General politics thread: | Page 39 | Vital Football

General politics thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.
paz1967 said:
If youve truly never jumped a red light, never speeded, never shoplifted as a child, never called someone a racist name, never got drunk and disorderly, never regularly taken coffee or wine then you aint human. If you have done any of them then youre a scurge on society and should be hung drawn and quartered.
I wouldnt bat an eye if you were hung, drawn and quartered, but thats just my opinion
Click to expand...
Good list. How about adding never done 5years for armed robbery, never threatened a pregnant woman with a knife and never gave a copper a reason to pin me to the floor.
 
Last edited:
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/03/31/...fear-of-casting-boris-johnson-in-a-bad-light/

Jenifer Arcuri’s new revelations about her affair with Boris Johnson have gone largely unreported by the BBC.

The story appears to have everything – sex, betrayal, abuse of power, lies told in high places – so, on the face of, it is somewhat surprising to find it covered only grudgingly, and at the margins of the BBC’s huge range of output.

It is, however, completely consistent with the corporation’s desperation to avoid a fight with the Government, and has roots going back far further.

Part of the reason for this is that the BBC has always been desperate not to be thought of as prurient. This has always been the case, but I first came across it when I was working for the Six O’Clock News in 1994. Stephen Milligan, a Government minister, was found hanged in his flat. He had apparently strangled himself during an act of autoerotic asphyxiation, and was wearing suspenders, had a plastic bag over his head and an orange in his mouth at the time of his death.

The editorial gymnastics this news provoked in the TV newsroom was a wonder to behold. Could sex be mentioned? What about the suspenders? This panicky, fearful process involved desperate phone calls between the top editorial figures in Television Centre and BBC Westminster, and culminated with a senior manager sprinting through the newsroom shortly before we went on air shouting “don’t mention the orange!” at the top of his voice.

“The BBC’s never really done sex,” one seasoned older colleague told me, shaking his head as contradictory and ludicrous editorial instructions flowed unstoppably.

And so I can see why the BBC might be hesitant to wade through the weeds of the Prime Minister’s complicated sex life. But that misses the whole point of the Arcuri story entirely – which is only really tangentially about sex. More important, by far, is what it reveals about the Prime Minister’s character and his ability to tell clear and blatant lies and get away with them. It is also about concerns over the misuse of public money and what it tells us about standards in the UK’s public life.

I think even the dullest of the BBC’s senior managers knows this. So, what’s really going on?

Former colleagues tell me there is a deep-seated reluctance to cover this and other stories that cast Boris Johnson in a bad light, with one saying it’s coming “from the top”.

Some point the finger at Millbank, the offices of BBC Politics, while others believe that it comes from higher than that and that the Director-General himself is playing a role here.

Whoever is behind it, it translates into a narrative which starts off with dismissal – ‘oh, that’s not a story’. It then moves onto ‘well, that might be a story, but it’s not for us to break it’. And then onto (a few days or weeks later) ‘oh, that’s an old story – we all know that already’.

I’m told that some senior programme editors are extremely frustrated with this approach and have done what they can to challenge and get round it. Some have covered the story (Newsnight ran a segment on the general issue of how to regulate standards in public life last night, for instance). But the BBC’s big political hitters haven’t wanted to touch this and other stories with a bargepole – presumably being too busy retweeting what Downing Street tells them about how marvellous everything is.

There are of course some Conservative appointees in the BBC’s upper echelons – including the Director-General himself and the Chairman. So it is possible that this is some sort of attempt to suppress anything damaging to the Government, at least to some extent.

However, I think it is more likely that this all comes from fear. Top BBC managers are absolutely terrified of the Government and are bending over backwards to appease it.
Click to expand...

Former BBC producer and reporter on how terrified they are of offending the government by reporting news.
 
The conclusion I've reached after many years of looking, is that political theory is mostly nonsense; and if you want to understand politics in any meaningful or important sense, then read history instead.
One drop of history is worth a sea of political theory, IMO.
 
