oh thatss my opinion and I'm entitled to it and you are being unreasonable for saying it's wrong so jog on". How I see it is more like "that's my opinion, I'm entitled to it, you can say it's wrong - you SHOULD say it's wrong if you're reasonable and I want to hear your reasons".

 

Now, the discussion can be held on anything, even scientific topics (I'd say especially on those). Let's have a look at your example. I also have an opinion on nuclear power. My opinion is backed up by science too. I am aware that many people might not understand the implications of nuclear physics though. I'd welcome questions from those people and I'd do my best to explain my knowledge and understandings. Also, safety of nuclear power is reasonable topic for scientific discussion - I can imagine that research is constantly coming with more detailed information and we should update our knowledge.

 

Surely, you can have your opinion on vaccination. Do you think they are harmful? I can explain why you're wrong. I can even explain it in public debate - by giving you reasons and showing evidence! Not by shutting you down with "you're wrong, go get a new opinion". Btw, everytime new vaccine is developed it undergoes series of trials and assessments, during which doctors are encouraged to voice their concerns and opinions, until enough evidence is gathered. It's perfectly fine to ask for this evidence.

 

She stated her opinion. That's fine. She can have it. You think her opinion is racist. You're wrong, her opinion doesn't even concern any specific race.

You (and others) think she's wrong - well show her why. You think immigrants contribute more than they take? Nothing easier than showing those numbers and studies (if you have it). Shutting her down and simple saying "you're wrong, get a new opinion" doesn't achieve anything at all. Such a response is totally irrelevant and useless.

 

You've said she's racist. With no evidence, no facts, no reasoning. You've just repeated that three times - that doesn't make it true.

It does. She's racist. She's the daily mail made flesh.

[Delayed 461]

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

 

What on earth your final sentence means I have no idea,but sweeping assumptions and generalisations are not helpful.

He's still bitter over Brexit and how the UK has treated him.... apparently. So he uses every opportunity to make snide childish comments towards the UK. All comes across as very childish and does nothing to change this apparrent 'them' and 'us' attitude developed from Brexit

Edited February 24, 2020 by Delayed

[RJRB 688]

25 minutes ago, Delayed said:

He's still bitter over Brexit and how the UK has treated him.... apparently. So he uses every opportunity to make snide childish towards the UK. All comes across as very childish and does nothing to change this apparrent 'them' and 'us' attitude developed from Brexit

That appears to be the case.

I am still disappointed at leaving the EU,but having said that there is nowhere that I would prefer to live in Europe than Britain.

I have spent considerable time in Belgium,France and Germany in my working life and they all have their idiosyncrasies,and national stereotypes.

However that is far from labelling every individual as having these traits.

We in Britain also look outwards upon our neighbours and sometimes wonder at the political shifts at work in those countries.

I would say that Britain is as stable as any,apart from perhaps Luxembourg 😁.

I also firmly believe that the BBC remains as impartial as possible,and Loobs idea that they are in thrall to Johnson and Cummings is obviously not shared by the Conservative Party.

That is what they would like ,but long may they be resisted.

 

[Car Boot 10]

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

So you have found common ground with Carboot.

The BBC now stands accused of promoting the views of the loony right,whilst the same loony right have plans to gag them for being too far to the left.

The truth is that a wide spectrum of views is on offer and you use your own powers of reasoning to form a considered opinion.

What on earth your final sentence means I have no idea,but sweeping assumptions and generalisations are not helpful.

The BBC has rarely been independent. It has always been a propaganda mouthpiece for the government of the day. 

 

Its current incarnation appears to be desperately sucking up to the Tories to try to stave off the axe.