|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 15, 2023 14:53:45 GMT
Those who support the BBC being used as a platform to spread far-left propaganda, which goes against the BBC's rules, aren't the sort of people I would consider fit for purpose. X is not a BBC platform. No one currently in a position of authority at the BBC has pronounced it against the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Dec 15, 2023 17:11:31 GMT
Oh come on Red fess up,if a bbc celebrity said”it’s not racist to be concerned about immigration “ (and it isn’t) and the bbc Warned them off you’d shout cancel culture  You're talking if's & but's, whataboutery. No matter how much lefties obfuscate, the fact remains: Lineker broke BBC social media rules, a fact that has been conceded by BBC chairman designate Samir Shah. Nice diversion Red so that’s a yes you would lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 15, 2023 17:18:20 GMT
You're talking if's & but's, whataboutery. No matter how much lefties obfuscate, the fact remains: Lineker broke BBC social media rules, a fact that has been conceded by BBC chairman designate Samir Shah. Nice diversion Red so that’s a yes you would lol. Au contraire. If a BBC celebrity, or indeed anyone else said "it’s not racist to be concerned about immigration", then quite clearly they would be talking common bloody sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 15, 2023 17:34:01 GMT
Those who support the BBC being used as a platform to spread far-left propaganda, which goes against the BBC's rules, aren't the sort of people I would consider fit for purpose. X is not a BBC platform. No one currently in a position of authority at the BBC has pronounced it against the rules. I see the word "currently" stands out like a neon pork chop at a Jewish wedding. When BBC chairman designate Samir Shah appeared before the Commons select committee he did not only say Lineker broke BBC social media rules, he also said Lineker's words were unhelpful and damaged the reputation of the BBC. You obviously disagree Monte, as is your right. Unfortunately for Lineker you will not shortly become BBC chairman. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 15, 2023 17:44:22 GMT
X is not a BBC platform. No one currently in a position of authority at the BBC has pronounced it against the rules. I see the word "currently" stands out like a neon pork chop at a Jewish wedding. When BBC chairman designate Samir Shah appeared before the Commons select committee he did not only say Lineker broke BBC social media rules, he also said Lineker's words were unhelpful and damaged the reputation of the BBC. You obviously disagree Monte, as is your right. Unfortunately for Lineker you will not shortly become BBC chairman. He was less definitive than you portray. He said it ''seemed'' to break the rules. No doubt a committee will be formed to decide whether Lineker actually broke any rules and if so whether he will face sanctions. The fact he was being goaded by MPs will no doubt be taken into consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 15, 2023 17:58:30 GMT
I see the word "currently" stands out like a neon pork chop at a Jewish wedding. When BBC chairman designate Samir Shah appeared before the Commons select committee he did not only say Lineker broke BBC social media rules, he also said Lineker's words were unhelpful and damaged the reputation of the BBC. You obviously disagree Monte, as is your right. Unfortunately for Lineker you will not shortly become BBC chairman. He was less definitive than you portray. He said it ''seemed'' to break the rules. No doubt a committee will be formed to decide whether Lineker actually broke any rules and if so whether he will face sanctions. The fact he was being goaded by MPs will no doubt be taken into consideration Ref BBC social media rules - what Shah actually said was "Lineker's posts on Twitter (now X) mocking Conservative politicians appeared to break social media rules". To any moderately impartial spectator, that's pretty unoquivocal. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 15, 2023 23:30:46 GMT
The Long March through the institutions of society is a cancer. Society is now in terminal decline. I can only observe the decline in exasperation. The mind boggles how this has been allowed to happen. Common sense disappeared 25yrs ago or thereabouts, and we have groomed a hypersensitive society of perpetually offended people who see victimhood as rewarding endeavour. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 15, 2023 23:59:05 GMT
The Long March through the institutions of society is a cancer. Society is now in terminal decline. I can only observe the decline in exasperation. The mind boggles how this has been allowed to happen. Common sense disappeared 25yrs ago or thereabouts, and we have groomed a hypersensitive society of perpetually offended people who see victimhood as rewarding endeavour. If we had a post of the week, no, post of the month, this would be it. Sadly buccaneer, and it gives me absolutely no pleasure in saying this, you are absolutely 100% correct. And the saddest thing of all is, most people know it, but are too affraid to speak up in case they cause offence. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Dec 16, 2023 0:01:17 GMT
Has anyone been prosecuted here in Britain for hate speech expressed in a foreign language?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 16, 2023 0:05:48 GMT
Has anyone been prosecuted here in Britain for hate speech expressed in a foreign language? Of course not, who understands Arabic? |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Dec 16, 2023 0:16:13 GMT
Has anyone been prosecuted here in Britain for hate speech expressed in a foreign language? Of course not, who understands Arabic? If I used Google Translate and found hate speech that offended me would the police respond? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 16, 2023 0:38:29 GMT
Of course not, who understands Arabic? If I used Google Translate and found hate speech that offended me would the police respond? Assuming you're a white Englishman, the police response would probably be to arrest you. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 16, 2023 14:23:54 GMT
The Long March through the institutions of society is a cancer. Society is now in terminal decline. I can only observe the decline in exasperation. The mind boggles how this has been allowed to happen. Common sense disappeared 25yrs ago or thereabouts, and we have groomed a hypersensitive society of perpetually offended people who see victimhood as rewarding endeavour. I doubt you'd find any body that fits the conspiracy theorist's idea of one the 'institutions' better than the Law Commission. Yet it was that institution's recommendation to repeal the section that led to the prosecution (unfairly, in my opinion) of the retired officers complained of in the opening post and to the ludicrous 'Twitter joke' prosecution.
Chris Philip, Minister and failed logistics whizz kid, issued a statement on behalf of the Government as follows: The government will repeal the existing communication offences, including section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and sections 127(1) and (2) of the Communications Act 2003, as recommended by the Law Commission.
But the Bill that promised the repeal morphed into an Act which contains only:
189 Repeals in connection with offences under sections 179 and 181
(1)Section 127(2)(a) and (b) of the Communications Act (false messages) is repealed so far as it extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Thus leaving in place the sub section employed to prosecute the retired officers and the campaigning District Judge free to continue his interpretation of what might be 'objectively' grossly offensive in 'private' electronic exchanges.
I have to say I'm surprised, and even more surprised that I haven't picked up a sniff that the Government failed to follow through in getting shot of a section that clearly offends against freedom of expression.
|
|
