Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Rod Liddle - another little dig at Charlton today

1235»

Comments

  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,156
    SporadicAddick said:
    Algarveaddick said:
    SporadicAddick said:
    LoOkOuT said:
    JohnnyH2 said:

    The same can also be applied to people on the left and constantly post stuff from left wing commentator views
    View from ‘the Left’: People should have access to health care and corporations shouldn’t be allowed to fuck us.



    Also my view from the right...
    So which right wing party would you vote for? The Tories support corporations fucking us and Reform want them to run the NHS?

    (For the record, Labour also appear to support corporations fucking us - but maybe just not quite as hard?).  

    Well of course I have the opportunity to not vote for anyone...

    But at the moment I'm looking forward to a Conservative return to government in 4 years time, unless Keir implodes earlier - as we know, stranger things have happened. 
    That sounds like a great idea!  ;)  :D
  • tallboy
    tallboy Posts: 115
    cantersaddick said:
    tallboy said:
    McBobbin said:
    Does he think he's channelling Jonathan swift with "a modest proposal" or is he just stirring. Can't be bothered to read his article to decide...
    If you did read the article you would know that his target is the BBC (an organisation he knows well) He condemns the BBC for not recognising the nature of what was being stated in Bob Vylans stage performance and for being blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants". On his own initial (outrageous) statement of bombing the Glastonbury crowd he writes:

    "I am not saying that we should do this, of course - it would be a horrible, psychopathic thing to do. I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way."

    So, he proposes the unthinkable (bombing the Glastonbury crowd), dismisses this as 'psychopathic', asks where the line is on free speech and what should be done if it's thought the line of what is deemed acceptable is being crossed. He then challenges the BBCs ability to identify that line and how it is out of step with the mainstream view of the British public.

    A provocative, entertaining article that gets the reader to think and question the subject.


    Except none of that is true sbout the BBC. They didn't show other acts at Glastonbury for risk of this kind of thing. They immediately said they made a mistake in showing it and in not pulling it as the chants started and have said they will review their risk assessments. 

    So your/his main premise that the bbc were "blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants"." Is clearly a pile of crap.
    cantersaddick 
    The problems with your comments so far on this are:
    1. You commented on an article you that stated yourself you hadn't bothered to read in its entirety.
    2. You dismissed the Spectator magazine as a "rag" promoting right wing views even though you also state that you never read it. It is a publication that has been in print since 1828, thats some ancient, venerable rag!
    3. Emily Eavis & the Glastonbury festival organisers have condemned the content of Bob Vylans act and stated it "crossed a line". Rod Liddle was asking in his article "where is the line and who decides?"
    4. Despite your attempts to interpret the the law and claim that the content of Rod Liddles article was worse than what was performed on stage by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury it is Bob Vylan facing a criminal investigation for inciting racial hatred and not Rod Liddle or The Spectator magazine
    5. You are amongst a very small group of people if you think the BBC's performance at this event didnt have serious weaknesses.  Having previously worked there over a number of years Rod Liddle has a better than avaerage insight into the workings of the BBC and the mindset of its employees. Additionally, both the Minister for Culture (Lisa Nandy) and the Director General of the BBC (Tim Davie) have publicly stated there are big questions over the BBC's handling of the event with staff being suspended and one senior person having resigned. 
    Rather than rolling out your predictable, formulaic responses that fit your entrenched views you might want to consider that you might just be wrong on this?
  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,156
    tallboy said:
    cantersaddick said:
    tallboy said:
    McBobbin said:
    Does he think he's channelling Jonathan swift with "a modest proposal" or is he just stirring. Can't be bothered to read his article to decide...
    If you did read the article you would know that his target is the BBC (an organisation he knows well) He condemns the BBC for not recognising the nature of what was being stated in Bob Vylans stage performance and for being blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants". On his own initial (outrageous) statement of bombing the Glastonbury crowd he writes:

    "I am not saying that we should do this, of course - it would be a horrible, psychopathic thing to do. I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way."

    So, he proposes the unthinkable (bombing the Glastonbury crowd), dismisses this as 'psychopathic', asks where the line is on free speech and what should be done if it's thought the line of what is deemed acceptable is being crossed. He then challenges the BBCs ability to identify that line and how it is out of step with the mainstream view of the British public.

    A provocative, entertaining article that gets the reader to think and question the subject.


    Except none of that is true sbout the BBC. They didn't show other acts at Glastonbury for risk of this kind of thing. They immediately said they made a mistake in showing it and in not pulling it as the chants started and have said they will review their risk assessments. 

