http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... "Its tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one from Lord
Patten downwards who appears to be remotely interested in the person
the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... > "It's tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
> each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
> navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one - from Lord
> Patten downwards - who appears to be remotely interested in the person
> the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
> manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
I see no evidence of self pity, etc from BBC journalists. That exists only in the
minds of the anti-BBC mob. If the BBC didn't cover this story, those same
people would be screaming 'cover up and conspiracy of silence.' There's
no point in engaging with them. I suspect there is nothing the
BBC could do or say to appease those who are so set against it, so they'll never be
content with anything the corporation does or says to put this matter straight. Unless
you have an inside track to the lawyers involved in this particular case -
and I'm guessing you don't - you have no idea what is being discussed wrt
finding a suitable and fitting settlement.
I'm sure the anti-BBC people have a much more productive way of spending
the not quite 3 a week they'd save on the licence fee. I can't think of a better
way of spending such a small amount. The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who actually and wrongly mentioned
his name. These idiots are only making the case for regulation of the net and should be subject
to the same penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
I can't imagine any other news organisation in the world where its chief would be subject
to the merciless grilling that John Humphrys gave his DG - if you can cite one with evidence of
it happening - I'd be fascinated.
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... >> "It's tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
>> each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
>> navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one - from Lord
>> Patten downwards - who appears to be remotely interested in the person
>> the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
>> manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
>I see no evidence of self pity, etc from BBC journalists. That exists only >in the minds of the anti-BBC mob. If the BBC didn't cover this story, those same
>people would be screaming 'cover up and conspiracy of silence.' There's
>no point in engaging with them. I suspect there is nothing the
>BBC could do or say to appease those who are so set against it, so they'll >never be content with anything the corporation does or says to put this matter >straight.
i will be fully satisfied if they stop on other people's money...
and they stop pretending to independence when they are no
such thing
> Unless
>you have an inside track to the lawyers involved in this particular case -
>and I'm guessing you don't - you have no idea what is being discussed wrt
>finding a suitable and fitting settlement.
>I'm sure the anti-BBC people have a much more productive way of spending
>the not quite 3 a week they'd save on the licence fee. I can't think of a >better way of spending such a small amount.
now there's an incredible surprise...
> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who >actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
wrong again...i'm against censorship...
just as i'm against lies...like the false pretences of the socialist
broadcasting corporation
>I can't imagine any other news organisation in the world where its chief >would be subject to the merciless grilling that John Humphrys gave his DG >- if you can cite one with evidence of it happening - I'd be fascinated.
i just bet you're also in favour of the police 'investigating' the
police...
and the mps 'investigating' 'expenses'
abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:01:45 -0000, "NewsOnline"
> <newsonlineZAPS...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... >>> "It's tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
>>> each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
>>> navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one - from Lord
>>> Patten downwards - who appears to be remotely interested in the person
>>> the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
>>> manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
>> I see no evidence of self pity, etc from BBC journalists. That exists only
>> in the minds of the anti-BBC mob. If the BBC didn't cover this story, those same
>> people would be screaming 'cover up and conspiracy of silence.' There's
>> no point in engaging with them. I suspect there is nothing the
>> BBC could do or say to appease those who are so set against it, so they'll
>> never be content with anything the corporation does or says to put this matter
>> straight.
> i will be fully satisfied if they stop on other people's money...
> and they stop pretending to independence when they are no
> such thing
>> Unless
>> you have an inside track to the lawyers involved in this particular case -
>> and I'm guessing you don't - you have no idea what is being discussed wrt
>> finding a suitable and fitting settlement.
>> I'm sure the anti-BBC people have a much more productive way of spending
>> the not quite £3 a week they'd save on the licence fee. I can't think of a
>> better way of spending such a small amount.
> now there's an incredible surprise...
>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>> it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>> I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>> actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
> just as i'm against lies..
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:11:11 +0000, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:01:45 -0000, "NewsOnline"
>> <newsonlineZAPS...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... >>>> "It's tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
>>>> each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
>>>> navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one - from Lord
>>>> Patten downwards - who appears to be remotely interested in the person
>>>> the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
>>>> manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
>>> I see no evidence of self pity, etc from BBC journalists. That exists only
>>> in the minds of the anti-BBC mob. If the BBC didn't cover this story, those same
>>> people would be screaming 'cover up and conspiracy of silence.' There's
>>> no point in engaging with them. I suspect there is nothing the
>>> BBC could do or say to appease those who are so set against it, so they'll
>>> never be content with anything the corporation does or says to put this matter
>>> straight.
>> i will be fully satisfied if they stop on other people's money...
>> and they stop pretending to independence when they are no
>> such thing
>>> Unless
>>> you have an inside track to the lawyers involved in this particular case -
>>> and I'm guessing you don't - you have no idea what is being discussed wrt
>>> finding a suitable and fitting settlement.
>>> I'm sure the anti-BBC people have a much more productive way of spending
>>> the not quite 3 a week they'd save on the licence fee. I can't think of a
>>> better way of spending such a small amount.
>> now there's an incredible surprise...
>>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>>> it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>>> I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>>> actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
>> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
>> just as i'm against lies..
>Stop your daily lying then.
i'm waiting for you to correct my posts...then i will know
more clearly what your latest problem may be
>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>>it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>>I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>>actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
> just as i'm against lies...like the false pretences of the socialist
> broadcasting corporation
Could you be more specific regarding which part of the above was 'wrong again?'
It can't be the fact that the Peer's name was found on the net and not mentioned
by the BBC because both are demonstrably true.
So it must be the proposition that people who 'publish' libellous or defamatory
material on the net should do so freely without fear of any consequences using free speech
as a fig leaf to protect their sometimes malevolent, sometimes just plain stupid motives?
>>I can't imagine any other news organisation in the world where its chief
>>would be subject to the merciless grilling that John Humphrys gave his DG
>>- if you can cite one with evidence of it happening - I'd be fascinated.
> i just bet you're also in favour of the police 'investigating' the
> police...
> and the mps 'investigating' 'expenses'
You bet wrong, though I note you haven't answered my question, but instead have gone off in
another direction about totally unrelated subjects. FYI - I'm in favour of neither of the issues
you cite.
Just remind me if you will - did any of the many journalists at Sky News do a 'Humphrys' on the
Murdochs in any interview during their recent unpleasantness? I don't have Sky - but I'm just taking a wild guess:)
Out of interest, why aren't you incandescent with rage with the websites that dragged the innocent Peer's name
through the gutter in such a defamatory way? You seem to be happy with their behaviour, but angry with the BBC.
>>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>>>it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>>>I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>>>actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
>> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
>> just as i'm against lies...like the false pretences of the socialist
>> broadcasting corporation
> Could you be more specific regarding which part of the above was 'wrong > again?'
> It can't be the fact that the Peer's name was found on the net and not > mentioned
> by the BBC because both are demonstrably true.
> So it must be the proposition that people who 'publish' libellous or > defamatory
> material on the net should do so freely without fear of any consequences > using free speech
> as a fig leaf to protect their sometimes malevolent, sometimes just plain > stupid motives?
>>>I can't imagine any other news organisation in the world where its chief
>>>would be subject to the merciless grilling that John Humphrys gave his DG
>>>- if you can cite one with evidence of it happening - I'd be fascinated.
>> i just bet you're also in favour of the police 'investigating' the
>> police...
>> and the mps 'investigating' 'expenses'
> You bet wrong, though I note you haven't answered my question, but instead > have gone off in
> another direction about totally unrelated subjects. FYI - I'm in favour of > neither of the issues
> you cite.
> Just remind me if you will - did any of the many journalists at Sky News > do a 'Humphrys' on the
> Murdochs in any interview during their recent unpleasantness? I don't have > Sky - but I'm just taking a wild guess:)
> Out of interest, why aren't you incandescent with rage with the websites > that dragged the innocent Peer's name
> through the gutter in such a defamatory way? You seem to be happy with > their behaviour, but angry with the BBC.
