|
Post by jonksy on Sept 28, 2024 20:16:25 GMT
We are seeking net zero on flimsier evidence. Ah, a climate change denier.Someone call the nurse.... All The Best The climate is only changing between you and the nut zeros ears..
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 28, 2024 20:17:34 GMT
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. Yes they can, and indeed have; it is just that his viewers are too fucking stupid to understand that - and so is he. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 28, 2024 20:21:43 GMT
We are seeking net zero on flimsier evidence. Ah, a climate change denier. Someone call the nurse.... All The Best Wrong, I do not deny climate change never have never will.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 28, 2024 20:22:05 GMT
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. Yes they can, and indeed have; it is just that his viewers are too fucking stupid to understand that - and so is he. All The Best Any ideas on when they are going to start then PV?
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 28, 2024 20:28:49 GMT
Ah, a climate change denier. Someone call the nurse.... All The Best Wrong, I do not deny climate change never have never will. None of us deny the climate change we just deny the reasons portrayed by the nut zero idiots...
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 28, 2024 21:16:56 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 Its easy to substantiate - simply watch the QT program they aired after 9/11. Anyone who thinks that audience was representative of anything except the selection precesses of the BBC is a liar. It was so bad even the BBC apologised...
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 28, 2024 21:57:57 GMT
Anyone who makes silly statements they can't substantiate should be free to be called a liar. All The Best Its easy to substantiate - simply watch the QT program they aired after 9/11. Anyone who thinks that audience was representative of anything except the selection precesses of the BBC is a liar. It was so bad even the BBC apologised... So no proof then, just opinion. So still totally unsubstantiated. Just as I thought (well, knew actually). All The Best
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Sept 28, 2024 22:23:34 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... We are talking about QT specifically here - and the composition of its audiences. How does your experience demonstrate any bias in the selection of audience members? Surely, if it is demonstrating anything at all, it is that the composition of QT audiences is vetted in an attempt to secure a representatively proportionate mix of members. It looks like they had their full quota of the group that you fell into already, hence their rejection of your application to join the audience, whereas the group that your mates pretended to be from had capacity to fill, hence their applications were accepted.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Sept 29, 2024 0:21:10 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 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. I remember the Nick Griffin QT appearance and all of the controversy around it in the build up to the recording. It might have been, on the face of it, a routine edition of QT but, of course, in all but the format of the show, it was an extraordinary “ one-off” moment in UK broadcasting history where everybody in the studio i.e. the panel, audience and chairperson alike, were acutely aware of this and were well researched in what Nick Griffin had said and done over the years . The panel members were also well prepared with strong anti-racist, anti-BNP and anti-Nick Griffin material - apart from Nick Griffin himself, of course, who was so far out of his depth and under constant attack from all around (every bit of it justified). That said, I have just watched the opening 15-20 minutes of that broadcast and it is not quite as you describe above. The opening question was short and precise and was very much a question, not a statement, Jack Straw was first up in response and he did so by reading out a pre-prepared answer (perhaps this is what you mistakenly remember as the opening question?) following which Nick Griffin was given time and space to answer without interruption, as you say above. Some old Griffin quotes then began to get rolled out at Nick Griffin, many of which he either agreed to having made, others he claimed were disgraceful slurs that he denied making - although he finally conceded on some of these when panel members pointed out that there were YouTube clips of him saying exactly what he had just denied saying. He was unconvincing with many of his denials but even if there were some things that he was wrongly accused of saying ( which I doubt given the things that he admitted to saying or did not dispute), then it made no difference in substance. My underlying feeling from watching this segment of the show again is that much of the discussion that the panel and the audience were obliged to indulge in, thanks to Nick Griffin’s presence, and that the tv audience was subjected to, was way below the normal standard of discourse and subject matter that we are generally accustomed to. I was travelling for most of the recent GE campaign so saw very little of what was going on, including the leaders’ specials chaired by Fiona Bruce. I have just watched the Nigel Farage half hour slot and he did take a bit of a pounding from the audience and there was no evidence of support for Reform amongst its ranks. I think that the pounding from the many was inevitable given how reviled Nigel Farage is amongst a sizeable majority of voters and given that there appears to have been a drip feed of scandals involving Reform candidates and also from some actor type at a Reform event in the run up to the show. I was a bit puzzled about the lack of support