    So your/his main premise that the bbc were "blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants"." Is clearly a pile of crap.
    cantersaddick 
    The problems with your comments so far on this are:
    1. You commented on an article you that stated yourself you hadn't bothered to read in its entirety.
    2. You dismissed the Spectator magazine as a "rag" promoting right wing views even though you also state that you never read it. It is a publication that has been in print since 1828, thats some ancient, venerable rag!
    3. Emily Eavis & the Glastonbury festival organisers have condemned the content of Bob Vylans act and stated it "crossed a line". Rod Liddle was asking in his article "where is the line and who decides?"
    4. Despite your attempts to interpret the the law and claim that the content of Rod Liddles article was worse than what was performed on stage by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury it is Bob Vylan facing a criminal investigation for inciting racial hatred and not Rod Liddle or The Spectator magazine
    5. You are amongst a very small group of people if you think the BBC's performance at this event didnt have serious weaknesses.  Having previously worked there over a number of years Rod Liddle has a better than avaerage insight into the workings of the BBC and the mindset of its employees. Additionally, both the Minister for Culture (Lisa Nandy) and the Director General of the BBC (Tim Davie) have publicly stated there are big questions over the BBC's handling of the event with staff being suspended and one senior person having resigned. 
    Rather than rolling out your predictable, formulaic responses that fit your entrenched views you might want to consider that you might just be wrong on this?
    Just because something is old does not mean it is not a rag, and plenty of people have no strong thoughts either way, or disagree entirely with you on point five. We all surround ourselves with people who are roughly of the same opinion, we can all be guilty of "everyone thinks like me" syndrome...  
  • TootingRedArmy
    TootingRedArmy Posts: 389
    Amazing how a twat like Little can write a load of hate filled BS & have front to call out Glasto & BBC, when he’s happy to spout Nuking people, shagging school kids & even punched his 20 week pregnant wife & getting nicked by the old bill for it 
    Little is from the Lazy, provocative & oh so predictable school of journalism who set out to cause outrage & stand back & watch the radiation of outrage spread ! 
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 16,930
    tallboy said:
    cantersaddick said:
    tallboy said:
    McBobbin said:
    Does he think he's channelling Jonathan swift with "a modest proposal" or is he just stirring. Can't be bothered to read his article to decide...
    If you did read the article you would know that his target is the BBC (an organisation he knows well) He condemns the BBC for not recognising the nature of what was being stated in Bob Vylans stage performance and for being blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants". On his own initial (outrageous) statement of bombing the Glastonbury crowd he writes:

    "I am not saying that we should do this, of course - it would be a horrible, psychopathic thing to do. I am merely hypothesising, in a slightly wistful kinda way."

    So, he proposes the unthinkable (bombing the Glastonbury crowd), dismisses this as 'psychopathic', asks where the line is on free speech and what should be done if it's thought the line of what is deemed acceptable is being crossed. He then challenges the BBCs ability to identify that line and how it is out of step with the mainstream view of the British public.

    A provocative, entertaining article that gets the reader to think and question the subject.


    Except none of that is true sbout the BBC. They didn't show other acts at Glastonbury for risk of this kind of thing. They immediately said they made a mistake in showing it and in not pulling it as the chants started and have said they will review their risk assessments. 

    So your/his main premise that the bbc were "blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants"." Is clearly a pile of crap.
    cantersaddick 
    The problems with your comments so far on this are:
    1. You commented on an article you that stated yourself you hadn't bothered to read in its entirety.
    2. You dismissed the Spectator magazine as a "rag" promoting right wing views even though you also state that you never read it. It is a publication that has been in print since 1828, thats some ancient, venerable rag!
    3. Emily Eavis & the Glastonbury festival organisers have condemned the content of Bob Vylans act and stated it "crossed a line". Rod Liddle was asking in his article "where is the line and who decides?"
    4. Despite your attempts to interpret the the law and claim that the content of Rod Liddles article was worse than what was performed on stage by Bob Vylan at Glastonbury it is Bob Vylan facing a criminal investigation for inciting racial hatred and not Rod Liddle or The Spectator magazine
    5. You are amongst a very small group of people if you think the BBC's performance at this event didnt have serious weaknesses.  Having previously worked there over a number of years Rod Liddle has a better than avaerage insight into the workings of the BBC and the mindset of its employees. Additionally, both the Minister for Culture (Lisa Nandy) and the Director General of the BBC (Tim Davie) have publicly stated there are big questions over the BBC's handling of the event with staff being suspended and one senior person having resigned. 
    Rather than rolling out your predictable, formulaic responses that fit your entrenched views you might want to consider that you might just be wrong on this?
    1) I've clearly read more of it than most as I was the one who brought up that the article said Nuke (not just bomb as the headline said) and that he also listed Brighton as a place he would nuke.

    2) its self promotes as hard right. I dont know what more of an issue you can take with that. Its age is irrelevant to the crap it prints now. It promoted vaccine misinformation throughout the pandemic and over the last year or so has been leading a conspiracy campaign that the UK government is controlling the weather (at massive cost to the taxpayer). Its a ridiculous rag. 

    3)I never said it didn't cross a line (though obviously the outrage about saying death to legitimate military target who have been found guilty of multiple war crimes is massively disproportionate to that of the actual genocide they are committing). I also think the headline of this article crossed that line and given the point below about likelihood of meeting someone and the cult following that rag has (as demonstrated on this thread) it could lead to real danger for some people (not Nukes but other violence). I accept later in the article he goes on to say he was doing it for dramatic effect in order to "ask a question" but headlines are what people see and what grabs attention. Far right extremism is on the rise and this may encourage some of that rags cult following to take violence against for example someone wearing a keffiyeh (named in the article).

    4) its not an interpretation of the law its actually written in the law that the likelihood of someone's audience meeting the targeted person or group of persons is an important factor in inciting violence. As I said this is the reason they will likely be found not guilty. 

    5) I didn't say the BBC's performance was good. I simply pointed out some facts in how they responded which disprove your completely unfounded claim that ""blinded by their own entrenched set of beliefs into thinking it was all just "top bants"." that doesnt mean they handled it well. Just that your claim is false. 

    No formulaic responses here. Just facts about: 1) the way that rag promotes itself and the stories it runs 2) what is actually written in law 3) things the BBC actually said in response to the incident. And then my opinion based on those facts. If you don't like those facts then maybe you are the one with the entrenched views.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,008
    Bloody hell.
    Some people just can't leave politics alone, no matter the tens of times they have been politely asked.

Categories

“Marketplace”