Paid Members JNLister Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Oh, and in regards to:  (Happ Hazzard @ Feb 28 2011, 17:38) The [Guardian] might allow some opinions that deviate from the party line a little bit, in order to make it seem like their views are reasonable and well-considered. But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever.  I happen to have such a page open. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ual?INTCMP=SRCH  The first page of responses, which has been up for six hours nows, includes@  One's argument would be made a little more convincing by even the tiniest shred of evidence. Rather than just adding it in because it happens to support the conclusion you wanted to draw.  What utter ignorance. Insurance underwriting has always been based on the mathematics of risk and probablility - verifiable actuarial processes. To argue otherwise is to be deliberately perverse or particularly thick.  To argue otherwise is to be deliberately perverse or particularly thick.' Congratulations! In one sentence you have brilliantly and perfectly encapsulated The Guardian's belief system.  I just love the way the pro European Guardian is trying to defend such a stupid decision.  Not once was the discussed in the UK parliament or UK courts. It's an absolute fucking joke. Another thing to thank the Labour party for.  And whoosh goes the point about three hundred thousand million billion trillion miles above the writer's head.   I do love the Guardian. The writers are consistent and principled, even when those priniples are wrong and they are consistently wrong.  Is the head of Ruthless Quashing & Banishing on holiday today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces. Â Somebody should probably point out that they're in breach of UK employment law then, since quotas are illegal in Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Are you seriously saying that white people are excluded from the BBC? REALLY? Count the black and brown faces hosting any show on BBC radio or TV. If you take out the Asian Network, it's overwhelmingly white and middle class. I'd be willing to bet that apart from the people cleaning the buildings, the BBC is not as ethnically diverse as any of the areas it has its biggest offices.  Overwhelmingly White is it? okay? Middle class Ill grant you but overwhelmingly white?  Just from the News Channel/World News  Clive Myrie Mathew Amrouliwala George Aligah Babita Sharma Naga Munchetty Mischal Hussain Riz Lateef Adnan Nawaz Zeinab Badawi Sangita Myska Komla Dumor  Splitting on from just plain ole whitey you have  Then those not born in the UK, Some brought up in the UK some have spent more time away or moved to the UK later Lyse Doucet and Emily Maitlis- Canada Louise Minchin- Hong Kong Carrie Gracie- Bahrain Fiona Bruce- Singapore Matt Frei- Germany  Plus Regional accents of the likes of Huw Edwards Gavin Esler Maxine Mawhinney Anita McVeigh  Bit of a multicultral lot them really.  @Happ.. See Geoff Clark present and you'll see a working class white man present the news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Is the head of Ruthless Quashing & Banishing on holiday today? Â Bravo, sir. But Happ already knows this, as he visits there regularly. Presenting evidence of his false allegations isn't going to derail him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Â Comment isn't Free in the Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 That means you've had your commenting privileges disabled, right? So this is all just a personal grievance against CiF because you said something stupid and probably racist or offensive, and got punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 That means you've had your commenting privileges disabled, right? So this is all just a personal grievance against CiF because you said something stupid and probably racist or offensive, and got punished. It's not really a grievance, it's just the fact that the Guardian and it's supporters portrays itself as some kind of bastion of free speech when in actuality it is anything but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 3, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2011 The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces. Â Â So, no response to the fact that this is an outright made up lie and that quotas are illegal then, Happ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The BBC has employment quotas to fulfill for just about every demographic, but working-class white men are not included in any kind of quota for the BBC or any other institiutions that I know of. Unless you count prisons or the armed forces. Â Â So, no response to the fact that this is an outright made up lie and that quotas are illegal then, Happ? In what way are quotas "illegal"? They are not. Â If the BBC does not use quotas per se, they certainly have an agenda in their hiring practices. The fact that they have an overwhelmingly liberal bias that runs all the way through the corporation has been exposed on several occasions, and was even reported on by their friends at the Guardian, another bastion of liberal bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 There's a whole page of BBC quotas here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/how-...perations.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 3, 2011 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2011 (edited) Do you even read the contents of the links you post? Â Those are quotas for the content of their programming. Â Quotas are illegal for hiring under Diversity laws. Targets are acceptable. Â In what way are quotas "illegal"? They are not. Â If the BBC does not use quotas per se, they certainly have an agenda in their hiring practices. The fact that they have an overwhelmingly liberal bias that runs all the way through the corporation has been exposed on several occasions, and was even reported on by their friends at the Guardian, another bastion of liberal bigotry. Â Translation: "If the other thing I made up is proven to be completely untrue, here's another statement that I can't back up in any way" Edited March 3, 2011 by Chest Rockwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 There's a whole page of BBC quotas here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/how-...perations.shtml  Those are quotas for how many programs should be made by independent production companies. They have nothing to do with employment, gender or race.  Did you just realise you'd been caught making shit up, type "BBC quota" into Google, cut and paste the first result and hope to fuck nobody actually checked it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 3, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 3, 2011 Also, in your sentence:  But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever  Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "any"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Do you even read the contents of the links you post? Those are quotas for the content of their programming.  Quotas are illegal for hiring under Diversity laws. Targets are acceptable. You stated "quotas are illegal".  According to wikipedia there are several exceptions in the law that states that discrimination, quotas or favouritism on the grounds of sex, race and ethnicity is illegal.  Is there really any difference between targets and quotas? The BBC can effectively hire whoever they want. They have no bottom line. Diversity is more important to them than their responsibility to inform, educate and entertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Also, in your sentence: But any posts that point out the utter ridiculousness of what their above the line contributors are saying are ruthlessly quashed and the posters banished forever  Do you actually understand the meaning of the word "any"? As I said, some mildly critical posts are allowed just to give the illusion of fairness. But any posts that completely expose the hypocracy of the Guardian and liberals in general are quashed mercilessly and their posters given a lifetime IP ban.  No different to Fox News allowing weak and ineffectual liberal views on their programming, just to give the impression of being "fair and balanced". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts