|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 28, 2024 16:17:33 GMT
FACTS
Bruce was wrong she admitted it
Yusuf was rigth
Where is the lies?
The point is about the question that Fiona Bruce asked the audience. Clear that up and I'll retract my abuse. 'Retard'
The R-word is a form of hate speech that stands for “retard,” “retarded,” or other offensive words ending in “-tard.” While “mental retardation” was originally introduced as a medical term in 1961 for people with intellectual disabilities, in the decades since, the R-word has become an insult used all too commonly in everyday language. Those who use the R-word often do so with little regard for the pain it causes people with intellectual disabilities—and the exclusion it perpetuates in our society.
** I could report andrewbrown for using this word
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Sept 28, 2024 16:18:34 GMT
If that’s what posters on here are saying then that is opinion and they are entitled to it no matter how biased or bigoted those opinions might be. That is very different to wilfully and repeatedly misrepresenting and creating falsehood about events and dialogue which deserves to be called out for what it is, particularly as it can all so easily be disproved by simply watching a recording of the relevant section of the show on iplayer. However, facing the evidence and truth seems to be a step to far for you for some reason. I asked you about the personal abuse?
Are you going to be a typical lefty and avoid the question.
Do you agree with andrewbrown calling me a retard and liar?
A simple YES or NO will surfice?
Please don't evade the question
Yes or NO?
As far as I can see, you didn’t ask me a question about personal abuse although, tracking back, I have just spotted a post from you that must have passed me by whilst I was writing my own posts in which you talk about personal abuse etc - but I can see no question to me in amongst that post. I have no problem saying, based upon what I have seen on this thread at least, whilst you seem pretty slow on the uptake and too unwilling to face up to the truth, I don’t agree with him calling you a retard. If you were a retard ( and I see no evidence of it) then that would be through no fault of yours and therefore very unkind to describe you as such - and if you are not a retard ( which you are clearly not) but simply choose to behave as you do, then that would be unfair on those who have no real choice over how they are. And anyway, the word is not really acceptable nowadays and never really was particularly so in my experience so I am pretty uncomfortable with it in general.. As for him calling you a liar, i certainly would not do that, but then again I have not engaged with you much so have little to go on at this time. Andrew, presumably, is more familiar with you and your standards so he may feel justified in calling you this. That said, what term would you use for someone who misrepresents things and who refuses to accept or acknowledge the truth - or to check out readily available primary evidence when it is readily available to him and who relies instead upon skewed misreporting in a notoriously biased newspaper? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 28, 2024 16:19:41 GMT
pipe down andrea, there were three show of hands confirming they were either Reform voters or supporters, it doesn't matter how many time you do a see2 and call people righies lies it wont wash like it doesn't with him, THREE SHOW OF REFORM HANDS, that's all we need to know, we can only assume you are lying or you can't count. It fucking matters what the question is you retard. I gave you the chance. Now I know you're just a liar. andrewbrown has crossed the line ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 28, 2024 16:25:07 GMT
I know because I make a damn good living out of people who cross the line, I'm not just a pretty face ...... LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Sept 28, 2024 16:30:06 GMT
pipe down andrea, there were three show of hands confirming they were either Reform voters or supporters, it doesn't matter how many time you do a see2 and call people righies lies it wont wash like it doesn't with him, THREE SHOW OF REFORM HANDS, that's all we need to know, we can only assume you are lying or you can't count. The point is about the question that Fiona Bruce asked the audience. Clear that up and I'll retract my abuse. 'Retard'
The R-word is a form of hate speech that stands for “retard,” “retarded,” or other offensive words ending in “-tard.” While “mental retardation” was originally introduced as a medical term in 1961 for people with intellectual disabilities, in the decades since, the R-word has become an insult used all too commonly in everyday language. Those who use the R-word often do so with little regard for the pain it causes people with intellectual disabilities—and the exclusion it perpetuates in our society.