from the audience but that could well be because the audience was made up of representative proportions of the votes per party at the last (i.e. 2019) GE, when there was no Reform Party and its predecessor, the Brexit Party, only got 2% of the vote which would have translated into maybe 4 Reform types in the audience of 200. Given the clear antipathy on display towards Nigel Farage from the majority of the audience (much like the population at large, of course) it is perhaps not surprising that the few Reform types there would have kept their mouths shut and sat on their hands. One thing that I did notice, when the discussion with Farage eventually moved away from racism and immigration, was that the intensity levels amongst the audience subsided considerably and that Farage was listened to with relative calm and with interest. In different ways, Nick Griffin’s and Nigel Farage’s appearances above were not typical for QT, Griffin’s in particular being an extraordinary event, so pointing at them as examples of what is wrong with the regular QT offering and QT audience configuration has limited merit in my view.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Sept 29, 2024 1:06:39 GMT
We have exchanged a lot of posts on the make up of QT audiences and what that apparently, at least according to some of us, tells us about BBC bias. However, it seems that no-one has thought to comment about the make up of QT panels. Well, apparently, over the last 9 years at least, the selection of panelists demonstrates a clear right wing leaning. theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315What does that tell us about QT and/or BBC bias and about those who insist, with little evidence if any to support their position, that it is left leaning?
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 29, 2024 2:12:52 GMT
We have exchanged a lot of posts on the make up of QT audiences and what that apparently, at least according to some of us, tells us about BBC bias. However, it seems that no-one has thought to comment about the make up of QT panels. Well, apparently, over the last 9 years at least, the selection of panelists demonstrates a clear right wing leaning. theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315What does that tell us about QT and/or BBC bias and about those who insist, with little evidence if any to support their position, that it is left leaning? Well, given the BBC had been turned into a political football, and was constantly being threatened, by the last tory regime it is hardly surprising they stacked the panel in favour of the right. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 29, 2024 3:29:07 GMT
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... We are talking about QT specifically here - and the composition of its audiences. How does your experience demonstrate any bias in the selection of audience members? Surely, if it is demonstrating anything at all, it is that the composition of QT audiences is vetted in an attempt to secure a representatively proportionate mix of members. It looks like they had their full quota of the group that you fell into already, hence their rejection of your application to join the audience, whereas the group that your mates pretended to be from had capacity to fill, hence their applications were accepted. Where have I stated otherwise? I have experienced the beebs bias for my self when I and couple of mates tried to be in the audience of QT..
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 29, 2024 3:32:43 GMT
We have exchanged a lot of posts on the make up of QT audiences and what that apparently, at least according to some of us, tells us about BBC bias. However, it seems that no-one has thought to comment about the make up of QT panels. Well, apparently, over the last 9 years at least, the selection of panelists demonstrates a clear right wing leaning. theconversation.com/bbc-question-time-analysis-of-guests-over-nine-years-suggests-an-overuse-of-rightwing-voices-232315What does that tell us about QT and/or BBC bias and about those who insist, with little evidence if any to support their position, that it is left leaning? The thread is about civilians fighting for their country but as usual the left do not like the truth so they do their dambdest to change the subject and when that doesn't work they play the ad homs card..
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 29, 2024 3:41:34 GMT
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... We are talking about QT specifically here - and the composition of its audiences. How does your experience demonstrate any bias in the selection of audience members? Surely, if it is demonstrating anything at all, it is that the composition of QT audiences is vetted in an attempt to secure a representatively proportionate mix of members. It looks like they had their full quota of the group that you fell into already, hence their rejection of your application to join the audience, whereas the group that your mates pretended to be from had capacity to fill, hence their applications were accepted. FFS sake so we who stated we voted to leave the EUSSR were refused a place and those who made out they voted to remain were aceppted for the SAME show and those who stated they were remainers applied AFTER we did.....Anyone who cannot see the beeb for what it is should be bloody certified as insane..
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 29, 2024 6:52:19 GMT
Its easy to substantiate - simply watch the QT program they aired after 9/11. Anyone who thinks that audience was representative of anything except the selection precesses of the BBC is a liar. It was so bad even the BBC apologised... So no proof then, just opinion. So still totally unsubstantiated. Just as I thought (well, knew actually). All The Best Yes - because the BBC are in the habit of apologising for things they didn't do..
|
|