Strett said:
The conclusion I've reached after many years of looking, is that political theory is mostly nonsense; and if you want to understand politics in any meaningful or important sense, then read history instead.
One drop of history is worth a sea of political theory, IMO.
Click to expand...

Apart from history is rarely objective and free from bias or politics.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Hmm slavery denier eh.
Click to expand...
What do you imagine i'm denying? That slavery happened?

You are the slavery denier CP. Serfdom (or even outright slavery) isn't slavery to you because the victims weren't black. A touch racist when you think about it.

But you are the one bringing up slavery, not me
 
Pope John XXIII said:
What do you imagine i'm denying? That slavery happened?

You are the slavery denier CP. Serfdom (or even outright slavery) isn't slavery to you because the victims weren't black. A touch racist when you think about it.

But you are the one bringing up slavery, not me
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference might I suggest a different occupation? Right now spokesmon for the BNP is looking good...
 
Calvin Plummer said:
If you can't tell the difference might I suggest a different occupation? Right now spokesmon for the BNP is looking good...
Click to expand...
Not comparing them.

You're waving a race card again whilst being utterly racist in claiming that the only slavery that counts in history is the Atlantic slave trade. That's a lot of millions of people you are dismissing there.

I never mentioned the Atlantic slave trade.

Bizarre fixation you have here. Totally, utterly wrong and offensive in terms of history too.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Not comparing them.

You're waving a race card again whilst being utterly racist in claiming that the only slavery that counts in history is the Atlantic slave trade. That's a lot of millions of people you are dismissing there.

I never mentioned the Atlantic slave trade.

Bizarre fixation you have here. Totally, utterly wrong and offensive in terms of history too.
Click to expand...

You've made that comparison previously and yet again brought it back up. It's the language of a racist to continually diminish the impact of slavery by comparing with the Norman conquest.

Serfdom wasn't slavery and if you think everyone was living a merry old life of freedom and prosperity before 1066 you're fucking delusional. If you think we weren't well on the path towatd serfdom you're fucking delusional. Nationalism didn't even particularly exist as a concept on 1066, the only people who gave a flying fuck were the elites when they were replaced by another group of Elites.

For the record slavery existed in England before the Norman conquest, the Norman's outlawed it. For a Historian you know fuck all about history.

Enjoy collecting your thumbs up from the likes of Polly and JBcasta. You're bang on the same page as them.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
You've made that comparison previously and yet again brought it back up. It's the language of a racist to continually diminish the impact of slavery by comparing with the Norman conquest.

Serfdom wasn't slavery and if you think everyone was living a merry old life of freedom and prosperity before 1066 you're fucking delusional. If you think we weren't well on the path towatd serfdom you're fucking delusional. Nationalism didn't even particularly exist as a concept on 1066, the only people who gave a flying fuck were the elites when they were replaced by another group of Elites.

For the record slavery existed in England before the Norman conquest, the Norman's outlawed it. For a Historian you know fuck all about history.

Enjoy collecting your thumbs up from the likes of Polly and JBcasta. You're bang on the same page as them.[/
Calvin Plummer said:
You've made that comparison previously and yet again brought it back up. It's the language of a racist to continually diminish the impact of slavery by comparing with the Norman conquest.

Serfdom wasn't slavery and if you think everyone was living a merry old life of freedom and prosperity before 1066 you're fucking delusional. If you think we weren't well on the path towatd serfdom you're fucking delusional. Nationalism didn't even particularly exist as a concept on 1066, the only people who gave a flying fuck were the elites when they were replaced by another group of Elites.

For the record slavery existed in England before the Norman conquest, the Norman's outlawed it. For a Historian you know fuck all about history.

Enjoy collecting your thumbs up from the likes of Polly and JBcasta. You're bang on the same page as them.
Click to expand...

Just admit it, CP, You are wrong. Someone I am sure will provide you with links.. you will then argue about something not being discussed like serfdom before abusing the poster. Yawn.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.