** I could report andrewbrown for using this word
andrewbrown is guilty of 'hate speech' are we going to do anything about him and his hatred?? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 28, 2024 17:08:57 GMT
Mod Notice
Cut the abuse and name calling or the thread will be locked.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 28, 2024 17:25:26 GMT
She didn’t ask how many voted Reform nor how many support Reform. Strictly speaking, she didn’t ask a question at all. What she said was “ we have a representative proportion of people in here who voted Reform. Now, I don’t know if any of you want to put your hands up” at which point 4 hands were raised and one of the 4 given the opportunity to speak. It is unlikely that the remainder of Reform voters in the audience were deaf or failed to understand what Fiona Bruce was saying, they simply didn’t want to put their hands up to identify themselves as Reform voters or to be given the opportunity to say something. Which presupposes that the audience was not selected and directed. They can plead all the guff about audience selection being unbiased but past programmes have shown only too clearly that they represent very little apart from a QT editorial line and questioners are planted and in fact on occasion primed. If we assume that 4 was the total it was a poor representation, if we assume that the rest did not wish to put their hands up we have to wonder why that would be the case in an audience unbiased and representative of the British public. Yusuf raised the point as regards the round of vigorous applause to the question he was about to answer which indicated to him, and to most other impartial viewers that QT was up to its old tricks. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Sept 28, 2024 17:58:42 GMT
Have you got any solid evidence of audience manipulation or is this just your subjective view? I assume that the audience is encouraged to applaud at the start and end of the show and that those whose questions have been selected for the show must have been told this in advance as they are invariably sitting primed and ready to go, but other than that what can you substantiate with evidence, if anything?
If we assume that 4 was the total then that was indeed a poor representation . However, there is no reason to assume that if only because the QT team would be lying to us and to the BBC itself. That would be putting the show and the franchise at risk of being pulled, which would put livelihoods and profits at risk. I see no reason not to accept that the audience reflects representation proportionate with the level of votes cast in that part of the country just as we are told it is.
If some of the audience applauded when a well framed question was put to the Reform member of the panel, why should that indicate what you claim Mr Yusuf and most impartial viewers thought that it indicated? Couldn’t it just be that Reform and anything Farage-shaped is reviled by the sizeable majority of us (and therefore the sizeable majority of a representationally proportionate QT audience) hence the applause when Reform gets criticised or put on the spot?
And just how many impartial viewers do you think QT attracts? Very view, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 28, 2024 19:51:15 GMT
Have you got any solid evidence of audience manipulation or is this just your subjective view? I assume that the audience is encouraged to applaud at the start and end of the show and that those whose questions have been selected for the show must have been told this in advance as they are invariably sitting primed and ready to go, but other than that what can you substantiate with evidence, if anything? If we assume that 4 was the total then that was indeed a poor representation . However, there is no reason to assume that if only because the QT team would be lying to us and to the BBC itself. That would be putting the show and the franchise at risk of being pulled, which would put livelihoods and profits at risk. I see no reason not to accept that the audience reflects representation proportionate with the level of votes cast in that part of the country just as we are told it is. If some of the audience applauded when a well framed question was put to the Reform member of the panel, why should that indicate what you claim Mr Yusuf and most impartial viewers thought that it indicated? Couldn’t it just be that Reform and anything Farage-shaped is reviled by the sizeable majority of us (and therefore the sizeable majority of a representationally proportionate QT audience) hence the applause when Reform gets criticised or put on the spot? And just how many impartial viewers do you think QT attracts? Very view, I suspect. The planting and editorial direction of the QT audience became apparent in the Nick Griffin edition and continued up to the Brexit and beyond. I have to say I stopped watching it a good few years back for the very reason that not only did it not gel in any way with my views and continuing the representation of the Triumvirate in the main with Farage being good copy until he won Brexit then he became a demon figure for the programme. The format of the programme is supposed to be fixed and the Chairman is supposed to be there to challenge errors and to act impartially as regards allowing