You'll find our resident hypocrite will try and move the goalposts, he only supports the MSM when it agrees with his usual delusional outlook
>>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>>> it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>>> I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>>> actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
>> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
>> just as i'm against lies...like the false pretences of the socialist
>> broadcasting corporation
> Could you be more specific regarding which part of the above was 'wrong
> again?'
> It can't be the fact that the Peer's name was found on the net and not
> mentioned
> by the BBC because both are demonstrably true.
> So it must be the proposition that people who 'publish' libellous or
> defamatory
> material on the net should do so freely without fear of any consequences
> using free speech
> as a fig leaf to protect their sometimes malevolent, sometimes just plain
> stupid motives?
>>> I can't imagine any other news organisation in the world where its chief
>>> would be subject to the merciless grilling that John Humphrys gave his DG
>>> - if you can cite one with evidence of it happening - I'd be fascinated.
>> i just bet you're also in favour of the police 'investigating' the
>> police...
>> and the mps 'investigating' 'expenses'
> You bet wrong, though I note you haven't answered my question, but instead
> have gone off in
> another direction about totally unrelated subjects. FYI - I'm in favour of
> neither of the issues
> you cite.
> Just remind me if you will - did any of the many journalists at Sky News do
> a 'Humphrys' on the
> Murdochs in any interview during their recent unpleasantness? I don't have
> Sky - but I'm just taking a wild guess:)
> Out of interest, why aren't you incandescent with rage with the websites
> that dragged the innocent Peer's name
> through the gutter in such a defamatory way? You seem to be happy with their
> behaviour, but angry with the BBC.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:48:40 +0100, abelard <abela...@abelard.org>
wrote:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... >"Its tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
>each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
>navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one from Lord
>Patten downwards who appears to be remotely interested in the person
>the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
>manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
Perhaps the BBC are in denial - like you and the US election result ?
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:48:40 +0100, abelard <abela...@abelard.org>
wrote:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9671346/BB... >"Its tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing
>each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating
>navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one from Lord
>Patten downwards who appears to be remotely interested in the person
>the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting
>manner, to Alistair McAlpine?"
The editor of the Daily Mirror had to apologise to Lord Boothby, so it
seems only fair.
>>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>>>it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>>>I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>>>actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
>> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
>> just as i'm against lies...like the false pretences of the socialist
>> broadcasting corporation
>Could you be more specific regarding which part of the above was 'wrong >again?'
why would i bother if you can't even read...i clearly
stated that i'm against censorship...
among other comments
>It can't be the fact that the Peer's name was found on the net and not >mentioned by the BBC because both are demonstrably true.
>So it must be the proposition that people who 'publish' libellous or >defamatory material on the net should do so freely without fear of any consequences >using free speech as a fig leaf to protect their sometimes malevolent, sometimes just plain >stupid motives?
again, you speak as if your mind is a mass of confusions...
i'm against censorship...i'm also for individual responsibility
among other matters, you clearly don't understand the new
world you have had thrust upon your media...
it is a world where anybody can say anything....and nobody
can stop you...let alone the managed media to which
you are accustomed complete with your pretended
'authority' and censorship and political 'correctness' etc
when the world changes...sane people adapt...
anyone fool enough to ever have trusted the fossil media
of which your socialist broadcasting corporation is just
one element is naive beyond belief...
it is a very fine day when people learn sufficient accord
with reality that they trust *no-one*...that they trust
nothing that anyone says without considerable checking
>>>I can't imagine any other news organisation in the world where its chief
>>>would be subject to the merciless grilling that John Humphrys gave his DG
>>>- if you can cite one with evidence of it happening - I'd be fascinated.
>> i just bet you're also in favour of the police 'investigating' the
>> police...
