leicsmac Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 Sarah Palin rumoured to be offered the Canadian Ambassador post. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: Sarah Palin rumoured to be offered the Canadian Ambassador post. Good grief. Perfect fit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jattdogg Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 3 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Perfect fit! I dont want that crazy living in my country she can fook right off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 Apparently some MP's aren't happy that the Speaker doesn't want Trump to have the privilege of addressing Parliament: http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-09/motion-of-no-confidence-tabled-against-john-bercow/ Well, at least a vote on such will give a clear delineation about which MPs are fans of the current US administration and which are not, and in what numbers. That will be useful for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GazzinderFox Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 1 hour ago, Jattdogg said: I dont want that crazy living in my country she can fook right off. Tough you don't get a choice. She'll probably bring her guns too. I wish she was my mum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 1 hour ago, Jattdogg said: I dont want that crazy living in my country she can fook right off. Canada is in the USA right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 30 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Apparently some MP's aren't happy that the Speaker doesn't want Trump to have the privilege of addressing Parliament: http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-09/motion-of-no-confidence-tabled-against-john-bercow/ Well, at least a vote on such will give a clear delineation about which MPs are fans of the current US administration and which are not, and in what numbers. That will be useful for the future. They're unhappy because he is supposed to be neutral. It's also hypocritical as he's personally welcomed the Presidents of China, Indonesia, Vietnam and the King of Kuwait, all of which have a worse human rights record than anything going on in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: They're unhappy because he is supposed to be neutral. It's also hypocritical as he's personally welcomed the Presidents of China, Indonesia, Vietnam and the King of Kuwait, all of which have a worse human rights record than anything going on in America. Fair point although I think America's human rights record is at its worst beyond its own borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 35 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said: Tough you don't get a choice. She'll probably bring her guns too. I wish she was my mum. Have you not seen what angry Canadians can do when motivated? 16 minutes ago, Webbo said: They're unhappy because he is supposed to be neutral. It's also hypocritical as he's personally welcomed the Presidents of China, Indonesia, Vietnam and the King of Kuwait, all of which have a worse human rights record than anything going on in America. Yeah, no disagreement on the violation of neutrality (though you may have hoped/expected another MP to bring it to the floor if he hadn't said anything). Regarding the hypocrisy, we definitely don't have the best record when it comes to inviting countries that put the human rights records of Trump to shame...but does that mean we shouldn't at least give a nudge to our (probably) biggest ally saying that we don't necessarily like what they're up to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jattdogg Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 2 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said: Canada is in the USA right ? You just made me like sarah palin. Send her over with guns to sort you out for that comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 9 February 2017 Share Posted 9 February 2017 The amount of "*Country Here* Second" videos is getting rather out of hand now. But a truly special effort from Finland deserves a mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 10 February 2017 Share Posted 10 February 2017 5 hours ago, leicsmac said: Have you not seen what angry Canadians can do when motivated? Yeah, no disagreement on the violation of neutrality (though you may have hoped/expected another MP to bring it to the floor if he hadn't said anything). Regarding the hypocrisy, we definitely don't have the best record when it comes to inviting countries that put the human rights records of Trump to shame...but does that mean we shouldn't at least give a nudge to our (probably) biggest ally saying that we don't necessarily like what they're up to? My understanding is the speakers comments were following on from a Point of Order made to him about Trump's visit and the prospect of him addressing Parliment. personally, I think the neutrality argument is misplaced - this is one area where the speaker is allowed to have a view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 10 February 2017 Share Posted 10 February 2017 Only five foreign leaders have been allowed to speak at Westminster hall since WW2 - denying trump the chance to speak is in reality a non-story, all it does is put him on par with practically every other US president in the last 50 years (with the exception of Obama). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 10 February 2017 Share Posted 10 February 2017 Bet the judiciary are really quaking in their boots at the threat: "SEE YOU IN COURT". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 10 February 2017 Share Posted 10 February 2017 5 hours ago, Voll Blau said: Bet the judiciary are really quaking in their boots at the threat: "SEE YOU IN COURT". Obviously a lot of things have already been said about him and I don't have anything unique to say but it's like a contest to see how much more of a whopper he can be day by day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merging Cultures Posted 11 February 2017 Share Posted 11 February 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 11 February 2017 Share Posted 11 February 2017 Interesting short piece regarding college campus conservatives here. http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/features/world-us-canada-38910648/38910648 If anything, it highlights the dividing lines being drawn everywhere, by elements on both sides of the debate. The centre ground is disappearing, and that's not a good thing for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 11 February 2017 Share Posted 11 February 2017 3 hours ago, leicsmac said: Interesting short piece regarding college campus conservatives here. http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/features/world-us-canada-38910648/38910648 If anything, it highlights the dividing lines being drawn everywhere, by elements on both sides of the debate. The centre ground is disappearing, and that's not a good thing for the future. I increasingly get the impression the BBC would like to run the country. Talk about selective journalism. They may claim to be unbiased but they'd roll so far off straight they'd end up in the gutter which often seems pretty appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 7 hours ago, Thracian said: I increasingly get the impression the BBC would like to run the country. Talk about selective journalism. They may claim to be unbiased but they'd roll so far off straight they'd end up in the gutter which often seems pretty appropriate. Selective journalism? It's an opinion piece showing a side of life for people who probably feel somewhat alienated due to their political belief and their race/religion/whatever. The BBC and other news outlets have run lots of pieces about the other side of that political divide and how the 'left' are suffering under the Trump administration so showing this side does show some level of impartiality. Whether you choose to allow your obvious bias to ignore that is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 10 hours ago, Thracian said: I increasingly get the impression the BBC would like to run the country. Talk about selective journalism. They may claim to be unbiased but they'd roll so far off straight they'd end up in the gutter which often seems pretty appropriate. As someone pointed out, this is merely an opinion piece. If it's bias in our national press that concerns you, don't you find it more worrying that Murdoch and Rothermere control over half of all online and print 'news' outlets in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 2 hours ago, Emilio Lestavez said: Selective journalism? It's an opinion piece showing a side of life for people who probably feel somewhat alienated due to their political belief and their race/religion/whatever. The BBC and other news outlets have run lots of pieces about the other side of that political divide and how the 'left' are suffering under the Trump administration so showing this side does show some level of impartiality. Whether you choose to allow your obvious bias to ignore that is up to you. Coupling the word "impartiality" with the BBC is laughable. I've never known them so agenda driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 15 minutes ago, Line-X said: As someone pointed out, this is merely an opinion piece. If it's bias in our national press that concerns you, don't you find it more worrying that Murdoch and Rothermere control over half of all online and print 'news' outlets in the UK? I didn't say bias in the national press concerned me. I talked only about bias in the BBC. The national press such as The Mirror or The Sun don't claim or pretend to be unbiased. The BBC does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 1 minute ago, Thracian said: I didn't say bias in the national press concerned me. I talked only about bias in the BBC. The national press such as The Mirror or The Sun don't claim or pretend to be unbiased. The BBC does. Well some of the broadsheets under the ownership that I mentioned do in fact claim impartiality. Personally, BBC aside, I find it far more disturbing that the chief strategist to arguably the most powerful man on the planet co-founded and heads the Breitbart News organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 5 minutes ago, Line-X said: Well some of the broadsheets under the ownership that I mentioned do in fact claim impartiality. Personally, BBC aside, I find it far more disturbing that the chief strategist to arguably the most powerful man on the planet co-founded and heads the Breitbart News organisation. I can only presume you're more comfortable with BBC bias than Mudoch/Rothermere. Me, I'd rather the BBC lived up to its responsibilities by cutting out the comment and presenting facts in an honest and balanced way...instead of using various sometimes subtle ploys to accentuate their bias or moralistic opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedX Posted 12 February 2017 Share Posted 12 February 2017 15 minutes ago, Thracian said: I can only presume you're more comfortable with BBC bias than Mudoch/Rothermere. Me, I'd rather the BBC lived up to its responsibilities by cutting out the comment and presenting facts in an honest and balanced way...instead of using various sometimes subtle ploys to accentuate their bias or moralistic opinion. I think that the BBC impartiality that you speak of is considerably less than the blatant agendas pursued by Murdoch/Rothermere and as you yourself termed it, any such 'subtle' bias, tends to be informed by a moral standpoint which is more than can be said for the latter. I don't think that their coverage of the European referendum was entirely neutral but then given the outright lies, disingenuity and blatant deception of the Leave campaign it was if anything, an insignificant counterweight. I do agree however that as a public service the BBC has a responsibility to remain objective and apolitical in its editorial policy and avoid any such agenda however nuanced. As an organisation, they seem more preoccupied with their relentless self promotion and ratings than maintaining any leaning to the left in the newsroom. We live in a post truth age. Seriously, I'd be more concerned about the war against fake news outlets, dis-information and 'education' by social media which is the scourge of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.