comment from panel and audience. The Griffin QT was obviously rigged as the very first question was not a question it was a statement against Griffin to which the Chairman allowed no reply from Griffin then came an embarrassing 'joke' from a man who fluffed his lines and when Griffin was allowed an uninterrupted reply that answer was precise and to the point. Some old 'quotes' from Griffin were rolled out from the usual suspects glowing in their virtuosity and shining in their inaccuracy but these 'quotes' were never fact checked before nor corrected by the Chairman they had to be rebutted by Griffin alone. The Chairman far from being impartial was antagonistic to Griffin. These are duck situations and the evidence they are ducks is in actually what happened. Much research has been done on the Brexit 'impartiality' and found to be particularly wanting. The Farage QT election special was of course a joke if balance was the name of the QT game and it clearly was not. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 28, 2024 19:53:10 GMT
Have you got any solid evidence of audience manipulation or is this just your subjective view? I assume that the audience is encouraged to applaud at the start and end of the show and that those whose questions have been selected for the show must have been told this in advance as they are invariably sitting primed and ready to go, but other than that what can you substantiate with evidence, if anything? If we assume that 4 was the total then that was indeed a poor representation . However, there is no reason to assume that if only because the QT team would be lying to us and to the BBC itself. That would be putting the show and the franchise at risk of being pulled, which would put livelihoods and profits at risk. I see no reason not to accept that the audience reflects representation proportionate with the level of votes cast in that part of the country just as we are told it is. If some of the audience applauded when a well framed question was put to the Reform member of the panel, why should that indicate what you claim Mr Yusuf and most impartial viewers thought that it indicated? Couldn’t it just be that Reform and anything Farage-shaped is reviled by the sizeable majority of us (and therefore the sizeable majority of a representationally proportionate QT audience) hence the applause when Reform gets criticised or put on the spot? And just how many impartial viewers do you think QT attracts? Very view, I suspect. The beeb are biased and none of your pontification will hide the fact. Just after thr brexit referendum I and a few more from Dartmouth applied to attend QT we had to answer loads of questions on line including how we voted. We stated we voted to leave the EUSSR and were told that they had reached their quota for the audience. We mentioned it in the pub that we had been turned down and a couple of my mates tried their luck they stated that they had voted to remain and were accepted by the beeb. Of course they never attended as we all had voted leave... |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 28, 2024 20:05:47 GMT
Anyone who believes that QT audiences are representative of anything except the biases of the BBC should not be allowed out unsupervised. Anyone who makes silly statements they can't substantiate should be free to be called a liar. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 28, 2024 20:08:07 GMT
Anyone who believes that QT audiences are representative of anything except the biases of the BBC should not be allowed out unsupervised. Anyone who makes silly statements they can substantiate should be free to be called a liar. All The Best We are seeking net zero on flimsier evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 28, 2024 20:09:22 GMT
Looking back over the chain of posts above, the first clear sign of anyone steering iaway from the subject at hand is the comment on enemies within by you. Only a total fucking idiot would give any credence to a bbc audience... Only a total fucking idiot would give any credence to you and the illiterate youtube bullshit you frequently cite as reference material. I mean the guy who looks like a fat Hitler and has the charisma and presence of cardboard cut-out corpse, and has to read an autocue to string a sentence together? Come on, not even he takes him seriously... ...but you do. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 28, 2024 20:12:37 GMT
Anyone who makes silly statements they can substantiate should be free to be called a liar. All The Best We are seeking net zero on flimsier evidence. Ah, a climate change denier. Someone call the nurse.... All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 28, 2024 20:14:51 GMT
Only a total fucking idiot would give any credence to a bbc audience... Only a total fucking idiot would give any credence to you and the illiterate youtube bullshit you frequently cite as reference material. I mean the guy who looks like a fat Hitler and has the charisma and presence of cardboard cut-out corpse, and has to read an autocue to string a sentence together?
Come on, not even he takes him seriously... ...but you do.All The Best Fucking idiot or not lefties cannot depute what he states so they resort to their usual standards and MO of attacking the messenger and not the content. |
|