>> and the mps 'investigating' 'expenses'
>You bet wrong, though I note you haven't answered my question, but instead >have gone off in another direction about totally unrelated subjects. FYI - I'm in favour of >neither of the issues
>you cite.
humphries is part of you monolith...i've no more trust of him as an
'authority' than i have of you or the kween....
>Just remind me if you will - did any of the many journalists at Sky News do >a 'Humphrys' on the Murdochs in any interview during their recent unpleasantness?
as stated, i trust nobody...thus i'm no more or less likely to trust
the socialist broadcasting corporation than i am to trust
murdoch's corporation/s
> I don't have >Sky -
why do you suppose that also doesn't surprise me?
> but I'm just taking a wild guess:)
>Out of interest, why aren't you incandescent with rage with the websites >that dragged the innocent Peer's name
>through the gutter in such a defamatory way? You seem to be happy with their >behaviour, but angry with the BBC.
because i don't get 'incandescent with rage'...i am not a bunch of
uncontrolled emotionalism
your fossil media with it's penchant and dependence on digging
through a thesaurus in order to dredge up even more
emotion laden rhetoric...i regard as primitivism...
attempt to impress and manipulate in place of attempts to think
and to analyse...that does disgust me....
the great majority of the media...including the socialist
broadcasting corporation is an enemy of civilisation and reason
><edit>
>> You'll find our resident hypocrite will try and move the goalposts, he >> only supports the MSM when it agrees with his usual delusional outlook
>> dedfromtheneckupman
>Thanks for the heads up - it's much appreciated. Time for me to walk away I >think.
> On 12/11/12 21:38, abelard wrote:
>> i'll sure plagiarize if i find a slightest excuse
> Let no-one else's work evagiarise. But be sure to call it "research".
Am I not going to get a "research" credit for "You will, Oscar. You will"?
On Nov 12, 11:05 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 22:29, Andy Walker wrote:
> > On 12/11/12 21:38, abelard wrote:
> >> i'll sure plagiarize if i find a slightest excuse
> > Let no-one else's work evagiarise. But be sure to call it "research".
> Am I not going to get a "research" credit for "You will, Oscar. You will"?
> On Nov 12, 11:05 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 22:29, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 12/11/12 21:38, abelard wrote:
>>>> i'll sure plagiarize if i find a slightest excuse
>>> Let no-one else's work evagiarise. But be sure to call it "research".
>> Am I not going to get a "research" credit for "You will, Oscar. You will"?
>>>> The name of the Lord was on the >net< -
>>>>it wasn't mentioned in the unusually sub-standard Newsnight programme.
>>>>I hope you save some of your fury for the irresponsible websites who
>>>>actually and wrongly mentioned his name. These idiots are only making
>>>> the case for regulation of the net and should be subject to the same
>>>> penalties as any publisher or news outlet..
>>> wrong again...i'm against censorship...
>>> just as i'm against lies...like the false pretences of the socialist
>>> broadcasting corporation
>>Could you be more specific regarding which part of the above was 'wrong
>>again?'
> why would i bother if you can't even read...i clearly
> stated that i'm against censorship...
> among other comments
>>It can't be the fact that the Peer's name was found on the net and not
>>mentioned by the BBC because both are demonstrably true.
>>So it must be the proposition that people who 'publish' libellous or
>>defamatory material on the net should do so freely without fear of any >>consequences
>>using free speech as a fig leaf to protect their sometimes malevolent, >>sometimes just plain
>>stupid motives?
> again, you speak as if your mind is a mass of confusions...
> i'm against censorship...i'm also for individual responsibility
> among other matters, you clearly don't understand the new
> world you have had thrust upon your media...
> it is a world where anybody can say anything....and nobody
> can stop you...let alone the managed media to which
> you are accustomed complete with your pretended
> 'authority' and censorship and political 'correctness' etc
> when the world changes...sane people adapt...
> anyone fool enough to ever have trusted the fossil media
> of which your socialist broadcasting corporation is just
> one element is naive beyond belief...
I hope you include yourself amongst the naive Baldrick, or are you going to be hypocritical again?
