Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The All New KevS wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:12 pm

Was Jimmy Savile not available?

Once again, the BBC getting a (deserved) kicking over Maxwell.

Via Fenton:

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2021/1 ... xwell.html

Bones McCoy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:02 pm

The All New KevS wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:12 pm

Was Jimmy Savile not available?

The BBC has bizarrely doubled down

He was also on Sky News, but they challenged him fairly robustly.

Trivia Time; my cousin was Robert Maxwell’s dentist!

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 5:43 pm Trivia Time; my cousin was Robert Maxwell’s dentist!

My brother in law attended several meetings with Robert, Ghislaine and Kevin Maxwell - my BIL was treasurer, and later the chair, of Oxford United's supporters association in the 80s and early 90s.

Bloody hell, I imagine any association with Maxwell and money must have been “squeaky bum” time

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 6:15 pm Bloody hell, I imagine any association with Maxwell and money must have been “squeaky bum” time

I don't think so. The relationship was usually the supporters association asking the club for funding for various things, where the club's owner might have got that money from didn't really reflect upon the treasurer of the supporters club. BIL did a lot of moaning about how hard it was to get any money at all out of the club, I imagine that's quite a common complaint amongst supporters associations.

That’s good, in a non-associated way!
My cousin’s only involvement was the “grieving widow” turning up on his doorstep for dental records before the body was even dry, although he did have a couple of visits later on from “men in suits”

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:05 pm That’s good, in a non-associated way!
My cousin’s only involvement was the “grieving widow” turning up on his doorstep for dental records before the body was even dry, although he did have a couple of visits later on from “men in suits”

Excellent story.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 6:37 pm

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 6:15 pm Bloody hell, I imagine any association with Maxwell and money must have been “squeaky bum” time

I don't think so. The relationship was usually the supporters association asking the club for funding for various things, where the club's owner might have got that money from didn't really reflect upon the treasurer of the supporters club. BIL did a lot of moaning about how hard it was to get any money at all out of the club, I imagine that's quite a common complaint amongst supporters associations.

In my experience, back then the relationship between club and supporters was usually one-way - the fans raised funds for whateverthe club asked for, handed over the money no questions asked nor gratitude given, and nobody queried the contract for the new floodlights going to the chairman's brother's electrical firm, nor the extension to his house being made from the same materials as the main stand.

Jon Sweeney’s LBC podcast on the Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial shines a light on the defence’s tactics. Andrew Neil should give it a listen. For a man who was a big player in the Captain Bob era and a former US correspondent, he’s been Tweeting some ignorant speculative rubbish.

Trying to confuse the issue and distance himself, for a reason?

Even Nick Ferrari now fades out anti-vax consprirists from his programme but we get this crap from a senior BBC executive. If I'm reading Mr Jordan correctly, if anti-vaxers represent 15% of public opinion they're entitled to 15% of the airtime dedicated to Covid related issues on the BBC.

The BBC opposes so-called “cancel culture” and will actively provide a platform for individuals with contrary viewpoints, according to the man who enforces its editorial standards.

David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy, said the broadcaster should “represent all points of view” and wanted to see a belief in impartiality triumph over identity.

“We are very committed to ensuring that viewpoints are heard from all different sorts of perspectives and we don’t subscribe to the ‘cancel culture’ that some groups would put forward,” he said.

Jordan said everyone should expect their views to be appropriately represented by the national broadcaster – even if they believe the Earth is flat. “It’s critical to the BBC that we represent all points of view and give them due weight,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... SApp_Other

LBC is not held to the same standards as the BBC so Nick Ferrari is free to edit as he sees fit, just as, until recently, Nigel Farage and Maajid Nawaz were able to use LBC to broadcast their opinions unchallenged.
I'm sure, once Murdoch finally gets control of the BBC, it's journalism will be raised to the world beating standards of the Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph completely free from the need for woke impartiality. Maybe Nick Ferrari and Maajid Nawaz could replace Emily Maitlis and Nick Watt on Newsnight? Fingers crossed, eh?

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:31 am Even Nick Ferrari now fades out anti-vax consprirists from his programme but we get this crap from a senior BBC executive. If I'm reading Mr Jordan correctly, if anti-vaxers represent 15% of public opinion they're entitled to 15% of the airtime dedicated to Covid related issues on the BBC.

The BBC opposes so-called “cancel culture” and will actively provide a platform for individuals with contrary viewpoints, according to the man who enforces its editorial standards.

David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy, said the broadcaster should “represent all points of view” and wanted to see a belief in impartiality triumph over identity.

“We are very committed to ensuring that viewpoints are heard from all different sorts of perspectives and we don’t subscribe to the ‘cancel culture’ that some groups would put forward,” he said.

Jordan said everyone should expect their views to be appropriately represented by the national broadcaster – even if they believe the Earth is flat. “It’s critical to the BBC that we represent all points of view and give them due weight,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... SApp_Other

But why? What tangible benefit is there to giving airtime to something demonstrably wrong with 5 minutes of Googling?

How does it enhance the national debate giving airtime to crackpots like Laurence Fox and Piers Corbyn?

It's consistent with a particular middle-class public-school mindset.

Oblomov wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:04 pm

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:31 am Even Nick Ferrari now fades out anti-vax consprirists from his programme but we get this crap from a senior BBC executive. If I'm reading Mr Jordan correctly, if anti-vaxers represent 15% of public opinion they're entitled to 15% of the airtime dedicated to Covid related issues on the BBC.

The BBC opposes so-called “cancel culture” and will actively provide a platform for individuals with contrary viewpoints, according to the man who enforces its editorial standards.

David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy, said the broadcaster should “represent all points of view” and wanted to see a belief in impartiality triumph over identity.

“We are very committed to ensuring that viewpoints are heard from all different sorts of perspectives and we don’t subscribe to the ‘cancel culture’ that some groups would put forward,” he said.

Jordan said everyone should expect their views to be appropriately represented by the national broadcaster – even if they believe the Earth is flat. “It’s critical to the BBC that we represent all points of view and give them due weight,” he said. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... SApp_Other

But why? What tangible benefit is there to giving airtime to something demonstrably wrong with 5 minutes of Googling?

How does it enhance the national debate giving airtime to crackpots like Laurence Fox and Piers Corbyn?

And it's always the same crackpot.
So after 6 months, Corbyn, Fox and Lawson become familiar fixtures.
While the rotating chair of informed expertise get the "Who's that rando" treatment.

See Farage on Question Time for that style of Impartiality.

How does it enhance the national debate giving airtime to crackpots like Laurence Fox and Piers Corbyn?

It doesn’t, it simply fuels “the war on woke”

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:11 pm It's consistent with a particular middle-class public-school mindset.

It's the mindset that sees debate as equal to or greater than empiricism. The same nonsense pervaded in the US and resulted in the whole "debate me" mindset almongst the Evanjellies and other similar loons, and it's ultimately bthe reason their press can't tell "true" from "truthy"